Essay on Kant Vs Mill on the Issue of Lying

In the article “Kidneys for Sale: A Reconsideration,” the author, Miriam Schulman raises the notoriously controversial issue regarding organ sale. He describes the main ideas from both the supporting and the opposing side to give readers a wider view about organ sales.

Given the difficulty surrounding the current organ donation process and the need for more donors, it is important that the system is reformed. One patient’s wishes do not need to compromised for the other’s. However, if doctors were given more leeway to access the situation on an case by case basis, allowed to question dying patients further, and take the needed measures to preserve organs, then more lives could be saved. In many instances, there is simply nothing to be done to save a dying patient, yet there is still hope for someone waiting for a transplant. Therefore, the needs of the potential organ recipient should be given more

To further commend her argument, Satel analyzed the short term amd long term risks an organ donor faces and to a reasonably fact, “The truth is that a normal person can get along perfectly well with one kidney. The risk a donor runs is that his single functioning kidney will become deceased or injured and he’ll need a transplant himself—a highly unlikely event” (Satel 451).

With people making important decisions about their body every day the subject of organ donation becomes increasingly important. For years, the topic has been the source of many controversial debates regarding its ethical and moral ideations. Organ donation should remain voluntary for several reasons: first and foremost it is still considered a donation. Next, patients and their families should have the right to say no to medical procedures. And, lastly, bodily autonomy should be respected by healthcare professionals. Many argue, however, that organ donation should be mandatory as to decrease not only the time spent on an organ donation list but also the risks of mortality while waiting for a new organ. Families often have the final say in

In the essay " Kidneys for Sale: A Reconsideration" by Miriam Schulman, kidneys are fair in our lives. The writer talks with important things in our lives related to our organs specificly kidneys. Everyday almost 17 people die when they wait for a suitable organ. In 2011, in United States, kidney transplants were about 15,417. They had a healthy way to transplant kidneys to other people. As they got it tested wheather if they can accept it or not. After transplangt there has been seen no harm. Ninty percent of people got kidneys from a living- donor and 82 % of people from died-donor. When they get it from poor people, they remain still alive at least five years. Actually the poor people sell their kidneys.

Deciding who receives an organ can be a tough decision, it can also be a controversial one. Being a living donor can be a great way to show autonomy; however, in some cases, a living donor can feel coerced into giving organs. According to Susan Lim, it is difficult to tell the difference between a voluntary autonomous donation and a coerced donation (Video). It is common for coerced living donations to come from a submissive spouse, inlaw, servant, slave, or an employee (Video). Furthermore, it is extremely common for a family member to give an organ due to the pressure from family dynamics (pg. 640). Some living donations can truly be voluntary and an autonomy decision, but more than likely living donations have some influence from pressure.

Kant argues the it is never permissible to lie as it is immoral. He believes a lie harms humanity and our entire social life. He then states "it is never permissible to lie, even if by lying we could save a friend from being murdered. Although Kant believes it is immoral to lie, it may sometimes be immoral to speak the truth. When speaking the truth it may improve their life but that is not always the case. If we speak the truth to cause pointless embarrassment or harm to one another it is just as bad as lying to them. The truth is sometimes more damaging than useful and will make that person rethink of what they have been doing and a worse life experience. Sometimes the truth should be avoided if it is to cause pointless pain and

“An ethical dilemma exists when a choice has to be made in which the consequences may have a potential positive or negative outcome.”("Topic 4: Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas (How do managers evaluate beginning-of-life dilemmas?). ", n.d.) The given scenario presents a patient named Jamilah Shah, who is of Turkish descent, 90 years old and collapsed at the side of her bed in the extended care facility in which she resides. The patient suffers from Chronic Pulmonary disease and diabetes mellitus. The patient was rushed to the ER were the EKG and lab tests revealed she suffered a heart attack and she was started on anticoagulants. The patient has no advance directives and a communication barrier exists, the ER department contacts the emergency contact, one of the patient 's sons Bashir. The patient 's family arrives at the hospital and her son states that he makes the decisions and the wants a do not resuscitate order for his mother and no medical intervention other than comfort care. The social worker handling Jamilahs case is concerned by her family 's lack of support and that the family 's wishes are at odds with the patient 's request for help and her expressed desire to live. Furthermore if the patient does not receive a cardiac catheterization or is considered for a coronary bypass, she will surely die.

Available became controversial. While the question of the dialysis machine is still controversial, the health system was caught in another ethical dilemma regarding organ transplantation. Organ transplantation is closely linked to the issue of cleanliness because patients with kidney failure can get an organ transplant as an alternative to hemodialysis. The issue is complicated by the fact Medicare is financed by organ transplant, and there are those who believe that the distribution of rare transplant is not right. There are thousands of terminal patients whose lives can be saved by organ transplantation, but there are no formulas of work that can be used to determine which of the thousands of patients will be given priority. It is left to the discretion of medical officers to decide who is worth saving. The ability to keep someone alive by replacing one or more of their major organs is a splendid achievement of medicine of the 20th century.

The emergency physician evaluated the patient. The plan of care was explained to the patient and a possible admission to the hospital will be beneficial since the patient was not well enough to go home. However, the patient expressed the need to go home because of the funeral arrangement to attend the patient 's father. The patient tearfully explained the reason of his persistence in going home after hemodialysis treatment, despite of all explanations given to the patient.

Kant’s deontology emphasizes the importance of rationality, consistency, and respect for people in the way we live our lives. In his eyes absolute morals cannot be violated no matter the circumstance and all people could act the same way. This is a requirement of universalizablity which means that these morals that are created by everyone have to be able to be applied to everyone. For example, if someone were to put a gun to your head and say that if you didn’t give the name of a prisoner to shoot they will shoot ten more prisoners. Is this situation rational? Kant says no. By giving up the name of that prisoner you would essentially be killing them. In Kant’s view

In today’s world, it is oft believed that “happiness is the key to life,” in other words, when one achieves happiness, life is supremely fulfilling, satisfying, and could not be improved by any measurable means. I disagree with this proposition, alongside modern philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. In this essay I will argue, utilizing theories from Kant and Mill and incorporating my own ideas in support, that virtue is the ultimate key to living a fulfilling life. In support of my position, I will cite theories from both Kant and Mill, as well as related concepts from other philosophers, including the “experience machine.”

In this essay I will cover the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. I will begin by covering Kant perspective of rational beings and his idea of a priori learning. I will then move on to his idea of categorical imparaitive. After Kant I will discuss Mill’s utilitarian theory regarding pleasure and pain. With a better understanding of those I will move to Mill’s idea of a posteriori and hypothetical imperative. Following the ideas of these philosophers I will attempt to depict their viewpoints of the issue of animal cruelty through experimentation. To conclude the essay I will state my stance and who’s side, if either, I take in the animal cruelty controversy.

Anna has donated blood, bone marrow and stem cells, and now is being told she must donate one of her kidneys. She has had enough. It saddens her to know she was conceived as an organ bank, and she wants her chance at a normal life without all the trips to the operating room. She may be young but she’s bright and determined, and she decides to file a lawsuit against her parents for “medical emancipation.”

Due to Pascari’s Hindu culture and her family’s faith in the Hindu religion, her parents were against the transplant surgery. Several different doctors were consulted for the patients, assessment and still they all said similar things, and she was going to die without the new kidney. Organ transplant is typically the minimum normal decision, however since the patient was so young, and the kidneys were collapsing. Utilizing the LEARN demonstrate rules, doctors could completely appreciate the seriousness of the circumstance from the family’s point of view. “L” implied that they should first tune in with sensitivity. Pascari was the only child the couple had and they were just about to lose her. This whole circumstance was extremely difficult