Ethics and Morality

simply because they probably spent an hour looking got tired and decided to ask here

And they are the type of people who get everyone else to do things for them, and always look for the easy way out.

a new drug treats hypothyroidism but destroys the thyroid; this means that patients will be on the drug indeterminately. (APEX)

knowledge

voluntariness

freedom

In my opinion an ethical research doesn't exploit anyone, humans, animals, and the enviroment too. An ethical research should also research for something to use on behalf of humanity, not researching for weapons, for example.

So otherwise unethical research doesn't care about anyone and anything, giving first importance to the purpose, to the result. This kind of research is sick in my opinion, piloted by people with power and bad purposes, who don't care about anything. Exploiting people, animals and damaging the environment seems almost normal..

This topic is highly controversial. I will try to keep my answer as inoffensive as possible.

The Religious Right are people who are (usually) Fundamentalist Christians, and whose political leanings are Conservative. Their issues follow from this.

The Religious Right opposed abortion, gay marriage, birth control, and the efforts of the courts to keep religion out of government. In other words, the Religious Right wanted to permit prayer in school, teaching of Creationism or Intelligent Design, nativity scenes on public property, and other religious activities. When courts found against these things, the Religious Right was strongly opposed to them.

Yes # Tremendous pain and suffering of patients can be saved. Numerous ailments such as certain types of cancer result in a slow, agonizing death. Doctors have enough knowledge and experience to know when a patient's days are numbered. What purpose would it serve to suffer endlessly until the body finally gives out? Imagine what it would be like to spend six months vomiting, coughing, enduring pain spasms, losing control of excretory functions, etc. Then you must consider the psychological suffering; i.e. the knowledge that a patient knows he's definitely going to die and the pain is only going to get worse. Wouldn't it be more humane to give the patient the option to say when he's had enough? # The right to die should be a fundamental freedom of each person. Nowhere in the constitution does it state or imply that the government has the right to keep a person from committing suicide. After all, if the patient and the family agree it's what they want to do, who's business is it anyway? Who else is it going to hurt? In a country that's supposedly free, this should be a fundamental right. # Patients can die with dignity rather than have the illness reduce them to a shell of their former selves. Dying patients sometimes lose all ability to take care of themselves. Vomit, drool, urine, feces, and other indignities must be attended to by nursing assistants. Alzheimer's patients suffer from progressively worse dementia that causes memory loss and incoherent rambling. Virtually all people want others' last memory of them to be how they once were, not what they ended up being. For example, Ronald Reagan died of Alzheimer's. He and his family would like people to remember the brave man that stared down the Soviets, told Gorbachev to "Tear down this wall", and as the "The Great Communicator", provided historic leadership. Other patients and families have the same wishes for themselves. We should let people die with their dignity, pride, and self-worth intact. # Health care costs can be reduced, which would save estates and lower insurance premiums. Most people who pay regular premiums on health care have noticed a major increase in costs over the last decade. Some workers around the country are going on strike simply to protest the increase in health care costs. We regularly debate how to provide cheaper prescription drugs, care for the uninsured, and fight the skyrocketing costs. Anything we can do to reduce that burden helps. Consider the huge cost of keeping a dying patient alive for several months. You must pay for x-rays, lab tests, drugs, hospital overhead, medical staff salaries, etc. It is not unheard of for medical costs to equal $50,000-100,000 to keep some patients alive. We have to ask ourselves, is this the best way to spend our money when the patient himself would like to die? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the patients that can be saved? You also have to consider the drag on a dying patient's estate. Most people want to be able to leave their children and grandchildren with something when they die. Medical costs eat into that estate. It's totally unreasonable to pour this kind of money into patients that just want to end their suffering. # Nurse and doctor time can be freed up to work on savable patients. We face a critical shortage of medical staff in this country, especially nurses. Recent studies have confirmed the obvious--that understaffed hospitals make more mistakes and provide lesser quality care. And things are only going to get worse as the baby boom generation gets older and life spans increase. We have to ask ourselves if attending to dying patients (who want to die immediately) is the best use of medical staff time. Think of how many lives we can save if that nurse & doctor time is freed up. Think of how much the quality of care would increase. # Prevention of suicide is a violation of religious freedom. A significant part of religious beliefs involves what happens in the afterlife. By preventing suicide, the government is imposing its religious belief that suicide is a sin. No one knows for sure what happens after we die; it should be up to the individual to determine what he or she believes. The government cannot legislate morality. # Pain and anguish of the patient's family and friends can be lessened, and they can say their final goodbyes. Friends and family of the patient often suffer as much or more pain as the patient himself. It's difficult to see a loved one in such anguish for so long. It's emotional and physically draining to have the stress drawn out for so long. And when the patient does eventually die, it's often sudden or it follows a period when the patient has lost consciousness. Doctor-assisted suicide would give the patient a chance to say his final goodbyes and end his life with dignity. # Reasonable laws can be constructed which prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. Opponents of a doctor-assisted suicide law often cite the potential for doctor abuse. However, recent Oregon and UK laws show that you can craft reasonable laws that prevent abuse and still protect the value of human life. For example, you can require the approval of two doctors plus a psychologist (who verifies the patient has the capacity to make the right decision). You can proscribe waiting periods, get the additional sign-off of family members, and limit the procedures to certain illnesses. States should have the rights to pass laws that take into account the values and wishes of the people of that state. # Vital organs can be saved, allowing doctors to save the lives of others. We have long waiting lists for hearts, kidneys, livers, and other organs that are necessary to save the lives of people who can be saved. Doctor-assisted suicide allows physicians to preserve vital organs that can be donated to others (assuming the patients are organ donors). However, if certain diseases are allowed to run their full course, the organs may weaken or cease to function altogether. Once again, we have to put the needs of the living ahead of the needs of the dying. # Without physician assistance, people may commit suicide in a messy, horrifying, and traumatic way. A common myth is that teenagers have the highest rate of suicide. However, in actuality, the elderly have by far the highest rate. Older Americans often see nothing ahead of them but loneliness and pain. So if these people are going to commit suicide, which is better--controlled, compassionate doctor-assisted suicide or clumsy attempts like taking sleeping pills, jumping off a building, or firing a bullet into one's head? If you were a family member, which would be more traumatic--saying goodbye to a loved one at the hospital or coming home to see his head and brains splattered against the wall from a bullet? Unfortunately, if people truly want to die, nothing is going to stop them. If that is the case, let's be humane and orderly about it. # It would violate doctors' Hippocratic oath. Upon receiving a medical degree, each doctor is required to take a Hippocratic oath, which says among other thing, "First, do no harm". Assisting in suicides would be a violation of that oath, and it would lead to a weakening of doctor-patient trust. The oath was created in part so patients could be reassured that doctors only wanted to help them, not hurt them. A weakening of that oath may cause patients to wonder. # It demeans the value of human life. In this country, human life means something. For each death, we have 1-2 days of ceremonies, elaborate burials, and months of mourning. When 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, donations poured in from all over the country. We donated money, blood, time, prayers, and tears. And we will probably always mourn the annual anniversary of the attacks. In other countries around the world, life isn't so sacred. Wars are fought constantly for disputed territories and old grudges. People celebrate having their sons and daughters blow themselves up and kill scores of civilians. The Iraqis, Communists, Nazis, and others have shown us that human life is to some, nothing more than a science experiment or political resource. The thing that elevates Western society above others, generally speaking, is the value we put on each and every life. To stomp out a life because it's not convenient or it's expensive demeans that value. Human life is much more that just a cluster of biological cells. # It could open the floodgates to non-critical patient suicides and other abuses. Any loosening of the assisted-suicide laws could eventually lead to abuses of the privilege. For example, patients who want to die for psychological or emotional reasons could convince doctors to help them end their lives. Attitudes would loosen to the point that certain states may decide that any person can commit suicide at any time. We can't let our values shatter this way. # Many religions prohibit suicide and the intentional killing of others. The most basic commandment is "Thou shall not kill". Virtually all religions have a law against killing. We need to protect the morality of not only the patients but the doctors that must extinguish their lives. # Doctors and families may be prompted to give up on recovery much too early. If a patient is told that he has, for example, six months left to live with progressively worse pain, he may decide to end things before things start to get worse. This wipes out valuable time that can be spent with family and friends; it also denies the slim chance of a recovery or the possibility of discovering a doctor error. # Insurance companies may put undue pressure on doctors to avoid heroic measures or recommend the assisted-suicide procedure. Health insurance providers are under tremendous pressure to keep premiums down. To do this, they must cut costs at every turn and make tough decisions. Many doctors are already prevented from give patients certain tests or performing certain operations despite what the doctor believes is truly necessary. Legalizing assisted suicide would likely invite another set of procedures as to when life-sustaining measures should be undertaken. We shouldn't give the insurance companies any more power over human life. # Miracle cures or recoveries can occur. You can never underestimate the power of the human spirit. A cheerful, never-give-up attitude can often overcome the longest of odds and the worst of illnesses. You also have to consider the constant medical and pharmaceutical advances that just might lead to a miracle recovery. We should never get to a point where we spend more time looking for a way out of life than for a way to sustain life. # Doctors are given too much power, and can be wrong or unethical. Patients put their faith and trust in the opinions of their doctor. If doctors tell a family there's absolutely no chance for a patient to survive, the family is likely to believe them. This is a problem for two reasons. First of all, doctors make mistakes just like any other people. A wrong diagnosis could lead to the suicide of a savable person. Second, doctors have the ability to play God and decide who they encourage or discourage on the prospects of recovery. For example, imagine a doctor who believes there is too much of a shortage in medical staff & resources to pour extra time & money into elderly people. He may always lean towards the side of "no hope" when the odds are sketchy. Decision-making ability on matters of life and death should stay where it belongs--with God, not doctors.

what is important of autonomy in nursing practice

Comes from satan

Impact of philosophical system on business ethics

The Federal Reserve sets monetary policies for the United States. The Federal Reserve initiates policies and practices aimed at jump starting the economy.

The idea of the social contract theory is that individuals consent to the surrender of some of their freedoms when they submit to the authority of a ruler. This submission is in exchange for protection the all rights remaining.

Ren. Ren is the highest virtue or ideal in Confucianism. This virtue is the culmination of all virtues and includes moral excellence, love, and all virtues at their highest possible attainment.

--> -->

Normative ethical systems can generally be broken down into three categories: deontological, teleological and virtue ethics. The first two are considered deontic or action-based theories of morality because they focus entirely upon the actions which a person performs. When actions are judged morally right based upon their consequences, we have teleological or consequentialist ethical theory. When actions are judged morally right based upon how well they conform to some set of duties, we have a deontological ethical theory.

a lie is a lie no matter how big or how small. and lies dont really have colors its just a way for people to try to make it look innocent; however, depending on the reason vary from person to person, are you lying to hurt someone or help them?

For example:

1) a person got into a car crash and they ask if they are going to be ok? and you say i am sure of it, it does not look that back.

then that could be considered be a lie that you were trying to protect the other person.

2) you go out with your friends and you do something that your were not supposed to and you tweek it to be in your favor. this is not a healthy lie.

your lies should be consideration for the other person... and not " well i did not want to hurt my spouse when i cheated, so i just wont tell him/her.

this lie looks out for you not the other person.

Actually, the coordinates for London are 51.51°N, 0.13°W (west of the Prime Meridian). The actual location 52°N 1°E is in the Holton St. Mary area between Colchester and Ipswich. (This is just north of the A12.)

requires careful consideration of many factors and likely consequences.

Ethical monotheism is the belief that there is one God and that this God's primary concern, when it comes to people, is that we behave ethically at all times.

The Laws of Perceptual Organization are a set of principles in Gestalt psychology. It involves several laws, including Similarity, Pragnanz, Proximity, Continuity, and Closure. Each of the laws deals with how the mind has atendency to fill in missing information. Similarity deals with how similar objects are grouped together. Pragnanz is how people usually simplify reality as much as possible. Proximity is how objects that are closest to each other are usually grouped together. Continuity is the tendency of the mind to prefer smooth lines, therefore lines are usually seen as following the smoothest path. Last, Closure is how objects that are impartial and grouped together are usually seen as whole. Refer to: http:/psychology.about.com/od/schoolsofthought/f/gestalt_faq.htm

Abstaining for all evil, and dong all that God has commanded us to do. Apart for Jesus Christ there has been no man who has ever attained absolute morality. All have sinned in the eyes of God.

Though many persons have been translated because of their righteousness, it was only after much trial and error.

Little children who die before the age of eight would, in the writers opinion, be the most

perfect of Gods children. Satan cannot tempt little children before they reach this age.

It could damage the sensitive brain tissue causing brain damage or worse.

law culture people philophy and religion are considerd the influences on the personal ethics but in my point of view the nature of person is also an influence on ethics some poeple are rigid and some are libral they behave according and i think ethics disturbed from this

it is the study of morally accepted behaviours in ict

It depends on the situation.

If a boy is pestering you. No.

Teasing you. No

Being annoying. No

Out of curiosity. No

For a cheap laugh or to cause him embarrassment. No

If some one is attacking you with a knife or weapon and you can't get out of the way fast enough. Yes! Many times.

Defense against rape. Yes.

Defense against being murdered. Yes.

In today's day and age, it became a joke to kick someone in their groin. In actuality, it is no laughing matter. Usually a boy recovers, but it can also cause irreversible damage. And why cause him a severe, sometimes unbearable pain. A boy is bothering a girl in class, why kick him a few times with a boot and cause him to be possibly hospitalized and possibly damaged for life. Why boys kick other boys is beyond me, since they know what the pain feels like. Cases of rape, it doesn't matter if you kill the guy.