加拿大阿尔伯塔论文代写:器官捐赠和移植

Keywords:加拿大阿尔伯塔论文代写:器官捐赠和移植

考虑到器官捐赠和移植的问题，尊重自主性是决定某些生物医学伦理困境的选择权。它不仅包括尊重对方的态度，也包括尊重对方的行为。从纯粹的世俗伦理学观点来看，我们可以将伊曼努尔•康德(Immanuel Kant)从无条件价值的概念中认识到的东西联系起来，即每个人都有能力决定自己的道德命运。侵犯一个人的自主性就像只把他当作手段，而不考虑他自己的目标。例如，如果一个人死了，而他的器官在没有事先指示的情况下被从他的身体中取出，那么，它再次被认为是在使用这个身体作为一种手段。但是，如果那个器官在拯救一个活着的人的生命方面如此珍贵，如果给他一个生存的机会，他本可以造福人类，例如医生或受过良好训练的激进分子等，这表明了对自治的仁慈和为功利主义的伦理原则服务。如果我们考虑从胎儿身上摘取器官的情况，那么谁是最终的最高权威代表那个未成年人同意?是什么使一个人决定某一行为的裁决仅仅是针对个人的?接下来的问题是，谁扮演了毫无疑问的评价者的角色，而我们当中谁有资格在推理和决策方面不存在任何缺陷?如果另一个有影响力的家庭成员是器官的接受者，那么活着的捐赠者对他的身体或他的亲属有最终决定权吗?没有丈夫的意愿和同意，妻子不能决定自己的医疗问题。某部落的一个贫穷的部落成员成为支尔格规则的受害者。同样的，战俘们会怎样呢?被占领地区的自由战士，他们因为贩卖器官而被肢解?谁扮演了公正决策的角色，基于什么原则?“最大幸福原则”是由功利主义方法实现的，这是合理的吗?康德的方法，拯救人类生命的责任?平等主义的方法，获得平等的利益?公社主义者以牺牲自己的必需品和健康为社会利益服务。这些问题仍然没有解决，如果我们试图用一个伦理原则来反驳争论，那么另一个可能会被冒犯。美德伦理能回答一切问题吗?
加拿大阿尔伯塔论文代写:器官捐赠和移植
Considering the issue of organ donation and transplantation, the respect for autonomy is the right to choose for the decision making of certain biomedical ethical dilemma. It not just involves giving respect for the attitude, but also for the action to be performed. From pure secular ethics point, we can relate what Immanuel Kant had recognized from the concept of unconditional worth, stating that each individual has the capacity to determine his or her own moral destiny. To violate a person’s autonomy is like treating that person merely as means, without regard to that person’s own goals. Example if a person s dead and his organs are taken from his body without his previous advance directives of any such act, then, it’s again considered to be using that body as a means. But what if that organ was so precious in saving the life of a living person, who could have benefitted humanity if given a chance to live, e.g. a doctor or a well trained militant, etc. this shows the beneficence over the autonomy and serving the utilitarian ethical principle. If we consider the case of organ taken from a fetus, then again who is the ultimate supreme authority to give consent on behalf of that minor? What makes one decides the ruling of a certain act to be just for an individual? Then here comes the question of, who plays the role of the unquestionable evaluator and who among us is eligible to be devoid of all flaws in reasoning and decision making? Does the living donor has the ultimate right over his body or his relatives who have the right to decide the answer to this if another influential family member is the supposed recipient of the organ? A wife cannot take decision over her own medical issues without her husbands’ will and consent? A poor clan member of a certain tribe falls victim to the Jirga rulings. Similarly what happens to the war prisoners? The freedom fighters in occupied areas, who have been mutilated for organ trafficking? Who plays the role of just decision making and for what principle? Is it justified that “Greatest happiness Principle” is fulfilled by the Utilitarian approach? Kantian approach, a duty to save human life? Egalitarian approach, to get equal benefit? Communitarian to serve the community benefits at the cost of one’s own necessities and health. The questions remains open ended, if we try to rebut the argument with one ethical principle, then the other might get offended. Does virtue ethics answers every thing?