Among many prominent theories in the field of ethics and behaviours, the theory of utilitarianism plays an important role. In a series of influential essays, Renee Fox (1989, 1990, Fox & Swazey 1984), the follower of the utilitarianism theory, has argued that the "ethos" of medical ethics has been dominated by an analytic individualism, organized around the value of "autonomy," that assigns prominence to "the notion of contract" while relegating "more socially-oriented values . . . to a secondary status" (1989, pp. 229-30). The bases of the teory enunciated the principle of the "voluntary consent" of human subjects as essential to the ethical conduct of research. The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded- namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.
Choosing among treatment options for any kind of cancer is challenging. When physicians disagree about the efficacy of various treatments, the task is especially daunting. In support groups, people with various cancer diagnoses often talk about feeling bewildered when they discussed their treatment options with surgeons and oncologists. Trying to comprehend all the information concerning the benefits and risks of different treatments shortly after hearing their cancer diagnosis was staggering.
Mry N, thirty-fiv-old music tchr, ws dignosd with bowl cncr ftr sh found out tht sh hs bn prgnnt for six months. Sh discovrd suspicious lump on hr bowl just 24 hours ftr finding out sh ws prgnnt. Hr husbnd John nd hrslf r vry dlightd to hv th bby, but it sms to b dngrous for th livs of both. Doctors bliv tht sh risks to di or to giv birth to child with diffrnt kinds of hlth complictions. It hs to b dcidd thn wht is th bst wy to dl with dilmm; to find out wht is th bst trtmnt in prticulr sitution nd ftr crful considrtion of ptint's physicl condition to promptly undrtk ncssry intrfrnc.
Mry's sitution is quit common s thr r css obsrvd nd womn trtd with this kind of dilmm. Now so mny, howvr, nd it provs th nd of individul pproch to th ptint. s it ws dignosd mor bowl cncr, t n rlir stg, nd r mor likly to us multignt chmothrpy to trt vn ptints with good prognoss, thr will b young womn who hv bcom mnopusl but hv xcllnt prognoss for long-trm survivl.
Mry hs t lst two strong incntivs for wnting childrn. Sh nd Json hd witd to hv childrn for yrs, only to hv hr cncr discovrd just s thy bgn trying to strt thir fmily. In ddition, whn fcing potntilly ftl illnss mny popl, spcilly young popl, considr how thy might lv prmnnt mrk on th world. Hving childrn is on wy to lv such lgcy.
s long s prgnncy dos not ffct bowl cncr