Applying Relevant Legal Theories and Moral Perspectives - Essay Example

Running head: APPLYING RELEVANT LEGAL THEORIES AND MORAL PERSPECTIVES Legal Theory Legal Theory Question 3 Applying relevant theories, as well as my own moral perspective, to decide whether any ONE of the following activities should be legal: a) Failing to wear a seat belt while in a car, or a crash helmet when on a motorcycle It is mandatory for motorist to wear seatbelts while on the road to safeguard their life in case of an accident. Consequently, those using the motorcycles are supposed to use crash helmet will riding on their motorcycles. This is for the sake of their life just in case of an accident, they are able to protect themselves against severe injuries. Wearing seat belts and/or helmets are reported to save lives but this in itself is of much controversy as will be discussed further. Some would argue that along with the privilege to operate a vehicle, a responsibility to obey all rules set forth by lawmakers necessarily follows and that helmet and seat belt laws are not considered victimless. This discussion chronicles the rationale for the implementation of Britain's seatbelt and crash helmet legislation, the laws' actual effects in contrast to what was intended as well as the theories as to why they are essentially ineffective. There has been no legislation that has put legal restrictions on individuals whose actions hurt no one other than themselves which many, including myself, consider wrong. This opinion extends to other issues such as drug possession, prostitution, bigamy, etc. In other countries, laws preventing gambling and gay marriage fall into this category as well. There is, of course, a line drawn within this opinion regarding laws that include children. Consensual adults, however, should be free to choose how to live their lives as they please if it does not interfere with the personal welfare or property of others. But the issue of seatbelts and wearing of helmet should be taken seriously and for this case an act of made on the same. This is because the state has full responsibility to safeguard against the life of people and if this becomes law, hence they protect the life its people. Individuals themselves ought to aware that it is morally upright for them to use seatbelt and helmets, not because is a law or not but because there are benefits associated with this act. Even though one has a right to reason and make a free decision of his/her own choice, one should make a concrete decision that benefit him. Wearing seat belts and/or helmets are reported to save lives but this in itself is of much controversy as will be discussed further. Seatbelt and crash helmet laws, though enacted with the intention of saving lives, are a controversial issue based on the ideology of individual liberty. Some would argue that along with the privilege to operate a vehicle, a responsibility to obey all rules set forth by lawmakers necessarily follows and that helmet and seat belt laws are not considered victimless. This discussion chronicles the rationale for the implementation of Britain's seatbelt and crash helmet legislation, the laws' actual effects in contrast to what was intended as well as the theories as to why they are essentially ineffective. Seatbelt legislation has had an unintended impact for those persons not riding in automobiles such as motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. For example, Britain's seatbelt laws coincided with an average increase of 135 pedestrian and 40 cyclist deaths per year. A study for the UK Department of Transport commissioned in 1981, the 'Isles Report,' examined the consequences of seatbelt laws in eight European countries.1 This study used two countries, Italy and the UK, both of which did not have seatbelt laws at that time, as control models. The study discovered that the most significant effect of these laws was a marked increase in deaths by those outside the car, a finding that was unanticipated. The study predicted that if the UK were to enact compulsory seat belt legislation, deaths incurred by those on the road not in the cars to would rise by 150 per year, an eerily close prediction to what actually occurred. UK officials concealed the findings in this report and passed the seatbelt law by an overwhelming margin. A 1997 study found that "19,000 cyclists and 72,000 pedestrian casualties seen at the time suggests that seatbelt wearing drivers were 11-13 percent more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8 percent more likely to injure cyclists."2 For this case, even if there is no law enacted on the wearing of seatbelts and wearing of helmets, they should one should think logically on this issue and wear them, not because the law is behind it but to safeguard his life and those of others. There has been two theories which has been in existence that propose that indeed, drivers who wear seatbelts experience a greater false sense of security which leads to a greater number of accidents. The Risk homeostasis3 and Risk Compensation4 hypotheses both postulate this argument. The British Psychological Society5 also agrees with this theory which suggests that when a driver is involved in a near-miss while wearing a seatbelt, they do not the feel the same threat of physical harm as do drivers not wearing restraints. This reduced sense of harm leads individuals to adopt a more dangerous style of driving. This theory has been backed-up by previously discussed statistics. Another explanation of the failures of compulsory seatbelt legislation is that "drivers who take the most risks are also the least likely to use seatbelts."6 This hypothesis does not, however, explain why fatalities escalate following the implementation of seatbelt laws. There has also been the same false sense of security that applies to crash helmets. Two 2004 studies by different entities that were commissioned by the Scottish Parliament confirmed what had long been assumed. Some people that wear helmets subconsciously adjust their riding behaviour from this sense of false security and act less cautiously as a result. "There is significant evidence that protective features can lead to changed behaviour."7 Investigations of road fatality statistics in Britain indeed expose a tendency of an increased seriousness of injuries proportionate with an increased use of helmets. These findings hardly support the view that helmet use leads to either fewer or less severe injures. As in seatbelt use, a false sense of safety leads to a change in behaviour which has the unintended effect of increasing the number and severity of car, cycle and pedestrian accidents.8 Though lawmakers and health safety advocates may have good intentions, seatbelt and crash helmet laws have had two negative effects. First, they have caused the reverse of what was intended by causing more harm than good. Secondly, these laws are harmful to citizens in that they take away freedoms to choose. In and of itself, this is not a horrific deed on a grand scale but in the greater scope of human endeavour the acceptance of these 'no harm' laws leads the public to accept other such laws which slowly but steadily lead to further reductions of free will decisions by free peoples. b) Surrogate motherhood agreements between non-relatives Surrogating motherhood occurs when a child is mother identifies the person who will adopt the child before that child is born. This agreement in order for it to be enforceable and the parties to stick to their agreement, the government do intervene. This is because in such a contract, the parties are usually hesitant to fulfil there obligations and also hesitant to really on each other unless there is an assurance that the promises will be enforced. The court normally enforces the promise of a competent party provided it is supported by a consideration. This is because the society has an interest in binding the contracting parties provided the contract is lawful in order to ensure its citizen practice private businesses that are free and fair. When a surrogating case is being heard, the biological mother is the one who enforces the issue not the biological mother as the court declares. Surrogating parenting is distinguished from adoption in that surrogating; the biological mother terminates her parental right at a fee upon the birth of a child and for this case gives the child to the biological father. (Atwell, 1989) The surrogating agreement gives the right to the biological father's wife to be the step mother of the child hence forming an independent adoption. Many couples all over the world prefer to use surrogate arrangement to acquire a child than the traditional adoption method. This is so because there is more attachment to the child because there is already a biological father. 9 One has the ability to reason what is right for him/herself and consequently free to choose what he/she wants with his/her life, hence for this case one should choose either between the surrogate and adoption. In my opinion, surrogating arrangement should be legal since it gives parents who are not able to bear their own child a chance to have a child. This arrangement is even better than adoption and it is also preferred by many couples in the world today. c) Abortion on demand We should ask ourselves the main aim of abortion being legal if it is not available on demand. It is obvious that many, who oppose abortion, will always centre their protest on the abortion on demand idea. 10 On religious perspective, restriction is placed on abortion hence the ability of women obtaining it is minimised. Abortion is made difficult to manage and for this reason, fewer women will choose it. They are not seen as banning abortion but making theoretical part of it and practical choice part of it. (Poppema and Henderson, 2005) We should know what is required of us since moral laws are not usually independent of any legislative. The reason behind this is that natural law theories have a traditional weakness as they are not clear in their application. There is an argument that we should act with accordance to nature but the question comes in on what is natural for it to be done. For this case, there should be argument before one performs an abortion on whether what she is doing is morally right. Thomas Aquinas is associated with natural law theory as he believed that reason and freedom defines human nature. He urged that we should have ability to reason properly and consequently make choice of our own as this is a unique ability we have that other animals do not. For this case, we have an ability to reason on the act of abortion which is killing an innocent human being and then ask ourselves if this really right for us. Even though one has an ability to reason and make his or her own free choice, then the question comes in on whether on not the act our conscious has reached to a consensus to do if it is moral right. Since the act of abortion is killing of an innocent human being, then there is not reason for doing it since murder is a condemned even in the bible. In the United States for example, the law have any problem if one takes an abortion in the first six month of the pregnancy. The reason behind this abortion could be gender selection, convenience, rape or unplanned pregnancies. If a pregnant woman convinces her doctor that he should have an abortion to protect her emotional health, then the court health provision legalizes abortion until birth. In my opinion, abortion should only be done in case there are health complications on the side of the mother as a result of pregnancy. Abortion should not be carried out on any other circumstance. References Adams, J. (1985): Risk and Freedom: The Record of Road Safety. Transport Publishing Projects, Cardiff. Atwell, B.L (1989): Surrogacy Adoption: A Case of Incompatibility, retrieved on September 12, 2006, from http://www.digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgiarticle=1003&context=lawfaculty Beckwith, F. J (2000): Abortion and the Sanctity of Human Life, Joplin, Missouri: College Press Davis, R. (1992): Death on the Streets: Cars and the Mythology of Road Safety, North Yorkshire, Leading Edge Press Dee, T.S. (1998): Reconsidering the Effects of Seatbelt Laws and Their Enforcement Status." Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol 30, N. 1, pp. 1-10. Dulisse, B. (1997): Methodological Issues in Testing the Hypothesis of Risk Compensation. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 25, I. 5, pp. 285-292. Karp, B. (1999): Commentary for Presentation on Cycle Helmets to the Cross Party Cycling Group of the Scottish Parliament." (19 May 2004). Retrieved on September, 11, 2006 from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/crossPartyGroups/groups/cycle-docs/helmet-legis-commentary.pdf Poppema, S.T and Henderson, M (2005): Why I Am an Abortion Doctor, New York, Prometheus Books The Puzzle of Seat Belts Explained (April 1999). Press Release of the Annual Conference of the British Psychological Society. Wilde, G.S. (1994). Target Risk. PDE Publications Read More