Case study analysis from three different perspectives Essays

Case study analysis from three different perspectives Essays Case study analysis from three different perspectives Essay Case study analysis from three different perspectives Essay Case study analysis from three different perspectives Name Course Date Case study analysis from three different perspectives Ethics applies to all activities that are carried out by human beings. These are the principles that guide people in their professions. Different professions have established distinct but related ethical guidelines. The field of health is not exempted from moral and ethical standings. One of the major ethical debates is based on the issue of organ donation and the transplant process. In the case study, the doctor applies the procedural rule of first come first served. This essay provides a commentary to three perspectives on the ethical issues that arise from the procedural rule. 1. The first come first served rule should apply to all patients. In addition, the procedure should not take in to consideration the physical and financial aspect of the patient. In this case, the street person has greater chances of producing better health results than the lawyer. However, the street person has limited finances to cater for the follow-up process. The cost of treatment after the corneal transplant will require numerous procedures in order to reduce his vulnerability to other complications. However, the lawyer presents a valuable asset to society. He has a family he plays an important role in providing for his family. He is also less likely to incur further complications after surgery. In addition, the lawyer has the financial capability to cater for the follow-up process. He is also invaluable to society as he provides legal services to many people. This argument does not look into the character or potential of the street person. It is therefore unethical as the street person is discriminated based on the financial aspect. It is unethical for doctors to be bias based on prominence and wealth (Garret, et.al, 2009). The street child requires an equal and similar opportunity to the prominent lawyer. Though the lawyer has a family that relies on him, the street person is also a member of the same society as the lawyer. The lawyer may offer a viable option because of his status in society, but according to the law, everyone should have equal opportunities in the provision of healthcare whether rich or poor. 2. It is ethical for the doctor to use the first come first served rule. However, the doctor should consider the outcome of the procedure on both patients. The lawyer presents the possibility of better outcome compared to the street person. In addition, he does not have a history of illness and has fewer chances of complications after the transplant. However, this perspective should also consider the street person. Event though the lawyer presents better chances, the street person is also a patient that requires an organ. The outcome of the transplant should be taken into consideration, but the rule must apply equally either way. The street person also has the potential of benefiting society just like the lawyer. 3. This perspective differs with the rule of first come first served. The alcoholic patient presents fewer chances of following up on his treatment regimen. He also has numerous health complications that might plunge him into further health risks. The view of society is important in the medical field. However, this view should not contradict the ethical principles that guide the practice of medicine. The lawyer presents a better option as he makes a significant contribution to societal development. However, judging the alcoholic as an insignificant member of society is unethical. Alcoholics have the opportunity to change and live productive lives just like the lawyer. Patients should not be judged according to their character, as they deserve equal treatment and care. The physician is therefore correct in the procedural rule he employs. These two patients should pass through the transplant process based on their medical requirements. Therefore, the value of human life should be the p rimary consideration. References Garrett, T. M., Baillie, H. W., Garrett, R. M. (2009). Health care ethics: Principles and problems. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Proposed Act Would Give Federal Agents Power

Proposed Act Would Give Federal Agents Power Pornography is a big deal in America and arguably has its place. While New York City, Miami and Los Angeles are all cities with big porno markets, this week, record porn site hits came from another city.   Cleveland. Ohio! During the 2016 Republican National Convention, the number of people watching pornography videos surpassed the number of people who watched the Cavaliers win the NBA Championship. Yup. Turns out, Trump is good for the porn business. A record setting 873,294 videos were viewed in The Buckeye State after Trump’s name was put into pornographic search engines. Who knew the party of Lincoln drips with erotica? Since this subject is trending, let’s see if we can tie it in with animal rights. Yes we can! There’s a connection, and it’s very disturbing. First, a little background. Bestiality, or, sex with animals, is legal in plenty of states. But it’s not enough you know that, just for fun, I’m going to call them out on it so those who live in these states can get busy on the legislation needed to outlaw this sick stuff. Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Montana, Washington, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, Vermont , Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming and, not surprisingly, the District of Columbia. Humans are not the only ones being screwed by politicians in D.C. Oh, and you can have intimate relations with a non-human in Guam with complete immunity. As if sexual abuse of  animals isn’t bad enough, some sickos just can’t stop until the animal or animals are tortured and killed for sexual pleasure. Just ask Brent Justice, 54, and his girlfriend, Ashley Richards, 25. This deranged Houston couple was  arrested in 2012 for making and distributing dozens of â€Å"crush videos† where animals were tortured by the couple while the couple engaged in sexual acts. Graphic details of what this entails can be found here. Puncturing a kitten’s eye with a high heel shoe is just the beginning. Don’t look if you can’t deal with the facts of the case. It’s not really important that you make yourself sick. What’s important is that you take action. More on that later. The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act passed during the Legislative Session of the 111th Congress in 2010 prohibited the trade in pornographic videos in which animal cruelty is depicted. It states, in part:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Each of the several states and the District of Columbia criminalize intentional acts of extreme animal cruelty, such as the intentional crushing, burning, drowning, suffocating or impaling of animals for no socially redeeming purpose.† As if any of that can ever be sold to the public  as socially redeeming. The exact text of the Act can be found on GovTrack.US. Of course, nothing is ever easy so there are limits to what this law does. In a nutshell, the trade in crush videos is illegal but the act of animal cruelty isn’t. It’s confusing. So now, the 114th Congress which concludes in January, 2017, has been asked to plug up the loopholes in the 2010 act. Specifically, H.R. 2293 was introduced by Rep. Lamar Smith, (R-TX), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Tom Marino (R-PA) and Earl Blumenthal (D-CT). The Senate bill, 1831, was introduced by Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT). Entitled the Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT), this bill would prohibit the extreme acts of animal cruelty depicted  in the videos. It would also provide federal prosecutors with the ammo they need to prosecute offenders when the offense is occurring in a federal jurisdiction or interstate commerce. Federal agents would be permitted to pursue animal cruelty charges revealed while agents are  investigating another interstate violation, such as drug trafficking. Prosecutors could also stop to the transport of animals for the purpose of bestiality, even if the crime occurs in one of the states listed above. Ann Chynoweth is the Vice President of the Animal Cruelty Campaign for the Humane Society of the United States. She believes the PACT Act is sensible, bi-partisan legislation that would outlaw extreme acts of animal cruelty that occur on federal property or in interstate commerce.   â€Å"The PACT Act would strengthen current federal law that outlaws the commerce in crush videos where animals are tortured for a sexual fetish.   It would give federal prosecutors the ability to not only prosecute the peddlers of these hideous videos, but also those who crush, burn, drown, suffocate or otherwise torture animals to make them,† says Ms. Chynoweth.   â€Å"There is a documented connected between animal cruelty and human violence and that is why the National Sheriffs’ Association and more than 200 law enforcement agencies from across the country have endorsed the PACT Act.† So what can you do? â€Å"Not much is moving now during the presidential elections,† says Laura Bevan, Southeast Regional Director for the HSUS. But that doesn’t mean that after November, lawmakers can sit back and rest. No, they need to get back to the task at hand, passing laws to make life better for animals because animals have an inherent right to live their lives and make their way in the world without human intervention. So find out who your reps are (you can do so here) and call, email and visit them to urge them to support the PACT act. This shouldn’t be controversial, and there’s no appropriate argument against passage of this act.