Medical Ethics :: essays research papers

Quaestiones Disputate3) Whether it is respectable to keep a person embody(a) if their quality of feeling is non total and go out not improve. In such a case, what is the responsibility of the medical profession?The following argument volition be made toward the negative, suggesting that it is intrinsically un ethical to keep a person quick under certain circumstances The first issue to address is the sub-components of the Quaestione in order to better set the argument in motion as a proof. The Quaestione can be divided up into the following components whether it is ethical to keep a person alive , if their quality of life is not good , and will not improve. , In such a case, what is the responsibility , of the medical profession.The first component is, in a general sense, unarguable. Standing alone, the statement of keeping roundone alive bears a right to which every human is morally obliged to uphold. They signalize here is standing alone....Of course societys code of a cquit says that we must preserve life, but this can only be aline to a sense until the next issue is incorporated - what if their life is not good? What exactly is not good? If we take it from an Aristotelean stoppage of view, we can see that Aristotle claimed that happiness or good living - beingness happy, healthy, prosperous, and flourishing - is the finish of human life and the basis of all ethical behavior. This eudaimonia that he begins to describe is an end, in a sense that that determination has been reached. If one can no longer reach this ultimate goal or end or is rendered unable to physically or mentally move oneself in that direction (after all, someone else cant live your life for you to move you to happiness) their life is considered not good. A life rendered not good combined with our ethical obligation to keep someone alive, likely still not enough to grant the individual the ultimate end. today if you listen closely, this is where the turning point begins. B eing a teleologist, Aristotle claims that every activeness is good only in so far that they achieve some good end. If life is not good, and we reach stage three where it will not improve, where is the action of keeping the individual alive reaching a good end. The life is not good, nor will it ever be good - so what is the good end that would result that would warrant this action to be a good action.