Evaluate and Suggest
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
Where do you get this assumption that people on life-support are suffering? Anyone suffering in a hospital is going to be given enough drugs that they stop suffering; if that means making them unconscious then so be it. Rarely a pretty sight, I know, but we can't kill people for the benfit of the family. As for the waste of money, I doubt you'd think that if it was your loved one. Even the most terminally ill have a very slight chance. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
Where do you get this assumption that people on life-support are suffering? Anyone suffering in a hospital is going to be given enough drugs that they stop suffering; if that means making them unconscious then so be it. Rarely a pretty sight, I know, but we can't kill people for the benfit of the family. As for the waste of money, I doubt you'd think that if it was your loved one. Even the most terminally ill have a very slight chance. Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
what about the unethical paragraph ? is it convinceing. how can i make it more convinceing?
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep dead people alive? I suppose that it would depend on the person being kept alive. If it was someone I didn't know I can see that I might find this to be a waste of resources. However, if it was one of the kids, the wife, my mom, etc... I think I would feel like its a good idea. CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. As I understand the process of life support, a family member is required to make the decision as to wether or not to pull the plug. Each of is responsible for choosing a person (in writing - AKA a living will) that will make decision on our values as we have expressed to said individual. As to it being wrong or unethical, that is a social issue at best. And regarding patients suffering? I can only speak from my own experience. In 1991 I was involved in a rather serious accident. A skull fracture, 19 rib fractures, two crushed vertebrea, both collar bones broken, my left arm and wrist where broken. I was in a comma for three days and due to the trauma to my chest and back, I was unable to breath on my own. During those three days, the doctors did not know if I would regain conciousness, they didn't even know if I was paralyised. I did come to though and I have no recollection of experiencing any pain at all while commatose. Hurt like nothing I'd experienced before or since when I did wake up though. I had to have a machine do my breathing for me for another two weeks. CoolPunk wrote: The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them Like I said, I don't remember anything while in the comma. I was pretty grateful for machincal means to maintain a persons vital functions though, I would have died without them. I also cant seem to recall anyone putting any pressure on me while I was commatose (I assume that it would likely be that way for most people who are in that state). CoolPunk wrote: It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. I have to agree with your there. In the end, after almost three mont
-
what about the unethical paragraph ? is it convinceing. how can i make it more convinceing?
The question of ethics is subjective. What is ethical for you could be unethical for me. To me, the doctor's primary responsibility is to keep the patient alive. If he is alive, he is not dead - however close he may be to becoming dead. And, religion should not try to make themselves more relevant, by making generalizations on issues, where decisions should be made on a case-to-case basis. I figure that you are going to debate with someone and looking for ideas. But, this is my point of view. Your arguments do not convince me.
-
what about the unethical paragraph ? is it convinceing. how can i make it more convinceing?
CoolPunk wrote: what about the unethical paragraph ? is it convinceing. how can i make it more convinceing? As I said to Brian in the other thread... The whole "playing god" argument sickens me to the core of my being. If there is a god and (s)he is cruel enough to give us the knowledge and then expect us to watch people die instead of using it, he can go screw himself. But don't get me wrong, you have put the god argument well, I just don't agree with it and I've had this discussion too many times. :) Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep dead people alive? I suppose that it would depend on the person being kept alive. If it was someone I didn't know I can see that I might find this to be a waste of resources. However, if it was one of the kids, the wife, my mom, etc... I think I would feel like its a good idea. CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. As I understand the process of life support, a family member is required to make the decision as to wether or not to pull the plug. Each of is responsible for choosing a person (in writing - AKA a living will) that will make decision on our values as we have expressed to said individual. As to it being wrong or unethical, that is a social issue at best. And regarding patients suffering? I can only speak from my own experience. In 1991 I was involved in a rather serious accident. A skull fracture, 19 rib fractures, two crushed vertebrea, both collar bones broken, my left arm and wrist where broken. I was in a comma for three days and due to the trauma to my chest and back, I was unable to breath on my own. During those three days, the doctors did not know if I would regain conciousness, they didn't even know if I was paralyised. I did come to though and I have no recollection of experiencing any pain at all while commatose. Hurt like nothing I'd experienced before or since when I did wake up though. I had to have a machine do my breathing for me for another two weeks. CoolPunk wrote: The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them Like I said, I don't remember anything while in the comma. I was pretty grateful for machincal means to maintain a persons vital functions though, I would have died without them. I also cant seem to recall anyone putting any pressure on me while I was commatose (I assume that it would likely be that way for most people who are in that state). CoolPunk wrote: It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. I have to agree with your there. In the end, after almost three mont
if its unethical to ANYONE ? can they tell me why they think its unethical . i dont care about the definitation or standards of ethics. what ever it means to them.
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep dead people alive? no. it's actually impossible. CoolPunk wrote: It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical prove it. CoolPunk wrote: There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. some != all CoolPunk wrote: Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless how do you know what every person on life support is thinkning? CoolPunk wrote: When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? maybe there's something important that needs to be done - like saying goodbye. CoolPunk wrote: First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. what? if you feel so strongly about this, then you should contact an attorney and write up a "living will". this will tell your doctors that you don't want anything in the way of "full service" machines done to preserve your own life. but, for the rest of us - we'll decide for ourselves. -c
"[it was..] one of those evenings when you feel that not only will there definitely be a revolution, but that the Association of Manufacturers will foot the bill." -- Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
-
CoolPunk wrote: Is it really important to keep dead people alive? no. it's actually impossible. CoolPunk wrote: It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical prove it. CoolPunk wrote: There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. some != all CoolPunk wrote: Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless how do you know what every person on life support is thinkning? CoolPunk wrote: When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? maybe there's something important that needs to be done - like saying goodbye. CoolPunk wrote: First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. what? if you feel so strongly about this, then you should contact an attorney and write up a "living will". this will tell your doctors that you don't want anything in the way of "full service" machines done to preserve your own life. but, for the rest of us - we'll decide for ourselves. -c
"[it was..] one of those evenings when you feel that not only will there definitely be a revolution, but that the Association of Manufacturers will foot the bill." -- Umberto Eco, Foucault's Pendulum
dude, i dont necessarily agree with all that. im just doing an essay to get it over with. its suppose to be a persuasive essay. can someone help ? cuz it seems its not very persuasive. the topic given is that IT IS WRONG TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE WITH MACHINES....now i dont agree with it, but thats the topic given. the 3 args i have are: - unethical - patients suffer - costs too much how can i argue that its unethical. i dont care about the stanadasrds,, etc... whatever it means to you.
-
dude, i dont necessarily agree with all that. im just doing an essay to get it over with. its suppose to be a persuasive essay. can someone help ? cuz it seems its not very persuasive. the topic given is that IT IS WRONG TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE WITH MACHINES....now i dont agree with it, but thats the topic given. the 3 args i have are: - unethical - patients suffer - costs too much how can i argue that its unethical. i dont care about the stanadasrds,, etc... whatever it means to you.
Why not write essay as arguement AGAINST the "IT IS WRONG TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE WITH MACHINES" topic. I've yet to meet a professor that didn't like a well though arguementive paper. You seem to backing the wrong horse so-to-speak in the you don't seem to be finding much support for you approach. just a thought.... -Mel --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?
-
Why not write essay as arguement AGAINST the "IT IS WRONG TO KEEP PEOPLE ALIVE WITH MACHINES" topic. I've yet to meet a professor that didn't like a well though arguementive paper. You seem to backing the wrong horse so-to-speak in the you don't seem to be finding much support for you approach. just a thought.... -Mel --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?
well the assignment is to argue for the other side. so can anyone help. plzzzzzzzzzzzz thx a gazillion in advance.
-
well the assignment is to argue for the other side. so can anyone help. plzzzzzzzzzzzz thx a gazillion in advance.
how about this for a topic then ... "IT IS UNETHICAL TO REQUIRE ME TO WRITE AN ESSAY IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING I DO NOT AGREE WITH"... --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?__
-
well the assignment is to argue for the other side. so can anyone help. plzzzzzzzzzzzz thx a gazillion in advance.
Probably, you could find some "research" and statistics on the Internet, that proves that life saving machines result in 0.0001% success rate. I will certainly do a search and let you know. I sympathize with the predicament you are in. I did not realize initially that you had an assignment - you looked like some guy, who suddenly got the "calling" against life saving machines. :-D
-
Probably, you could find some "research" and statistics on the Internet, that proves that life saving machines result in 0.0001% success rate. I will certainly do a search and let you know. I sympathize with the predicament you are in. I did not realize initially that you had an assignment - you looked like some guy, who suddenly got the "calling" against life saving machines. :-D
thx thomas. ur the greastest CP'ian
-
how about this for a topic then ... "IT IS UNETHICAL TO REQUIRE ME TO WRITE AN ESSAY IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING I DO NOT AGREE WITH"... --------------------------------------------- The greenest grass is NOT on the other side of the fence, its the grass you take care of. Have you watered your lawn lately?__
Mel Feik wrote: IT IS UNETHICAL TO REQUIRE ME TO WRITE AN ESSAY IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING I DO NOT AGREE WITH I don't agree with that either. I actually got a fantastic grade in my English oral exams by picking up on arguments I didn't believe in. :) Paul Why don't you take a good look at yourself and describe what you see - Led Zeppelin, Misty Mountain Hop
-
thx thomas. ur the greastest CP'ian
Hi, ur professor seems to have got it reverse. Everyone on the Internet seems to be arguing whether it is unethical to pull the life-support, rather than keep them on. I could not find any that said that it is unethical to keep anyone on life support, even if brain-dead. Rather, as a matter of practicality, in such situations doctors are permitted to take life support of by a law passed in Nov 1992. These could probably help. http://www.xrefer.com/entry/509777[^] http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v7n5/ffull/fbf7026.html http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n11/ffull/ied90021.html http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8871.html
-
Hi, ur professor seems to have got it reverse. Everyone on the Internet seems to be arguing whether it is unethical to pull the life-support, rather than keep them on. I could not find any that said that it is unethical to keep anyone on life support, even if brain-dead. Rather, as a matter of practicality, in such situations doctors are permitted to take life support of by a law passed in Nov 1992. These could probably help. http://www.xrefer.com/entry/509777[^] http://archfami.ama-assn.org/issues/v7n5/ffull/fbf7026.html http://archinte.ama-assn.org/issues/v160n11/ffull/ied90021.html http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8871.html
thx man. but do u have any arguments for as to why its unethical to keep people alive with machines ?
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Actually, that's not true. Most religious people willingly and readily take medicine (like antibiotics) to cure illness. (One exception is the Christian Scientists*, who refuse medical treatment because they believe it constitutes interfering with God's will.) My opinion is that if God wants someone to die, there's simply no way we could keep that person alive. Indeed, we might regularly find people who were cured by human medicine being killed shortly after by other means (like a truck). Since, we don't find this to be true, either God isn't trying very hard to kill us, or God isn't really controlling things. If you really look deeply into the situation, I think it is unmaintainable to say, "We die because it is God's will". That's a little fiction we tell ourselves to help accept the dying of a loved one. It is, however, a lie. * I think "Christian Scientists" is an ironic name for people so scientifically backward. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is. Did I miss something? I didn't know robots were alive. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Is it really important to keep dead people alive? Is it really important to keep people merely conscious, go against our values, and waste all that money just for the heck of it? It is wrong to keep people alive with machines since it is unethical, the patients suffer greatly and the process costs too much. And what do we get out of this? Nothing. First, it’s unethical in today’s society to have control over one’s life. Most religious people are against this because they believe only God has control over one’s life and one’s fate has already been decided. Using machines to keep them alive is very wrong since you are trying to control his / her life. There are some cases where people aided with machines have survived but they’ve only survived and they are in such a poor condition that it is almost equivalent to being dead. The patients also suffer in the process – physically and also emotionally. They worry what would happen to them. Too much pressure is put on them. Putting so much effort into keeping a suffering sole – who would rather die – merely conscious is pointless. Instead, we should use that effort on other patients who can recover instead of making the dead ones agonize in pain. It also costs a lot for such operations. There is too much cost for machines, doctors, nurses, hospital beds, etc. When we are certain that the person will end up dying, why spend all this money to keep them alive for a little time? It’s pointless. Instead, that tax-payers money can be used for more useful causes – We can use that money on other patients, buying more beds, etc. We can also invest it in other areas if we still have money left over, such as education. It’s a huge waste of resources. How many 3rd world childs could be saved by the same cost as one "full service" machine? It is useless to waste all that money only to make patients suffer and go against our values just to keep one merely conscious for a little while. This practice should be given up and the effort should be spend for a more useful cause. Next thing you know, we see machines keeping robots alive – that’s how foolish it is.
That's the whole point of medicine; where did you get the idea doctors save lives? Doctors don’t save lifes; they only postpone death or make your life less painful. That’s it. And they get money for doing this. lazy isn't my middle name.. its my first.. people just keep calling me Mel cause that's what they put on my drivers license. - Mel Feik