| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "JUSTIFYING EUTHANASIA": |
|
|
Justifying Euthanasia, 2000.
Presents moral and ethical arguments in favor of euthanasia.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 8 sources, $ 57.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper argues that voluntary euthanasia preserves dignity. Examined in this paper are such ideas as the right to die, the ethical parameters of euthanasia, the quality of life perspective and a place for euthanasia within varied perspectives. The author argues that one of the greatest ways to preserve another person?s dignity is through an act of mercy. Voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy, which therefore, preserves dignity with the bestowment of final compassion.
From the Paper
"A step in awareness is the enactment of careful laws that permit forms of voluntary euthanasia. In the United States, the state of Oregon?s Death With Dignity Act, allowing ?limited physician-assisted suicide,? is an example of a start for public understanding. In ideal cases of merciful euthanasia, a person makes a painstaking, well thought-out decision. Voluntary euthanasia is rarely carried out at the first knowledge of impending death, especially if medical help is available to treat the terminal disease. Voluntary euthanasia is an act of mercy, and therefore, preserves dignity with the bestowment of final compassion. "
| |
|
Justifying Beliefs by Logical Implication, 2002.
A description of the need for logical implication between a justification and a belief within a justified-true-belief theory of knowledge.
3,530 words (approx. 14.1 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 99.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An argument that for a justified true belief theory of knowledge to work, the justification component must be such that an acceptable justification logically implies the truth of the content of the belief. The paper first shows how weaker views of justification will always be susceptible to counterexamples like Gettier's and Feldman's. The paper then shows how the notion of justification defined above makes it impossible to have counterexamples and then make a case for why the strong view is appropriate, even given that it probably leads to skepticism. The nature of justification within a viable theory of knowledge needs to have the strength of logical implication, and as such may have to lead to skeptical considerations.
From the Paper
"The characterization of knowledge as justified true belief is a very powerful concept, and despite the assorted difficulties that arise in definitions that equate knowledge with justified true belief, such definitions still seem the most intuitively plausible starting points for a theory of knowledge. It is fairly obvious that one cannot know that p if one does not believe that p, and it is equally indisputable that p has to be true for one to be able to know it. It is that whole "justified" bit that is the tricky part and that tends to mess things up for justified true belief (JTB) theories of knowledge. In this paper I hope to offer a characterization of justification within the framework of a JTB theory of knowledge that leads to a cohesive theory of what is required for one to have knowledge, one that is not subject to the loopholes and weaknesses that lead other JTB theories to incorrectly admit certain beliefs as knowledge. Specifically, I will claim that for one's belief that p to constitute knowledge that p, one's justification j for believing that p must be such that (i) j logically implies p, and (ii) every statement within the justification is true. I will argue that such a strong notion of justification is needed for a JTB theory to avoid being susceptible to counterexamples like those offered in Edmund Gettier's famous paper and elsewhere. Further, I will contend that for a JTB theory to work, the concept of justification must be such that in considerations of "justified beliefs," "justified" works, in the words of Peter Unger, as an absolute term. I will then use this later point to allay concerns, which are certainly valid, that the strong notion of justification I am presenting in this paper directly leads to skepticism."
| |
|
Justifying American Imperialism, 2000.
A discussion of American imperialistic ventures in the late 1800's, specifically the Spanish American War, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines, explaining why intervention was justified.
945 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses many primary sources of the day and their opinions on what America was doing at the time, including the debate between isolationism and the belief in intervention. The paper quotes many opinions backing both sides and shows why one side was right.
From the Paper
From the outset of the United States? independence from Britain, it had abided by a foreign policy of no foreign policy. This isolationist policy was stressed by George Washington, the nation?s first president. It was not until the late 19th century that the United States took an active role in international politics, intervening between Spain and Cuba. This intervention led to the Spanish American War, and the US gaining additional territories from Spain. The issue of whether the US had the right to control Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines was a topic of great debate among the politicians of the day. The vast public opinion favored the United State?s intervention and expansion, as it was clearly the reasonable approach.
| |
|
Justifying an Evaluation: Pornography as Smut, 2006.
A discussion regarding the issue of pornography as freedom of expression.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 1 source, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper justifies an evaluation which holds that pornography is not something that should be given carte blanche protection under the Freedom of Expression prerogatives outlined in the American Constitution. In particular the paper looks at the injurious social effects associated with pornography and the paper also goes to some length to distinguish pornography from erotica. With regards to the last point the paper notes in particular the dehumanizing characteristics of pornography.
From the Paper
"Few topics are more divisive and contentious than pornography. The following paper will examine the subject of pornography and argue that any thoughtful consideration of the matter cannot help but lead to the conclusion that pornography dehumanizes women (and, arguably, men too) and also offers a profoundly distorted view of human relationships. To support this view, the author will cite a number of studies which corroborate the above view as well as examining the arguments commonly put forward by supporters of pornography. In the final analysis, freedom of expression is not absolute and society owes it to itself and to its posterity to ensure that citizens are protected from the ill effects of pornographic material. As mentioned above, the judgment of this writer is that pornography is an unacceptable form of expression."
| |
|
Justifying Terror, 2002.
A biography of the life of Osama Bin Laden and an analysis of his hatred for Americans.
2,368 words (approx. 9.5 pages), 10 sources, APA, $ 72.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper evaluates the life of terrorist Osama Bin Laden in an attempt to understand the roots of his hatred for America and why he attacked on September 11th 2001. It provides a biography of his life from his introduction to Islamic fundamentalism to the formation of his Al-Qaeda organization and how he began with his resentment of the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia before and after the Gulf War. It examines his support for the Palestinian cause and analyzes whether it is because of true anger towards the U.S. and Israel or whether it is propaganda in an attempt to gain more supporters.
From the Paper
"With the start of the Gulf War in 1990, bin Laden became a nuisance to the Saudi government. He was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in the region, and he felt he could do just as good a job fighting the Iraqi?s with his well trained Al-Qaeda fighters. He became an outspoken critic of the Saudi royal family and finally, in 1991, after already taking away his travel rights a year earlier, the royal family stripped bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship. Consequently, he took his views, and his organization to Sudan, where a hard line Islamic militant government had just come to power. Angered by the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the United Nations sanctions on Iraq, and most of all, the postwar presence of U.S. troops in the Muslim holy land of Saudi Arabia, Osama bin Laden went from angry observer to active aggressor."
| |
|
Justifying Reverse Discrimination, 2002.
Argues that there are ethical justifications for the practice of reverse discrimination.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This essay discusses the justification of reverse discrimination on ethical grounds. Since there is institutional racism, affirmative action is legitimate to balance out inequality.
| |
|
Justifying Homicide, 2004.
A discussion of the self-defense plea and some of its applications, as well as a discussion of the current self-defense laws in Tennessee.
1,813 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 5 sources, APA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Self-defense may sound self-explanatory, but it can, in fact, be very complicated. This is used as a justification in many cases, but it seldom works because of the misunderstandings about the laws. This paper discusses the current self-defense law and related laws in Tennessee, as well as the duty-to-retreat law and the castle law.
Table of Contents
1. Description of Self-Defense
2. Moral Dilemmas in Self-Defense
3. Self-Defense
4. Defense of Third Person
5. Protection of Life or Health
6. Protection of Property
7. Protection of Third Person?s Property
8. Use of Device to Protect Property
9. Conclusion
10. References
From the Paper
"Self-defense is usually not considered to be an actual defense to homicide or assault, but is seen as a justification of one's actions that were said to have caused serious bodily harm or death (Uniacke 1994:30). Joel Samaha (2005) defines justification as when the 'defendants accept responsibility for their actions but claim what they did was right under the circumstances'; (Samaha 2005:191). The basic principle of self-defense states that the defendant must have believed that he or she was facing the possibility of extreme bodily harm or death. Although killing is not morally permissive, the justification of self-defense is often accepted in courts when there is reasonable evidence to prove that the defendant acted in true self-defense and not in a preemptive attack or vengeful attack. A preemptive attack is one that is carried out by defendant who does not truly believe that he or she is about to be harmed or killed, but is acting to prevent the possibility of a future attack (Samaha 2005:192-193). Philip E. Devine describes self-defense as being the means in which a defendant 'incapacitates'; (Devine 1978:151) an attacker without the intention or sole purpose of killing the attacker."
| |
|
Active and Passive Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper examines the morality of euthanasia.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper states that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia and active euthanasia under certain conditions are morally justified. The author reasons that this moral justification is based on the basic ethical principle that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. The paper relates that rational egoism, which claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason, justifies euthanasia because terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to protect their own interests by refusing medical treatment.
From the Paper
"Doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia, and active euthanasia under certain conditions, is morally justified because of the basic ethical principle that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. Rational egoism, which "claims that the promotion of one's own interests is always in accordance with reason" (Mosely) justifies euthanasia, because terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to protect their own interests by refusing medical treatment. They are the moral guardians of their own lives and the ultimate authority to be considered; not doctors, lawyers, insurance companies, nor the government."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2004.
A look at arguments dealing with the topic of euthanasia and whether it can be considered ethical or justified.
678 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 23.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the arguments concerning euthanasia and whether the practice of euthanasia can be considered ethical or even justified. The paper discusses and explains voluntary and involuntary euthanasia and looks at how the Utilitarian philosophy can be applied to this issue. The paper also looks at how arguments of Peter Singer apply to this topic.
From the Paper
"The debate over euthanasia begins with the definition of the word itself. Today people distinguish between active and passive euthanasia as well as voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia would seem to be straightforward. Active euthanasia occurs when someone actively brings about someone's death as in through an injection of a toxic substance. Passive euthanasia, on the other hand, occurs when someone refuses to intervene actively in order to prevent someone else's death. For example, in a real life hospital setting a..."
| |
|
Euthanasia: Whose Choice Should it Be?, 1999.
This paper analyzes ideas for and against euthanasia and then argues why euthanasia should be a choice for everyone.
2,031 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article the writer discusses and explains the different forms of euthanasia. The writer looks at both sides of the euthanasia argument. The writer notes that those in favor of euthanasia bring up the comparison of passive euthanasia to active euthanasia and then discusses the differences. The writer covers issues such as doctor-assisted suicide and voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. In conclusion, the writer argues that euthanasia is ethically, morally and, should be, legally right for people whose medical condition is terminal, and whose suffering and hardship outweigh the benefit of trying to prolong their life.
From the Paper
"Euthanasia has three sub-categories that can go along with either the passive or active definition. These include voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary. The firs sub-category is voluntary. This simply enough means that the patient willingly and capably made the choice. The second sub-category is involuntary. Involuntary, on the other hand, means that the choice was made without the patient's approval, who is otherwise capable of making the decision. Non-voluntary refers to the choice being made for an incompetent patient who is not believed to be capable of making the choice for himself. These three sub-categories play a major factor in how euthanasia is viewed and determined legally."
| |
|
Voluntary Euthanasia in the United Kingdom, 2004.
This paper is an extensive discussion of voluntary euthanasia in the United Kingdom based on secondary research.
13,785 words (approx. 55.1 pages), 36 sources, APA, $ 249.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper focuses on voluntary euthanasia, euthanasia in which a clearly competent person makes a voluntary request for assistance in dying, which is different from non-voluntary euthanasia because, in this case, a person is either not competent or unable to express a wish about euthanasia. The author points out that many critics believe permitting voluntary euthanasia, which is supported by many people, will lead to permitting non-voluntary euthanasia. The paper states that, in the United Kingdom, physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia is illegal, but euthanasia was legalized in certain circumstances in the Netherlands in 1994, in the Northern Territory of Australia in 1997, and, in November 1997, Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act (DWDA); the United Kingdom also should legalize a humane death.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Hypothesis
Literature Review
Legalized Euthanasia
About Euthanasia
United Kingdom Law
A Look at the Issue
Conditions for Candidacy for Voluntary Euthanasia
A Case for Voluntary Euthanasia
Objections to Voluntary Euthanasia
A Closer Look at U.K. Legislation
The Importance of Autonomy and Consent
Methodology
Results and Conclusion
From the Paper
"Many religious groups oppose euthanasia because it goes against their faiths. Thomas Aquinas documented traditional Christian beliefs on the issue of suicide (Gula, 1997). Suicide was condemned because it harms other people, and because life is the gift of God and can only taken away by God. Muslims, and Jewish are amongst other faiths that believe life is given by God, and can only be taken away by God. One of the other major points made by religious groups is that "God does not send any experience that we cannot handle (p. 145)". For some faith groups, such as the Roman Catholics, "human suffering can have a positive value for the terminally ill and the caregivers"."
| |
|
Euthanasia - Moral Rightness or Wrongness of Robert Latimer's Act, 2000.
This paper tries to answer the question regarding euthanasia cases: Can euthanasia in any form can be morally acceptable in our society?
1,830 words (approx. 7.3 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 58.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the issue of euthanasia and attempts to define whether euthanasia should be considered morally wrong or right. In order to give an answer to this question and as part of con and pro arguments several cases of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are discussed in this paper. The case of Robert Latimer occupies a central place in this discussion and ultimately brings into the debate several moral principles-- benefit, sanctity of human life and autonomy.
From the Paper
"Robert Latimer's trial was described in the press as "Trial by popularity" and as newspapers' headlines stated "despite his second murder conviction, Latimer retains legal and public support" regardless of the fact that he caused death of his 12 year old disabled daughter by carbon monoxide. Support and sympathy for Latimer has poured in from all parts of Canada bringing with it the question of the moral rightness of what Tracy's father did."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2004.
This paper discusses the euthanasia case of Woodrow Collums in terms of the morality of his actions and demonstrates that, while active euthanasia may be illegal, both passive and active euthanasia are not morally wrong.
1,550 words (approx. 6.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, in the case of Woodrow, his action of shooting his brother out of compassion for his condition qualifies as active euthanasia, the action of conscious and determined taking of specific steps to cause a patient?s death. The author points out that there are three types of euthanasia: voluntary euthanasia, the explicit and voluntary consent of the patient in either verbal form or written consent such as in a living will; non-voluntary euthanasia, the killing of a patient who is unable to make his or her intentions known because of their unconscious, comatose, or other disabled state; and involuntary euthanasia, the killing of an individual whose consent is either explicitly or not explicitly given because they do not wish to die. The third type is obviously morally wrong and will not be discussed in this paper. The paper relates that, if by allowing doctors to eliminate the unnecessary suffering of patients based on either the vocal expression of permission or based on the obvious facts in the case, then situations such as Woodrow?s would not occur.
From the Paper
"The case of Woodrow Collums is an example of euthanasia. Woodrow Collums went to the Oak Hills Care Home in Poteet, Texas on November 16, 1981, and saw his brother J.K. Collums. J.K. was a victim of severe Alzheimer?s disease, and was unable to care for his bodily needs, could not speak, and could not respond to others. He was fed through a tube. Woodrow made the conscious decision, on that day, to shoot and kill J.K. His defense for his actions was that is brother was suffering greatly, and he could not, in good conscience, allow that suffering to continue. This is euthanasia: the decision to take a life out of compassion."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2005.
This paper argues that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia and sometimes active euthanasia should be legalized.
995 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that doctor assisted suicide in the form of passive euthanasia should be legalized on the primary basis that human suffering should not be prolonged by medical science simply to extend physical life. The author stresses that terminally ill human beings have the inherent right to refuse medical treatment because they are the moral guardians of their own lives and the ultimate authority to be considered---not doctors, lawyers, insurance companies nor the government. The paper suggests that priorities have to be established in circumstances involving contending rights; in right-to-die issues, the highest priority should be the emotional, psychological and physical well-being of the person faced with inevitable death.
From the Paper
"This moral argument offered by opponents of doctor assisted suicide is of particular interest, for many of these groups explicitly assert that morality includes physical causality and moral culpability. It holds that active euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the physician, while passive euthanasia establishes the physical causality of the disease itself. In other words, in active and passive euthanasia the moral culpability remains the same, that is, it is in the hands of the physician. This is the due to the fact that the physician has the duty and the moral obligation to keep the patient alive. While these two separate worlds within the moral realm may cross in some places, it does not mean that they are one and the same, and this is one of the many reasons that the distinction should not be abolished."
| |
|
Euthanasia, 2002.
An explanation of the current debate on euthanasia and the arguments for and against it.
2,709 words (approx. 10.8 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the medical, legal, and ethical aspects of the euthanasia debate. The writer offers a number of scenarios and analyzes the best possible outcome for the patient, offering alternatives to euthanasia, as well.
Contents
Introduction
Euthanasia and the Different types
Passive and Active Euthanasia
Voluntary and Involuntary Euthanasia
Euthanasia (the appropriate Solution)
Dependency Vs Autonomy
Euthanasia (Not a Right Solution)
Palliative Care
Euthanasia (Medical perspective)
Euthanasia a Legal perspective
The Danger in Legalizing
Conclusion
From the Paper
"Euthanasia is a combination of two Greek words Eu (easy, painless or happy) and ?thanatos? meaning death. So the essential meaning of the term Euthanasia is painfree and happy end to life. So Euthanasia is the term for the act of delivering the suffering patient from his troubles by putting him to death. In other words it is nothing but physician assisted suicide (PAS). [Michigan Technological University]. There are basically two different forms of Euthanasia namely Active or Passive Euthanasia and Voluntary or involuntary Euthanasia."
|
|
|
