Morality, sin, evil, good, bad, whatever man, who cares, tomato TOMATO, who decides, you keep yours, Do you agree? Whatever my pastor says.
The difference between killing someone and allowing someone to die is the intention in which a life is taken. The person who is responsible for someone and does not have sufficient funds to support him/her is not responsible for the persons death. On the other hand the person who contrives to kill someone should be indicted.This is a view observed even by the judicial system whereas a person cannot be charged for his inability to support someone but the most similar charge being depraved indifference.This has a common parallel in ethics whereas the person would not be 'wrong'.-Kwesi Twum
Kwesi Twum, that is a good start BUT I thought the rule was that you should contribute where your teacher is. So you should be with Mr. Kamau-ORANGE GROUP.I (Mr. Oduro) am with the BROWN GROUP.
It’s not the same because I didn’t deny the person drugs because I wanted to kill the person. It was because the drugs were too expensive. As the world renowned philosopher interviewed in the podcast said, it’s the intention behind the situation. In this situation it’s not that you want to kill the person, the person dying is the side-effect of not being able to afford an expensive drug. But on the other hand it can be said that unlike the basic examples of trolley situations given, here there is only one life to save or to kill. In the utilitarian approach we would probably save the one life but there are a lot of other things involved such as who bear the cost of the expensive drug and because the man is old he would die very soon anyway denying younger men who may come in later of that opportunity. Like the little girl said it would be better to save one young life than 5 old lives.
i believe that if there is enough money for the medicine the person would have been saved. but in this case it is not the same as killing the person because there are no funds for buying medicine. and moreover the person is old and would have lived and enjoyed life,instead of investing all the little you have for his care you can maybe pay for other expenses, probably save the money for his funeral funds. so it is not killing the person because you don't have the money and if you can't afford there is nothing you can do.
First of all, if the person who is taking care of the old person, is very rich and can afford the drug, but however, feels stingy to buy the medicine, it means the old person is actually being killed. If the argument is such that, the person is old and will die soon anyway, I would call it very cruel of the care taker of the old man to just leave him to die. In as much as killing the person may help him (mercy killing), I believe every life is precious and deserves to be lived, no matter how much longer the person has to live. For all we know, the expensive drug could enable the man to live many more years, and probably make a great impact on society. If the person died even after having taken the expensive drug, I believe that, everyone will eventually die and it was probably the time for the old man to go. However, if we consider the situation in which the old person lives in a really poverty-stricken area, where it would be quite impossible to provide the medicine for the person, it would be very difficult to save the person’s life, even though it would have been best to save the man. In such instances, the circumstances are just beyond control to be able to save a life. In this case, it may not be the same as killing the person. I think, in a agreement with the podcast, the intentions and circumstances with which the decision as to whether to save the life or not is taken, determines whether denying an old person medicine is the same as killing him or her.
well like kwesi twum might have said , the overal judgement as to wether the per with intention certaintly differs from killing someone with intention ( with intention being something like Ruth's first example) while not evil intentions are not in mind this differs totally , because if there were no consquences attached to that like saving probably even more lives of people with other health problems it would certainly differ from just holding on to your money just because the expenses are way too much for you when you have alot of money. basically it all about the intention and the consequences attached to taking the action
Ruth you are right about every life being precious but come if the medicine is provided and the man still dies anyway, wouldn't it be an unnecessary short term cost to bear? Not taking into consideration the fact that its family. Why should saving the man if he was from a poverty stricken area any different because the care taker would be the one to bear the cost so what is the actual difference.
i agree with everyone so far...the intention makes the difference. Even though denying the guy medicine is still bad, to me its somehow less WRONG than actual murder.But ruth's comment made me think...the one about mercy killing...i disagree, if someone is suffering and in serious pain and WANTS to die i personally see nothing wrong with putting them out of their misery...Also ruth, you mentioned that EVEN if the guy is old and dying it would be cruel to just let him die...that the caretaker should give him the drugs...even if he'll still die anyway???wouldn't that be a waste? why not save them for someone else who's sick, younger and might have a better chance?
personally I believe that life is more valuable than money. Thus whatever means to save the man, whether old or young must be considered if NOT through that means other people are killed. (like what the scenario given in the audio file does).However the question at hand is whether doing this act is murder or not.One of the kid's response from the audio file says that "it is not right but it is better"We can think critically about what the kid said and relate it to this situation as well. It may not be "right" to find bad means to get the money and save the man's life but it is "better" to save the man's life and depriving someone of his/her wealth.I believe that depriving the man of the medical care is not murder but is not the "better" way of solving the problem.
Depends on how define what is right and what is wrong.
By the way.. it is interesting how the way we are thinking right now is considered as human "INTUITION?"
NO!!! In line with what my classmate have already highlighted it all has to deal with the INTENTION. Denying a patient a drug because it is expensive is not necessarily killing him or her it was not your intention to. The reason for this may have to do with the hospital's legalities and the like making the doctor obliged to make that decision. On the other hand, killing the patient is something that started as a seed which developed into an idea that was planned and executed. Even though the end result of both actions may be the same, the fundamental difference between them is the thought process-the "why?" behind the action.
What i mean by a "right" act is what is expected of a civilized person.
It’s rather incorrect to make it the same as killing him or her, simply because if the person was sick, old, and frail, they were likely to die already. Its more like being an accomplice of sorts, because you kind of had the “power” to avert the person’s death, but as for the original path to death, by denying the person it, you simply failed to interrupt it when you had the power to. denying the person the drugs makes economical sense. In the same way you don’t wear brand new channel if you cant afford it, you cant live off certain medicines if you cannot afford them. It’s a basic concept that everyone understands. With medicine though, because more than flimsy wants are involved, there is no black and white, and the boundaries blurr. Its not necessarily the same… it just speeds up the “death reaction” whereas, if you put a knife into a person’s abdomen, THAT would be killing the person, denying the medicine may be termed callous, but as already stated, it’s not the same as killing them.
I believe no amount of money is worth more than a human being life. Now the major question is what is too expensive. If the man is denied the drugs because they are too expensive it's kind off 'wrong' so to say because in this case money is placed above human life.
Hi,I am impressed with the discussion so far. However, I need to advice you to desist for saying things like "it depends on how you define what is right or wrong". Like Cynthia has done. Cynthia you would help our discussion if YOU tell us what you mean by 'RIGHT' or "WRONG". If we live like that then we would say everything depends on something.
To be honest I was very unsure as to whether the two actions could be the same, but after thinking about it after a while I actually believe denying the person medicine is equivalent to killing him or her(to my surprise). It is basically denying the person the right/opportunity to live; like torturing the person (e.g. keeping someone in a locked room with no ventilation when you know he will eventually die and not doing anything about it; my emphasis is on the "knowing he will die and doing nothing" part, which is the correlation between this scenario and the medicine scenario. I'm not referring to the torturing part). And likewise I agree with what everyone has said pertaining to intention: once a person at least tries to obtain the drugs (even if they're expensive!) but finds out that it is completely impossible, they may then unfortunately let go of the person's life. Killing a person involves deliberate action. But even in the case of the drugs being expensive, you're putting your financial well-being above someone's life, and I think we all know which one is actually more important. So then, what kind of morals do you have?I suppose this slightly relates to what was mentioned in the podcast about being directly involved (such as the pushing of the fat man) and "allowing circumstances" to determine the outcome of a situation (pushing the lever, which would cause the trolley to change tracks but kill the fat man as a consequence, which you did not directly cause). In the case of the medicine, once you know it was the price of the drug keeping you from saving the person's life, then it is not your fault; you have to let the situation play out as it will and as such you are not directly involved. To me, making no attempt to find out if the price will really prevent you involves you to an extent because you have the CHOICE of finding a way to solve the problem, or sitting down and letting things happen.
mr oduro l do not think anything is really wrong l guess l think it is just less right than worng because nothing is really wrong considering it's intentions and consequences
I believe that it is all a matter of intention as many of you have already highlighted.Moreover, I found Nnenna’s comment concerning euthanasia extremely interesting and I disagree with her. Mercy killing is more often than not addressed from the viewpoint of the sufferer, whose wish is to die, however it also has effects on other people. The reputation of the doctor who administered the lethal drug is also at stake since doctors swear an oath to try their very best to preserve human life no matter what. Other people who just intend to be suicidal will definitely take advantage of euthanasia even though they are not going through extreme suffering. Also, individuals in the same situation of suffering will be pressured by the decision of a patient who allowed for euthanasia and might opt for the same method.How sure are we that a patient’s wish for death has nothing to do with depression rather than the actual physical pain they are going through? It could be that the patient is being influenced by some sort of temporary depression and as such desires to die, but he or she may change his mind.We cannot be so sure that mercy killing is in the best interests of the patient. What if the diagnosis is wrong, for some reason and the patient is not terminally ill, OR, the patient is receiving poor medical care and his/her suffering could be reduced by some other means. Also, there is the possibility that patient has an unrealistic fear of the pain and suffering ahead and wants to end it all now.Euthanasia is a touchy issue and must not be looked at from the viewpoint of the sufferer alone.Why not think about getting doctors to specialize in pain management mainly to help individuals who are suffering to deal with their pain?Awuradwoa
Awuradwoa has raised interesting points. I would like to add to what she said. I agree that Euthanasia is not always voluntary. During the period of the Nazi's Hitler used euthanasia as an excuse to get rid of the handicapped and disabled. This was part of his plan to have a pure bred 'aryan' Germany. From this we can see that there could be several reasons for euthanasia and hence it is very risky to make judgment based on a few facts to justify the practice. As was said in the podcast the ends don't always justify the means.When it comes to denying an old person expensive medicine i believe it comes down to the circumstance in which it is done. If there was a younger person who needed the drug i think it would be morally 'right' to give the younger person the drug. I don't think it should be considered 'killing' the old man. The person adminstering the drug had a difficult choice to make and he/she made the sensible and moral choice.
In my point of view the person who is in charge to take care of the old man should buy the medicine as far as there is money even if the man’s death is obvious. Because it’s not the decision of a person who takes cares of him rather it’s the old man’s decision to live or to die. Otherwise the case is the same as killing HIV carriers by not allowing them to take their medicine tracing it to the reason that they would die at the end weather they take the medicine or not. So it’s immoral to allow a person to die by being reluctant to buy a medicine because we know he is going to die.zelalem abate borja
This comment has been removed by the author.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.