Should are opinions that can be made in agreement

 

 

 

 

Should They Play God

Hakeem R. Morris

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Excelsior College – TECH230 Technology and Society

Instructor: Randy Holt

January 22, 2018

 

Should They Be Saved

There are opinions that can be made in agreement of prolonging life is that this specific subject is a physician’s moral duty. John Harris said it best, “extend the human life span as far as it will go, even if it means creating beings that live forever” is within a physician’s occupation. This is an argument John Harris suggested in the influential essay called “the Value of life”. Inside the body of the essay titled “Saving” he supports his case with an updated version of the “Hippocratic Oath”. The third part of the Oath, “I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required” support has view of prolonging life.

However, the equivalent section of the Hippocratic Oath also quantified that the physicians should try to “avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism”. Additionally, the Oath states physicians should “not play at God”. This argument can be made as a counter to prolonging life. There are various religious traditions that make this point in the notion of prolonging is an act of God. In the eyes of some, this makes the topic of prolonging life an unethical one.

In my opinion, it is hard to answer the question; “just because we have the technology, should it be used”. This is a two sided question, on one hand you can argue that “technology is useless unless it is put to use” and simultaneously you can rebuttal this issue with the discussion of the uses of this technology is also against ethical and moral tradition.  Tikva Frymer-Kensky presented a respectable directive to follow when battling with ethical issues with humans delaying death. Brian Lehrer, host of WNYC-AM 820’s “On the Line” in New York asked Tikva Frymer-Kensky a comparable question to the one asks for the essay. Tikva Frymer-Kensky replied “I think when it becomes clear that there is no benefit to the patient–benefit meaning either hope for cure or a relief for suffering or a meaningful addition to life there should be a cease of action”. I believe this would be a proper extent to the regulation of prolonging of human life. The directive gives the doctor, the relative, and the human on the table the appropriate right for prolonging life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Than, K. (2006, May 23). The Ethical Dilemmas of Immortality. Retrieved from https://www.livescience.com/10465-ethical-dilemmas-immortality.html http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/659.full

http://jme.bmj.com/content/31/11/659.full

http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202502=1335759

https://www.med.unc.edu/cedg/files/cedg%20Harris20copy.pdf