Duty Of Others And Ourselves

When should an adolescent’s autonomy be upheld? If the adolescent is in a life and death situation and can undergo treatment that may allow them to live, should she/he be forced to go through it against his/her will? Cassandra C., a 17 year old did not want chemotherapy for her life-threatening Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Cassandra believed that she had the right to forgo her chemotherapy treatment based on her autonomy; moreover, her mother supported her desire to not have chemotherapy. However, the State intervened, took her into custody, and forced her to go through the chemotherapy. As a result of the forced treatment, Cassandra's lymphoma is in recession. However, in this case, the right of autonomy outweighs the possible beneficence; it is more

Research studies have been conducted to demonstrate that adolescent brains are without full adult potential thus, adolescents should not be charged with adult sentences for crimes committed under the age of 18. Several doctors note that the under development of the brain, though it does not excuse criminal behavior, should not result in a life sentence or any other irreversible or extreme punishment (Beckman, 2004, p. 1). Beckman (2004) also states that “eight medical and mental health organizations, including the American Medical Association cite a sheaf of developmental

KENTUCKY, 492 U.S. 361 1989) The Court later ruled in Atkins v. Virginia (2002) that, “mentally retarded persons were exempt from the death penalty as well, a further sign of society’s changing standards.” (ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 320 2002) The decision in Atkins explained that due to their impairments, “it is highly unlikely that such offenders could ever deserve capital punishment.” (ATKINS v. VIRGINIA, 536 U.S. 320 2002) The reasoning in Atkins is applied to the Simmons decision. Kennedy argues that because individuals under 18 are categorically less culpable than the average criminal, they should not deserve the death penalty. Kennedy adds that there are three differences between juveniles under 18 and adult offenders. First, “juveniles often lack the maturity found in adults, a trait that is understandable among the young and adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005) The second difference is, “that they are more vulnerable to negative influences or outside pressures and this could lead to deviant behavior.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005) Lastly, Kennedy asserts that “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as an adult and that personality traits in adolescents are transitory.” (ROPER v. SIMMONS, (03-633) 543 U.S. 551 2005)

Teen Euthanasia is a very controversial topic in the sense that it has many varied factors that must be considered. Samantha is at a youthful age of thirteen years old and knows her body better than anyone else. The age is the first thing that makes me pause in thinking about allowing her to make the choice. Thirteen, while still considered a teen, is still very young, too young in my opinion, for her to make the choice to end her life. Yet I can’t help but think that she knows her body better than anyone else. She is the one who goes through the pain every day and deals with the chemotherapy to try and get rid of cancer.

Simmons (2005), the Court ruled “that those under the age of 18 could not be sentenced to the death penalty, holding that the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the US Constitution when applied to juveniles (Liles & Moak, 2015, p. 78).” In Roper, the Court addressed issues of juvenile maturity, vulnerability, external influences, development, and culpability. In their holding, the Court cited inherent differences distinct to a juvenile, stating that the juvenile’s culpability must be considered in capital punishment decisions. The decision in Roper exclusively established differences between juveniles and adults for death penalty cases. At this time, juveniles could still be sentenced to life without parole.

In 1953, the California Supreme Court passed a bill that allows adolescents receive abortions without the consent of a parent or guardian (“California”). With the enactment of this law, the Californian Government has deemed all adolescents between the ages of fourteen and seventeen to be mentally adept in the process of consenting to treatments, in this case being the abortion of a child. This process includes weighing the benefits and downfalls of treatment, and contextualizing these possible downfalls with their own lives. If Emily were to be pregnant and she desired an abortion, it would be completely legal. However, in the case where she has Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Emily legally has no say in her own treatment. With this, governments are insinuating that Emily is capable of making a life and death decision for another person, but she is still not competent enough to have a say in her own

It is important that physicians give all possible options to the patient and others involved as well as possible outcomes. There should be strict laws for physicians to make sure they are not abusing their power. State government should not just choose a side and base laws on their views only. The government should take into account the specific medical circumstances involved in a patient's quality of life and future quality of life. Terri’s case was an obvious example that one should not live in a state of unconscious and artificial life, especially when the condition is irreversible. No one would have enjoyed being in her shoes. The current policies of our government are not always in the patient's best

Initially, I dismissed the idea of minors controlling their medical treatment. My reasoning stemmed from the potential consequences that may result — as many other minors will insist on ending their life prematurely. However, after taking the Eighth Amendment (Cruel and Unusual Punishment) into serious consideration, there should be exceptions made in situations similar to Wendys’.

For example, sixteen-year old Sarah Kruzan was sentenced to life without parole for murdering her pimp. However, she is now 29 years of age, and says how she “deserved the punishment and that it is not okay to take anyone’s life” (Serwer, 1).In the same way how Sara Kruzan understood the wrong in her actions, minors can do the same and change their behaviour, allowing them to be respected by society once again. Another teen killer, Jacob Ind murdered his parents while they were laying in bed. However, Jacob and his brother were physically and emotionally abused by their parents. Years later, Jacob told a local news station that he killed his parents, because he was too “weak to directly confront them and that it was of pure selfishness” (Serwer,

It is the conclusion of Marcia Angell from the Supreme Court and Physician-Assisted Suicide in article #1 that a physician’s main duties are to respect a patient’s autonomy and relieve suffering. She believes even if this means assisting in a patient’s death. Her conclusion is based on several pretenses. First, the premise is the most ethical in medicine the respect for each patient’s autonomy. If this principle conflicts with others, it should always take precedence. She argues that sometimes physician’s need the option regarding hastening death, although this should be considered as a last resort. She considers that death is different for all and can be fast and peaceful or slow and cruel. She argues that death if withdrawing life-sustaining treatment simply allows the disease to take its course (Kaebnick, 2001). Three methods of hastening death are: withdrawing treatment to sustain life, assisting suicide, and euthanasia. Her concern about this is this is less patient-centered thinking and more physician centered? She further hopes that it will become a choice for those patients who need

For example, in the Slender Man Case two young girls that society pictured as innocent attempted three types to kill their victim. The first two attempts failed as they were afraid someone would hear their victim’s cry. This proves that “it is clear that developing adolescent brain does not prevent deliberate, thoughtful actions” (Weir 12) of juveniles as “her murder was thoughtful, deliberate and cunning in its planning and execution” (Weir 8) as they didn’t want anyone to hear their victim’s scream as they stabbed her nineteen times throughout her body. Brain development is not the the issue “if brain development were the reason, then teens would kill at roughly the same rates all over the world” (Jenkins 6) which is true “it cannot be an excuse for unspeakable behavior” (Weir 12) this why we should sentence juveniles a sentence they truly receive even if it’s an adult

Today’s court system comes with many crucial outcomes. The most questionable outcome is whether teens should be tried as adults. Many people are against the idea of teens being tried as adults in courts and argue that they are immature but, most teens had the mental capacity as an adult to plan a murder. Crimes that teens have committed have been in the felony level which is the type of crimes adults have made. Juvenile delinquents should be treated as adults in courts because they have committed unforgivable felonies; therefore, they should not have any leniency while in court because of their age.

In the case of Roper v. Simmons, Simmons was a seventeen-year-old teenager who committed a grotesque premeditated murder (Cornell University Law School, 2005). Subsequently, nine months after the murder Simmons turned eighteen, and the state of Missouri prosecuted Simmons as an adult, and he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death (Cornell University Law School, 2005). From the police reports and testimony, it was apparent Simmons was the instigator of the crime, but the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that capital punishment is unconstitutional for offenders under the age of eighteen (Elrod & Ryder, 2014). Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling inhibits the courts from prosecuting juveniles as adults without considering age and other

“I would rather be a good man than a great king” said the character Thor in Thor: The Dark World. In these words we find a frightening tension. Almost everyone agrees that it is good to be ethical; this is an easy affirmation. It is much more difficult, though, when ethics is in direct opposition to success. This dichotomy- between ethics and success- will no doubt confront an engineer during a professional career of any substantial length. Can you say that you would rather be a good man than rich? Or popular? Or a successful engineer? What should happen when an engineer faces this question? One real world example that can shed some light on this problem is what is known as bid shopping. This essay will provide a thorough definition of the problem of bid shopping and the ethical dilemma surrounding it. It will then apply the ethical theories of Duty Ethics and Virtue Ethics to the question. And seek to show that bid shopping is unethical according to both ethical theories.

What would you do if you were caring for a child whose condition would eventually kill them, but the parents wanted you to try every treatment? In the article “When Living Is a Fate Worse Than Death” by Christine Mitchell, the main point consists of this very question. The choice that hospital staff sometimes must make between keeping a child alive knowing that their condition will eventually take over or trying every procedure in an attempt to keep them alive. I believe that Mitchell does a great job in stating her claim favoring the side that a child with an illness that would, in time, take their life should be allowed to die peacefully rather than enduring painful procedures and bouncing between home and hospitals.