Normative Ethical Principles and Theories - Essay Example

Human Experiment Use of human as experimental s refers to human experimentations. Medicine uses human as an experimental object to attain certain inferences on different issues. The idea is nothing different than carrying any other experiment in different fields of science. An experiment needs an object on which the investigation is conducted. However, when the experimental object is human many questions of ethics arrive, which is not the scope of this essay. This paper describes how to design an experiment to get the answer of the hypothesis; In a given period of time, 14-year old students who eat French Fries three times per week will gain at least two more pounds than students who eat French Fries twice a week. Experiment objective The 14-year old students in this experiment are samples. Objective of the experiment is to achieve the inferences for the entire population based on analysis of data received upon conducting experiments with the samples. The first task is to determine the number of samples required to conduct the experiment. This depends on the task of the experiment. The task of the experiment is to establish a relationship between body weight calories intake from French fries during a fixed period of time. This can be expressed in the mathematical form as; Body weight = ƒ (Calorie from French fries). Thus, three basic parameters for this experiment are; Body weight, Calories, and Time. If, Y = Body weight, X = Calorie, and t = time; then the function is Y t = ƒ (X) while “t” is fixed. Step 1: Sampling 14-year boys are samples of this experiment. Each sample is considered as a member of the population. In this experiment, individual member of the population is considered identical. Since individual members of the population are identical, then characteristics of the population can be derived based on one specimen. We have selected eight specimens from the following ethnic groups; White, Black, Hispanic, Asian. Specimen from each ethnic group was selected using probability sampling out of 50 samples from each ethnic group. In selecting specimens, initial weights and heights of the specimens were not taken into considerations. Nevertheless, for all specimens both parameters were within very close ranges. We divided each 4 samples in two groups: group A, and group B. Each sample group consisted 14-year boys from ethnics background; White, Black, Hispanic, Asian. Step 2: Identification of Variables We identified that there are two types variables that describe the purpose of the experiment, and verify the result. These variables are; controlled variables, and experimental variables. Controlled variables in this experiment are calories from all other food intake, and time. Experimental variables are calories from French fries. Number of repetition for this experiment is one. Step 3: Theoretical assumption 1. If X is calorie from other foods, then Δ x is calorie from French fries, then we get 2 sets of equations for individual sample; 1. Y 1 = ƒ (X + Δ x 1), where Y 1 is body weight after the experiment, X is body weight before the experiment; Δ x 1 is weight from French fries eaten three times a week. 2. 2. Y 2 = ƒ (X + Δ x 2), where Y 2 is body weight after the experiment, X is body weight before the experiment; Δ x 2 is weight from French fries eaten twice a week. Step 4: Conducting experiment As mentioned above, we have two groups, each consisting of four samples. Group A ate French fries three times a week, and group B ate French fries twice a week. Dietitians determined basic food intakes. Principal foods for all 8 samples were constant, irrespective of their heights, and weights. It should be noted these heights and weights were within very close ranges. Amount of French fries intake were a constant value for all specimens of one group. Frequency of intake as described above, for group A, was three times, and two times were for group B. Thus; we can deduce how intake calories from French fries influences on weight on 14-year old children. Exercises were excluded during the experiment. Experiment was carried out in one cycle, which consisted of 28 days. Step 5: Analysis of result Results of the experiment are shown in the following table. Sample Ethnic Group Body weight for group A after the experiment Body weight for group B after the experiment Difference in body weight of each sample White Y1 White Y2 White D1 = Y1 White - Y2 White Black Y1 Black Y2 Black D2 = Y1 Black - Y2 Black Hispanic Y1 Hispanic Y2 Black D3 = Y1 Hispanic - Y2 Hispanic Asian Y 1 Asian Y2 Black D4 = Y1 Asian - Y2 Asian Arithmetic mean A = (D1 + D2 + D3 + D4) / 4 = If the number is 2 or higher hypothesis is proved, otherwise it is not proved. Question2: Part 1 In support of Li’s claim Euthanasia is one of the controversial discussions in medical ethics. Society is divided on this subject; one part of the community supports and wants it legalized, and other part is against of it. Nevertheless, doctors in America assist terminally ill patients who want to commit suicide. Interviews among 355 oncologists showed that about 5 % had directly injected drugs to end the patient’s life and 5 % had performed physician assisted suicide (PAS) by providing drugs to the patient in order to terminate their life. I support Li Yan’s for the reasons (“Reasons for Euthanasia”); unbearable pain, right to commit suicide, people should not be forced to stay alive. The major disagreement on favor of euthanasia is unbearable pain. Though the article does not specify whether the motor-neurone disease causes unbearable pain, however, the fact that last 27 years she is on bed for 24 hours is a serious motion in her favor. Her fear that she must die before her parents; otherwise she would spend a dirty, stinking, and sick unbearable life adds more weights to her wish to die. A human has right to live and die with dignity that comes with the birth. Dignity is pride. If a human has sufficient evidence beyond doubt to believe his / her dignity is lost, then he / she has right to leave this earth in a dignified way, which is thru euthanasia. The second argument to support Li’s claim is her rights. The word rights hides in it many concepts like; social, ethical, and legal. Li’s wants to end her life. From the ethical viewpoint, question arises if it is morally right. Why does ethics worry about a human activity that does not cause any herm to another human? In fact, Li is a lying dead body. She can only move her head and some of her fingers. Her life is not useful to her or to the society; hence why not let her exercise her rights? There comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not sympathetic, wise, or medically possible. Li’s emotional pain is not understandable to people who enjoys daily normal life. Li told the whole world that one could try to lie in bed for 24 hours without moving, only then one could understand her plea to leave this earth. People should not be forced to stay alive. In rejection of Li’s claim Pain and sufferings are part of a disease. Medicine’s role is to find answers how to reduce, ease, and eliminate pain and sufferings. Everyone – whether it is a person with a life-threatening illness or a chronic condition - has the right to pain relief. Medicine does not do magic, but it is a science. It is possible that today’s medicine is unable to ease all of Li’s pains and suffering, but killing is not an solution in easing her pain. Li is having physical sufferings, which has brought emotional pain and she wants to leave the earth. There are many people on this planet who are having emotional pains for this and that reasons. Does this mean all of them must die, because they cannot handle the pain? Li’s fear is after about passing everyday a dirty, stinking, and sick unbearable life after her parents’ death must be taken care by the society, so she does not see the differences. This is challenge to the society. Li can help medicine to improve treatment for future motor neurone cancer patients. This will be Li’s contribution to medicine, and prospective patients will pay tribute to her for her sacrifices. Li wants to use her rights to commit suicide. Suicide is a sad, individual act. Euthanasia is not about a private act. It is not about right to die; it is about giving the right to someone else to kill another person. Giving right to kill someone is a complex legal, social and moral act. The answer to such an act is NO. This is true that there comes a time when continued attempts to cure are not compassionate, wise, or medically possible. Nevertheless this does not allow the medicine to kill a person. Medicine should make the patients remaining time comfortable. It is a time to offer the patient emotional and spiritual support, instead shot to kill. Li is not in that position. According to her statement, she probably would live another 12 years. What she is afraid is about who would take care of her once her parents leave this earth. It is medicine and society’s responsibility to assure her giving support instead of giving assistance to die. Part 2 Yes, I would allow her to be euthanized. Li is not in comma. In comma, a person does not go thru extreme emotional pain that brings physical sufferings. Li already has gone thru 27 years x 365 days x 24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds = 851,472,000 seconds. Theory of relativity is also applicable to human emotions. Each second of sufferings and emotional pain of her life can be compared to infinity of sufferings. Li should not suffer one more second. Let her go. Part 3 The controversy around euthanasia is more ethical than medical. Ethics (“Normative ethical principles and theories”) is about what ought to be, not what is. Ethical principles assess or justify actions and behavior. Ethical theories use these ethical principles. Among several ethical theories one is consequentialism, is the class of normative ethical theories. Normative ethical theories investigate moral part of the questions how one ought to act. Hence, consequentialism also studies the moral side of one’s act. It refers (“Consequentialism”) to those moral theories which study moral judgment of an action thru the consequences of the action. A morally right action is an action, which produces good consequences is the principle foundation of the concept. I believe that by letting Li go peacefully, the medicine and society will do the best for her. Question 3 What is genetically engineered food? It refers to crop (“ Are Biotech Foods are Safe to Eat”) plants that have been modified, in the laboratory, to enhance desired traits. This means that some of the genes of the crop plants have been changed (“Genetically altered”) introducing to it new genes. For example, a gene that produces a crystal protein, which kills insect larvae has been injected into corn plants to protect them from deadly insects such as the European corn borer. After implication of this new change, the resulting plants are called genetically engineered plants, and their descendants as well as will be genetically engineered plants because of their specific genes. These new crops have more food value, and resistant to draught, pest and disease. The risks include; toxin to foods, antibiotic resistance, environmental risks. Genetically modified foods should not be banned in the USA. Genetically engineered foods did not arrive to confront with the traditional farming. We need to study the entire spectrum of reasons for its emergence. The scope of this essay cannot study the entire spectrum. However, among many of them are the emergence of new insects, growth of population, and change in environment. Ethical side of the coin raises the question if the concept of the invention of genetically engineered food is a good moral act. We will answer to this question using consequential and deontological theories. Do genetically engineered foods cause good consequences? Is an idea based on valid moral judgment? Who are the primary beneficiaries of moral action? Who judges what the consequences of the action are and how? What counts as a good state of affairs? From deontological approach, we ask is the action is wrong because of the action? The answers will be; (1) Yes, genetically engineered foods cause good consequences. Because, it can fight the new insects that traditional farming cannot. If we fail to save the harvest famine will emerge, which will cause enormous hardship for the people. It is noteworthy to mention that there is no evidence that genetically engineered foods have caused mass scale death. The idea is based on valid moral judgment, which his expressed in saving harvests, thus human lives. (2) We human are the primary beneficiaries of the moral action. (3) We human judge the consequences of the action by getting foods on our tables. (4) Good state of the affair in this case is in providing foods to humans. (5) From the deontological approach, the action is not wrong because of above explanations. Works cited “ Are Biotech Foods are Safe to Eat”. WEBMD. n.p., n.d. Web December 7, 2012 http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/are-biotech-foods-safe-to-eat “Consequentialism”. martinfrost.ws. Web December 7, 2012. http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/consequentialism.html “Genetically altered”. ORACLE.Think Quest. n.d., n.p. Web December 7, 2012. http://library.thinkquest.org/TQ0312650/food.htm “Normative ethical principles and theories”. stewards.edu. Web December 7, 2012. http://faculty.stedwards.edu/ursery/norm.htm “Reasons for Euthanasia”. euthanasia.com n.d., n.p. Web December 7, 2012. http://www.euthanasia.com/reasonsforeuthanasia.html “Time to Die”. economist.com. The Economist. July 2012. Web December 7, 2012. http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/euthanasia Read More