Medical Ethics :: essays research papers

Quaestiones Disputate3) Whether it is ethical to keep a person hot if their quality of vivification is non good and will not improve. In much(prenominal) a case, what is the responsibility of the medical profession?The following argument will be made toward the negative, suggesting that it is intrinsic anyy unethical to keep a person alive under certain circumstances The first issue to address is the sub-components of the Quaestione in order to better set the argument in motion as a proof. The Quaestione rat be divided up into the following components whether it is ethical to keep a person alive , if their quality of life is not good , and will not improve. , In such(prenominal) a case, what is the responsibility , of the medical profession.The first component is, in a general sense, unarguable. Standing alone, the statement of keeping someone alive bears a right to which each human is morally obliged to uphold. They key here is standing alone....Of course societys code of con duct says that we must preserve life, but this can only be true to a sense until the next issue is incorporated - what if their life is not good? What exactly is not good? If we bring in it from an Aristotelean point of view, we can see that Aristotle claimed that happiness or good living - being happy, healthy, prosperous, and flourishing - is the purpose of human life and the basis of all ethical behavior. This eudaimonia that he begins to describe is an end, in a sense that that goal has been reached. If one can no longer reach this ultimate goal or end or is rendered unable to physically or mentally move oneself in that direction (after all, someone else cant live your life for you to move you to happiness) their life is considered not good. A life rendered not good combined with our ethical obligation to keep someone alive, probably still not enough to grant the individualist the ultimate end. Now if you listen closely, this is where the turning point begins. Being a teleolo gist, Aristotle claims that every action is good only in so far that they achieve some good end. If life is not good, and we reach stage three where it will not improve, where is the action of keeping the individual alive reaching a good end. The life is not good, nor will it ever be good - so what is the good end that would result that would case this action to be a good action.