What Foucault Calls `` Bio Power `` Essay

In this essay I will analyze James Rachel’s Smith and Jones case for active and passive euthanasia. I will additionally give an ethical reasoning for why I either agreed or disagreed with his opinion. I will furthermore show how he lures our attention to the dissimilarities amongst his view of killing and allowing someone to die. I will also refine my propositions and reaction of this case in the issue of active and passive euthanasia. Defending Rachel’s case I will argue why I sided with him for his moral argument.

The biggest key to it is that there must be control over the advancement of technology. Every good thing in this world has a point where it starts to become a problem with negative effects and this includes technology concerning a person’s health. In the essay Priorities in Biomedical Ethics by James F. Childress, he says “It is limited and constrained by nature itself, by moral principles and rules, and by ultimate loyalty and responsibility to God” (Childress p.4 1981).These moral principles that he is talking about are the ones concerning a person’s health being downgraded after the procedure and that it is not morally right to keep them alive (Childress 1981). Then when he mentions the responsibility to God, he means that God controls when someone’s health declines to the point of death and that, we as his creations, should not go against him. The fact people are kept alive in artificial ways to where they cannot live to the standards that God wants them to, is going against our responsibility to God (Childress 1981). James Childress goes on to say that human’s control over nature can be destructive at times because when we as humans start defying God we are committing a sin. He does say however that we can put limits on our technology to where we don’t sin as heavily towards God. Then he says “If a society views death as an enemy, always to be opposed, it

“Is it worse to kill someone than to let someone die?” – James Rachels. At the end of the disagreement, many philosophers say euthanasia, also known as physician-assisted suicide, is a compassionate method of death. At the other side are the opponents of euthanasia, who may consider this technique as a form of murder. In this paper, I will show that it is not important to know the distinction between killing and letting die on request which is performed by a physician. Both killing and letting die on request are similar because it is based on the controversial issue called euthanasia also known as physician-assisted suicide.

The implications of this affected thinking on assisted death and suicide. The biological and integrative definition of death was not able to be applied as consistently as neocortical brain death. Also, the slippery-slope argument against Pojman and Puccetti’s definition framed it as if personhood and body were connected, when they were actually separate. Neocortical brain death also had favourable implications regarding organ transplant because of the number of organs that would become available if this position was readily accepted. By using an argument by analogy, I was also able to demonstrate that this definition was in agreement with utilitarianism, deontology, and the general public against the biological whole brain definition. In doing so, the implications of the Pojman-Puccetti position were favourable regarding the neocortical brain death

The thin line between life and death has become an ethical issue many health care providers and the government have long tried to ignore. The understanding that life begins at birth, and ends when the heartbeat and breathing have ceased has long been deemed factual. Medical technologies have changed this with respirators, artificial defibrillators, and transplants (Macionis, 2009). “Thus medical and legal experts in the United States define death as an irreversible state involving no response to stimulation, no movement or breathing, no reflexes, and no indication of brain activity” (Macionis, 2009, p. 436).

Without power and control our lives would be chaos, but with the right amount we can lead a good life. In ‘The Truman Show’, Weir shows the theme power and control with the whole aspect of Truman’s life and how it is not owned by him. All the power over Truman’s life is held in the hands of Kristof, the director of the show, which is Truman’s life. He holds the power of what the traffic would be like, how Truman’s boss would treat him, how many birthday presents he gets, how his wife treats him, things like that. But when Truman figures out this higher power in his life, he challenges that power and wants the power of his life to be in his own hands. But Truman also had enormous power of the whole show. Maybe not his life but he had power over the show. What if Truman decided to kill himself? What would Kristoff do then? Kristoff wouldn’t have power over Truman’s life because Truman wouldn’t have a life. In this way Truman actually has a gigantic amount of power. Similarly ‘Animal Farm’, Orwell suggest that power and control must be in the animal 's own hands. But some of the animals want all the power and all the control for themselves. For example Napoleon the pig wants all the control and power over the farm. He even kills and tricks to get there. Before he had all the power and control, all the pigs were in charge. Snowball was the pig that the animals turned to for advice and he came up with all the plans for the animal’s future, but Napoleon wanted all the

Much of modern medicine prolongs not only living, but also dying. Physician-assisted suicide is a quite controversial topic as it brings up questions about the morality of killing, the credibility of consent, and the duty of physicians. This is not a new problem; assisted suicide has been discussed in all cultures from very early historical times to the present. However, medicine's recent technological progress has led to an increased ability to extend life. This new potential has made this problem much more pressing than it has in the past. I believe opposition to assisted suicide is in error not only because it does not allow for mercy, but also because the position does not take into account one's autonomy. I

Physician assisted death, often referred to as death with dignity or euthanasia, is a practice that is debated globally and practiced limitedly. It is when a physician helps a patient with a terminal condition carry out their elective death, usually through prescriptions or other medical means. The debate regarding this controversial practice has many sides, one being the defense of the sanctity of life. This claim operates on the premise that human lives have innate value as determined by God, and therefore physician assisted death is an unjust practice and an invalidation of the worth of human life. However, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sartre, it becomes evident that each individual creates and determines their own significance,

Physician-assisted suicide, also known as euthanasia, has been a hot topic as of late. If you do not know what this is, physician-assisted suicide is the taking of ones life. This usually occurs when a patient is in a irreversible state, and must live through a tube. With multiple cases occurring in the past, current and the more to occur the in the future, this looks to remain a hot topic. Some of those cases include Terri Schiavo, and Scott Thomas, which have both resulted in court cases and conversation all around the globe. Physician-assisted suicide is one of those topics that can be looked at multiple ways, and have multiple different solutions. Someone could look and justify it through the lens of Natural law and could bring up the doctrine of double effects, or the preservation of human life. Another person could go against it by using utilitarianism and could bring up how it maximizes the good, and produces the greatest overall good. Whether you find it to be murder/suicide or just a smarter decision if you cannot life properly, you must realize this is an issue that does need to be discussed more. Even with the attention it has gotten, it still is not discussed politically, and is not up there with other popular topics in our media today. If someone is in a state where he or she has to live off a tube is he or she really even alive?

What is bioethics? According to Michigan State University, School of Medicine, it is defined as an activity that is shared, reflective, examination of ethical issues in healthcare, health science and health policy. It is the discussion of the information that should be given to the patient and the patients right to refuse or accept that information. It involves doctors and patients but scientists and politicians and the general public. It has brought significant change but also raises new questions. In any event the topic of discussion and the purpose of this term paper is to explore biology and the ethics of this natural science. The topic of this paper is Physician Assisted Suicide; it has been widely debated amongst doctors, patients, politicians and law makers. The question that will be explored is the fact of if this is wrong or right to do. The purpose of physician assisted suicide, as well as how humans manipulated this phenomenon, and the controversy of this topic, amongst other prevalent information will be discussed. There will be some court cases that will be mentioned to prove when it should be used and when it should not be used. I will attempt to provide my position to this topic, although it may be hard to do so. Laws in which PAS can be done will be mentioned as well as other alternatives to it. I hope and pray this is sufficient.

First what is Biopower? Well according to Foucault, biopower is a technology of power, which is a way of managing and controlling entire populations. Biopower led to the emergence of the modern nation state and capitalism. Foucault describes it as "an explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugations of bodies and the control of populations” (Foucault 140). The primary and most important goal of biopower is life. The government goal is to secure and improve people’s lives. Power is exercised exclusively over life, and is exercised either to foster life or to disallow it. Biopower according to Foucault is a power that “exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavours to

The deliberate act of ending another 's life, given his or her consent, is formally referred to as euthanasia. At present, euthanasia is one of the most controversial social-ethical issues that we face, in that it deals with a sensitive subject matter where there is much uncertainty as to what position one ought to take. Deliberately killing another person is presumed by most rational people as a fundamental evil act. However, when that person gives his or her consent to do so, this seems to give rise to an exceptional case. This can be illustrated in the most common case of euthanasia, where the person who is willing to die suffers from an illness that causes great pain, and will result in his or her demise in the not-so-distant future.

Agamben also uses the biopolitics of the Nazi regime to draw a parallel to liberal, democratic societies in the sense that it shows that all societies have the same line in which, when crossed, one becomes homo sacer. This is the ‘state of exception’, the point in which the sovereign decides, “Which life may be killed without the commission of a homicide” . Agamben leads the argument for the ‘state of exception’ onto one regarding euthanasia. This can be seen as the sovereign uses the ‘state of exception’ to deem ‘brain dead’ people as ‘bare life’. They possess no economic merit to the state and so their life is “devoid of value” . The sovereign as a person, who holds the power to decide whether a person is ‘bios’ or ‘zoe’, falls to people who preside over the health of the individual, he/she can be “a doctor, a psychiatrist, and a jurist” . As these represent the affluent class of society, this shows that biopower is inevitably connected to economic worth.

With reference to at least three of the four thinkers whose work we discussed in class, and in response to one of the following quotations, write an account of the Societies of Control:

Euthanasia is defined as, "The act or practice of putting to death painlessly a person suffering from an incurable disease." Euthanasia can be traced back as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. It was sometimes allowed in these civilizations to help others die. Voluntary euthanasia was approved in these ancient societies. Today, the practice of euthanasia causes great controversy. Both pro-life groups and right-to-die groups present arguments for their different sides. Pro-life groups make arguments and present fears against euthanasia. I contend that the case for the right to die is the stronger argument.