Harm Principles

“Autonomy is defined as self-determination and freedom from the control of others and making your life choices” (Morrison, 2011). The principle of autonomy holds that actions or practices tend to be right thus far as they respect or reflect the exercise of self-determination. “Persons and their actions are never fully autonomous, but nevertheless it is possible to recognize certain individuals and their decisions as more or less substantially autonomous” (Organ Procurement & Transplant Network, 2010). With the presentation of the principle of autonomy there are a few considerations such as, refusal of an organ and the right to do so, directed donation allocation, the processes of organ donation, and allocation rules that enable patients to make informed decisions.

The loss of a limb is a great loss to a person and would be difficult for anyone to comprehend initially and some never can. It affects all areas of a person’s life from the obvious physical aspect to mentally/emotionally. Apart from losing a limb they must comprehend the reason why they had a limb amputated, for example through disease or trauma (Healio,2002). The humanistic theory, particularly the work of Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, has been a great breakthrough within psychology, especially when looking at the emotions, thoughts and behaviour of an amputee. Unlike other psychological theories the humanistic theory aims to look at a person’s feelings and to see life as they see it rather than from the perspective of an observer(Mcleod,2015). According to Roger’s humanistic theory, every person has the built-in drive and ability to be the best that they can be. This means to self-actualise. To achieve self- actualisation a person needs a high self-concept which the theory explains has three main components. These are self-image, self-esteem and ideal self (McLeod, 2014). The loss of a limb affects a person’s self-concept. The loss of a limb may make a person feel no longer attractive and deserving of any forms of attention. As their

Course materials will also engage with debates over the role of the Harm Principle, Moralism and Paternalism, especially in the context of Criminal Law.

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

Whilst it is generally accepted that the community broadly welcomes such imposing and punitive legislation, it is imperative that our disgust for these offences/offenders does not prevent us from finding the injustice on an ethical and moral basis (Wortley and Smallbone, 2003).

This is an introductory course in the study of criminal law, general legal principles, and how the criminal law functions in and affects modern society. This course highlights a variety of key topics, including the concept of crime and the development of criminal law, defenses to criminal charges, and a number of specific types of crimes, including personal crimes, property crimes, public order crimes, and offenses against public morality. Legal issues affecting punishment will also be discussed, as will ways the criminal law impacts victims of crime.

Apotemnophilia, a disorder that involves both neurology and psychiatry, involves fantasies (mostly sexual) of being an amputee. This disorder primarily involves patients that suffer from a body dysmorphic disorder in which certain parts of their bodies feel “foreign” to them. Obviously, there are many debatable questions relating to the issue of apotemnophilia, including patient and doctor consent, autonomy, medical laws, and more, but here I focus on the ethical questions of apotemnophilia, from a constructivist and utilitarian perspective in which I argue that patients do have the right to do what they will with their bodies in their own pursuit of happiness, since knowledge and what is or isn’t

From banning alcohol for a certain amount of time to making women's rights a possibility, our country has grown for the positive, and even in the negative. Our laws were created to keep structure and safety for all. Black or white, minor or adult, tall or short, each amendment affects us to be a structured human in our very free society. We assume that law enforcement that we see today has no sense of heart or even justice towards the freedom of others. Throughout the many media outlets and even our many history textbooks, we assume that law enforcement has no sense of dignity, neither the sense of what is right or wrong when it comes to enforcing the laws and regulations of what this country has upheld for many ages. The laws that was created by man and approved by society is there for the safety and control of our country. But, because a man with power becomes drunk from it all, that shouldn’t reflect the ideology behind our rules and regulations of our country, but should show that not every human is perfect when it comes to following the laws, which will help them to grow as a better human and

Overall, people should be more conscious about about the result they could be receiving if they broke the law; although breaking a small regulation does not seem to be a sustainable distribute, it is dispersing harm and risk to the community. Citizens should think before making a foolish decision because the outcome could be worse than

B’s competency can be made through her recognizable reasons. Freedman, as a strong proponent of the view that such reasons fall under both necessary and sufficient conditions to demonstrate some competence, would argue autonomous decisions demonstrate the competence to recognize and uphold one’s best interests. Ms. B’s last assertion is her strongest and most empathetic defense for competency because the thought that “they might take her feet without letting her make the decision” was terrible; it was an outcome she understood the significance of because her autonomy and consent would be overridden by what was deemed ordinary treatment. Freedman stresses that physician judgement on what is rational and what rationality involves imposes a paternalistic stance by placing greater value on physician decision making. Though the premises that all lives are equal and the autonomy to govern one’s medical decisions based on their best interests are not explicitly stated, they are implied in recognizing that she has the right to refuse the amputation even when the outcome of said decision is no more desirable. As this would be an acceptable reason, Freedman would argue Ms. B appeared marginally

There are some laws that protect individuals and society from unnecessary harm, and therefore they are labelled as unlawful conduct to do such things. This can include driving a car over the speed limits, by setting speed limits the governments is protecting drivers of fatal accidents or the smoking age, which is currently at 18 and by this is stopping underage people smoking.

Image a life where you have difficulty defending yourself and nobody can clearly understand you. Now visualize trying to convince others that you are innocent of a crime. Since the early 80s, more than sixty mentally ill criminals have been executed the US (Mental Illness on Death Row). This paper will discuss the relationship between the law and the challenges faced by mentally criminals from tries to appeals and execution. It provides examples of some of the more famous cases of the execution of the mentally ill and describes current legislative. But we would try answer the whether the mentally disabled criminals should be charged with a death penalty. Throughout this paper, we will use Borromeo 's definition of someone with mental issues. He stated "mental retardation is a lifelong condition of impaired or incomplete mental development..." ( Borromeo 178). Some examples of these illnesses include but are not limited to major depression, bipolar disorder, post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder .

There is a phenomenon called apotemnophillia in which otherwise healthy individuals seek out voluntary amputations of one or more of their limbs. Beth is such an individual since she wishes to have her leg amputated for non-medical reasons. She has been known to being fascinated with amputees and in order to fulfil her fantasy, she is looking for a surgeon who is willing to perform the operation. In this paper, I am going to argue that a surgeon should not be allowed to amputate Beth’s leg since it violates the basic principles of medical ethics such as beneficence and non-maleficence.

To those individuals affected with BIID, a severe imbalance exists between mind and body, maybe even ‘spirit’ depending on the individual’s interpretation of their condition. What other than a severe imbalance could cause an individual to desire such drastic action as having a healthy limb electively removed?

Laws serve several purposes in the criminal justice system. The main purpose of criminal law is to protect, serve, and limit human actions and to help guide human conduct. Also, laws provide penalties and punishment against those who are guilty of committing crimes against property or persons. In the modern world, there are three choices in dealing with criminals’ namely criminal punishment, private action and executive control. Although both private action and executive control are advantageous in terms of costs and speed, they present big dangers that discourage their use unless in exceptional situations. The second purpose of criminal law is to punish the offender. Punishing the offender is the most important purpose of criminal law