Evaluate and Suggest
-
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
-
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
Brit wrote: Did I miss something? I didn't know robots were alive. Haven't you seen Short Circuit?! :rolleyes:
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
An orgy in Tiverton... ({) `/\^^/\:p (Z) :$/\^^/\` (})