Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
James Rachels “Active and Passive Euthanasia”
|
No more distinction between the two.
Active: Killing Passive: Letting Die Argument: Says there's no moral distinction, then says active euthanasia is better at reducing suffering. |
|
|
Daniel Callahan “Physician-Assisted Dying…”
|
Passive euthanasia is morally acceptable and active euthanasia is unacceptable.
Letting die and killing are two different things, but it's ok for doctor's to "let die". |
|
|
Peter Singer “The Moral Status of the Embryo”
|
Against abortion
All humans have a right to life, human embryo is human, therefore it has a right to life. "Human being" used as rights bearing (rational/moral right) and species membership (something an embryo could be). Acorn is not a oak tree, they have different rights. |
|
|
Peter Singer “All Animals are Equal”
|
Animals have right to equal consideration because they have capacity to suffering. They shouldn't vote but in situations where what we do can cause them suffering, then they do have right to equal consideration.
|
|
|
Judith Jarvis Thompson “A Defense of Abortion”
|
Pays most attention to right to self to one's own body must be considered.
Women have right to their body, therefore they have the right to their abortion. People Seeds (contraception), violinist (rape), small house growing child (Life at risk) Argument: Thompson uses analogies and they might be false, anyone can make stories come out however they want. |
|
|
Don Marquis “Why Abortion is Immoral”
|
Against abortion for depriving a being of value of a future like ours.
Kind of like species-ism - You're in my group, therefore you are preferred. It's a potential argument, future experiences are potential. Cancel cell doesn't have future experiences like ours, so we can cut it off. |
|
|
Nicholas Rescher “The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy”
|
Takes into account certain things when using lifesaving therapy.
Inclusion (3): (Groups) 1. Constituency Factor (State Hospital, VA, children’s hospital), 2. Progress of Science, 3. Prospect of Success Selection (5): (Individuals) 1. Relative likelihood of success, 2. life expectancy, 3. family role factor, 4. potential future contributions, and 5. post services rendered. Lottery - Take the final decision out of the hands of the individual. |
|
|
Benjamin and Cohen “Alcoholics and Liver Transplantation”
|
Moral Argument: Alcoholics caused their own problem, therefore should not be helped.
Argument: People smoke, don't wear seat belts and overeat, to be consistent we wouldn't be able to treat anyone. Medical Argument: Alcoholics will do worse than other people after live transplantation. This is unproven so it fails. |
|
|
Paul Chodoff “The Case for Involuntary Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill,”
|
Everyone who is mentally ill has a right to treatment and that treatment will benefit them.
If we can't voluntarily hospitalize them, then we can't help them. Argument: Psychiatry has shown no reason for us to trust its abilities to know mental illness and cure mental illness. |
|
|
Thomas Szasz “Involuntary Mental Hospitalization,”
|
Criticizes Chodd's arguments: Says mental illness is just a metaphor/myth. Idea of depression is a myth as a physical issue, can't that things that aren't real.
People who are difficult to handle are locked up, lock up women who want independence as insane. Psychologists do not cure anything and they harm people. They destroy peoples freedoms and freedom is the highest value for Szasz. |
|
|
Ruth Macklin “Moral Issues in Human Genetics: Counseling or Control?”
|
Against most uses of genetics to screen out cases. If you get rid of genetic diseasing then you will get rid of entire populations because everyone contains some diseases.
We don't know enough about genetics to play god, we would probably cause more harm than help. Many genetic variances that may cause disease are actually helpful. By eliminating them we might be eliminating protections. |
|
|
Richard Lamm “Saint Martin of Tours in a New World,”
|
Argues that we should have various value changes. US has finest individual parts but out healthcare system overall is not the finest. Lower life expectancies, higher infant mortality, etc.
Lamm's argument is problematic because he argues to a communitarian set of values. |
|
|
Amy Gutmann “For and against Equal Access to Health Care,”
|
Universal access to healthcare, they both thought that it should be a value
We should all have right to equal access to healthcare People shouldn’t have the freedom to buy whatever amount of healthcare they want because then healthcare won’t be universal. Rich people will get the doctors and the poor/middle class won’t. |
|
|
Martin Schönfeld, “Animal Consciousness,”
|
Animals have rational capacities and moral capacities and so it must be respected.
He argues that because our language is a certain way, we think a certain way. American scientist can't think of animals having consciousness because of their language. German, Chinese, and Japanese scientist languages allow it. |
|
|
Catherine Mills Continental Philosophy and Bioethics: in Mills
|
To distinguish between the kinds of western liberal values that are present in the analytic bioethics in the first half of the term. They tended to emphasize, except for Richard Lamm and Amy Gutman, individualism, autonomy, informed consent, freedom/liberty, nature vs culture, and rationality.
|
|
|
Joanna Zylinska, “Playing God, Playing Adam: The Politics and Ethics of Enhancement,”
|
Talks about enhancement as something that we’re already always involved in and part of human identity. We’re the prosthetic creature; we always have these additions, supplements (education, watches, glasses, etc.) Always things that are enhancing us. Reason is a kind of function that is based on a kind of enhancement. Always want to get better.
Problem with this: Didn’t address a specific issue about enhancement |
|
|
Fredrik Svenaeus, “The Body as Gift, Resource or Commodity? Heidegger and the Ethics of Organ Transplantation,”
|
Gift: Something we own, it's our preoperty that we can give away.
Identity of the body as property doesn’t allow for the recognition that it is really part of who we are. I don’t own my hand; my hand is part of me, of who I am. Ownership of body parts and says that we can sell them. |
|
|
Diane Perpich, “Vulnerability and the Ethics of Facial Tissue Transplantation,”
|
Says that what it is about our identity that involves the face in contrast to the hand. Why is facial transplantation more controversial than hand transplantation?
Argument: The face is not just your actual face; the whole body is the face. The point is that there is an ethical character to our whole body as part of our human identity that is not merely something you can point to. It goes beyond the physical. |
|
|
Mary Beth Mader, “Foucault’s ‘Metabody’,”
|
Says that contemporary genetics has a meta-physical component to it, it thinks about something as the history of this replicator gene is something that goes beyond any one individual physical thing.
She says there is no original, there all copies. |
|
|
Robert Bernasconi, “The Policing of Race Mixing: The Place of Biopower within the History of Racisms,”
|
He gets Foucault wrong; Foucault actually says there are a number of different accounts of racism.
Essentialist Racism – Something about a person that defines them as such and is never changing. Medicalizing Racism – Idea that health of populations’ needs to be embraced and that requires absolute control over reproduction and the identity of the race. |
|
|
Penelope Deutscher, “Reproductive Politics, Biopolitics and Auto-immunity: From Foucault to Esposito,”
|
Using that reproductive politics aspect of Foucault’s biopolitics and saying that this control of population in terms of statistics and regulations to add to reproduction of particular types of groups and limit others. This was something women could control so women were the subject of that and they were caught up in that. Feminist were not just taking over passively an idea of bio politics that other people came up with, feminism was at the heart of bio politics from the beginning.
She could be said to fail to criticize the feminist, she could be said to fail in the sense of that idea of auto recoil or auto immunity was merely a form of activity or passivity. Debate of bio politics was started elsewhere and feminist took it up even though their ideas were central to it. |
|
|
Lennard J. Davis, “The Bioethics of Diagnosis: A Biocultural Critique of Certainty,”
|
He’s trying to show that science really isn’t that certain about its diagnosis, especially in psychiatry. The definitions are broad, they are vague, and they are politically constructed and are historically changing.
Problem with Davis: If you’re a psychiatrist fan then you could say well they actually cite all types of people; they do all types of experiments. We recognize that it’s difficult to be particularly precise but it helps a lot of people, millions of people. |
|
|
Btihaj Ajana, “Recombinant Identities: Biometrics and Narrative Bioethics,”
|
An identity we could have the narrative story over the physical biometric story (retina scans), but this would result in more power over individuals, less privacy. Because we have to tell our stories to authority figures who stand over us and make us nervous and fearful and it’s easy to lie. These are problems in using narratives over using physical characteristics.
|
