Write a 4-6 page paper with the following instructions
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
- Textbook: Chapters 9, 10 (RACHELS & RACHELS TEXTBOOK)
- Lesson
- Minimum of 5 scholarly sources (in addition to the textbook)
Instructions
First, return to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
- Answer this question: What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
- Next, articulate and then evaluate the ethical positions using Kantian ethics (that is, the categorical imperative) relative to the long standing debate (that is your topic chosen in the week three assignment).
- Finally, create a complete annotated bibliography for 5 academic scholarly sources. You will annotate each source. The sources should be relevant to your topic chosen in the week three assignment.
consist of the following:
Publication information
• Annotation, which is a thorough reading of the source
The following should be included in each annotation section:
• Summarize the most important ideas and terminology (using quote marks and parenthetical page references).
• Describe any debates or “problems” that the articles have brought up.
• Specify whether you agree or disagree, and explain why.
• Track down one or two quotes for the last study project.
• Consider how this article has shaped your understanding and how it is significant.
Use this example as a guide:
Reference: APAJ. Mezirow (2003). Learning that transforms as a conversation. 1(1), 58–63. Journal of Transformative Education.
Example of an annotationMezirow (2003) draws a contrast between “communicative” and “instrumental” learning in this article. The term “instrumental learning” refers to procedures used to evaluate and assess learning, including exams, grades, remarks, quizzes, attendance logs, and the like. On the other hand, “communicative learning” describes the knowledge that develops through time between people in what Mezirow refers to as “critical-dialectical-discourse” (p. 59), which is a fancy way of expressing a significant dialogue between two or more speakers. Mezirow also touches on the concept of “transformative learning,” which alters people’s minds, hearts, values, and beliefs to enable them to behave better in society (p. 61). According to Mezirow, “hungry, desperate, homeless, sick, destitute, and intimidated people obviously cannot participate fully and freely in discourse” (p. 59). On the one hand, he is correct in that some individuals are barred from participating completely because their crisis is so severe and prolonged. But I don’t believe Mezirow should assume that everyone who finds themselves in a difficult situation is unable to contribute effectively to the conversation. The non-instrumental forms of intelligence, such as goodness, compassion, forgiveness, wonder, self-motivation, creativity, humor, and other non-measured forms of intelligence, would receive just as much attention in our school curricula, and the students who graduate from high school would be better actors in the world and enthusiastic researchers.
Requirements
Without the title page or references page, the document should be between four and seven pages long, with one-inch margins, double spacing, and a 12-point Times New Roman font.
THIS IS THE TOPIC CHOSEN WITH SOURCES FOR WEEK 3
Ethics of Euthanasia Debate
Moral debate and ethical debate surround the purposeful taking of a terminally ill or suffering person’s life to stop their agony and suffering. There are two main points of view in the ethical debate surrounding euthanasia: those who support it (pro-euthanasia) and those who oppose it (anti-euthanasia).
i. Euthanasia-supporting Opinion
There are two main moral justifications for euthanasia. First, proponents argue that euthanasia is an act of love and compassion for individuals who are in extreme pain and suffering as a result of terminal illnesses (Njoku, 2022). This viewpoint sees euthanasia as a compassionate alternative to prolonging their suffering through intrusive medical procedures. Advocates argue that allowing individuals to pass away with dignity reduces their suffering and offers solace in the final hours.
Second, the pro-euthanasia perspective places a high emphasis on the importance of personal autonomy and the right to make decisions. Supporters contend that capable terminally ill individuals should have the freedom to choose the time and manner of their deaths. According to this point of view, as personal autonomy is a crucial aspect of human dignity, it should be protected in the face of terminal illnesses. Euthanasia supporters say that giving individuals the option to use it offers them control over their lives and deaths, especially at their most vulnerable moments.
ii. Opposition to assisted suicide
Euthanasia is morally wrong for two main reasons. First and foremost, opponents fervently uphold the notion of the sanctity of life, arguing that each and every human life has intrinsic value and should never be willfully terminated. According to this point of view, allowing euthanasia would devalue life by lowering the intrinsic worth and dignity of human existence. The “slippery slope” defense is the second defense put out by euthanasia opponents. They express worry that legalizing euthanasia will encourage misuse and the incorrect use of procedures (Buturovic, 2021). This might manifest as coerced euthanasia or undue pressure on helpless individuals to choose death over life. Once the practice is permitted, they fear that it may inspire less restrictive attitudes and practices over time, putting the welfare of those who most desperately need care and protection in peril.
How Social Contract Ethics and Ethical Egoism View the Euthanasia Issue
i. The Ethical Egoist’s Point of View
People should act in their own best interests to advance their own enjoyment and well-being, according to the ethical egoism moral theory (Rachels & Rachels, 2012). Ethical egoists would likely adopt this viewpoint if they believed that permitting euthanasia would enhance their own or their loved ones’ well-being. They might use the argument that euthanasia would be their choice to eliminate unnecessary suffering in the same situation to support their position. However, under this circumstance, loyalty to oneself and society could clash. The demands of the individual are prioritized over those of society at large or those who value the sanctity of life under ethical egoism (Manuel & Herron, 2020). The best course of action from the perspective of an ethical egoist would be to embrace euthanasia if it is in their best interests.
Ethicist of the Social Contract Perspective
According to the central tenet of social contract ethics, moral norms derive from an unspoken social arrangement or agreement that society’s members accept for the good of everyone (Korn et al., 2020). A Social Contract Ethicist would be skeptical of the practice since it has murky moral implications and societal repercussions. They may oppose euthanasia because they believe it might undermine the social contract’s credibility and durability. Some individuals might be concerned that making intentional killing lawful will weaken society’s desire to protect and preserve life. However, since the social contract allows for liberty and personal choice, some social contract ethicists may support euthanasia if done so in accordance with strict regulations and safeguards. There is a contradiction between personal and national obligations when a person’s desire for euthanasia conflicts with more broad cultural norms and legal responsibilities. The best course of action, according to social contract ethicists, would be to carefully assess the repercussions of euthanasia on society and try to strike a compromise between supporting individual freedom and maintaining the social contract.
Professional Ethics Code
In the medical community, euthanasia is a contentious issue, and professional codes of ethics regularly touch on it. For instance, the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics instructs physicians to address and make judgments on end-of-life situations. The AMA Code specifically outlaws euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide while acknowledging that eligible patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining therapy. The moral principle of preserving life while supporting the patient’s autonomy in making decisions is highly valued by the code.
There may be a conflict between a healthcare practitioner’s professional and familial commitments if they are asked to carry out euthanasia on behalf of terminally ill patients or their families. Maintaining the professional code of ethics while balancing the desire to relieve pain and respect for patient autonomy may be difficult. When this occurs, healthcare professionals might need to engage in candid dialogue with patients and their families while also providing alternative palliative care and support.
Conclusion
Numerous moral concerns and ethical perspectives are raised by euthanasia. While social contract ethics may place more of a focus on the more salient societal repercussions, ethical egoism may highlight the individual liberty and well-being of the individual. Given the conflict between personal preferences and society standards, choosing the best course of action requires careful thought and respect for several points of view. Healthcare professionals must also address complex ethical dilemmas while maintaining the required professional standards of ethics and ensuring patient-centered care.
References
Buturovic, Z. (2021). Embracing slippery slope on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia could have significant unintended consequences. Journal of medical ethics, 47(4), 257-258.
Manuel, T., & Herron, T. L. (2020). An ethical perspective of business CSR and the COVID-19 pandemic. Society and Business Review, 15(3), 235-253.
Njoku, N. (2022). Contextualizing Paediatric Euthanasia within the Framework of Children’s Right. The Nigerian Juridical Review, 17, 168-192.
Korn, L., Böhm, R., Meier, N. W., & Betsch, C. (2020). Vaccination as a social contract. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(26), 14890-14899.
Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2012). The Elements of Moral Philosophy 7e. McGraw Hill.
WE HAVE DONE THIS QUESTION BEFORE, WE CAN ALSO DO IT FOR YOU
GET SOLUTION FOR THIS ASSIGNMENT, Get Impressive Scores in Your Class on What are the personal and/or communal ethical factors that may be involved in determining the moral position of either side in that debate?
