Please she’s the attach file
must answer all discusion questions. Need by tomorrow night 9 pm
1) http://www.radiolab.org/story/playing-god/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
The country has been hit by a pandemic. Those who come down with the flu can recover but they will need the help of a ventilator to get healthy. There are a limited number of ventilators. How do you believe they should be distributed? (1) They should be distributed in order to save the most years of life. (2) They should be distributed to those who will be most helpful during the pandemic like doctors, first responders, nurses, etc. (3) Who receives a ventilator should be left up to a lottery or first come, first serve.
Do you think any value issues like gender, race, socio-economic status, criminal history, immigration status should be taken into consideration when distributing ventilators under the model you chose?
Under what conditions during the event would it be acceptable to remove a ventilator from one person and give it to another?
2) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html (Links to an external site.)
Complete the questions in the viewing set (see below) as you watch the documentary. Then read the link titled, Making Arguments II (see below), on evidence and follow carefully the directions here. This forum requires three postings in all — one reply to the forum question and two replies to classmates.
For the utilitarian philosopher, policies are good that provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number. So what then is the relationship of profit and happiness? Should maximizing profit be seen as basically identical to maximizing happiness for all? In the case of health care, whether receiving it or providing it, are there really any choices here to make? Everyone wants good health care because the alternative (i.e., bad health care) is genuinely life threatening. But then if there is only one sustainable way to consistently provide people good health care then we wouldn’t actually have any choices to make here. This week’s video asks the question of whether there are any clear, viable, real-world alternatives to the US model of a market driven health system. It describes five health care systems, those of Great Britain, Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland and, through the comparisons it makes with these four, the United States.
Forum Question: Which of these four do you think a person or group of persons aiming to maximize the happiness of the most people would choose to implement for a nation? Is this the one you would choose? Why or why not?
3) The issue of medical paternalism might not seem such a big issue if sometimes doctors and medical practitioners did not seem to really go off into left field on occasion. I’d like you to consider this issue as you listen to the Radio Lab documentary Help! located at:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/117165-help/ (Links to an external site.)
The specific story you need need begins at minute 41 in the broadcast and goes to minute 56.
THE QUESTION: Is it ethical for medical professionals to deceive their patients if doing so could vastly improve their health or even save their life?
Hugh Herr intends to develop prosthetics that go beyond correcting for disabling conditions. He wants to create prosthetics that would allow the body to go beyond its natural limits. Would you place limits on surgical implantation of technological prosthetic enhancements? If you would place such limits where would you place them and why?
Now, consider the technologies (pharmaceutical and surgical) involved in sex reassignment procedures. Can you apply the ethical guidelines you developed for prosthetic enhancements to the technologies that alter gender?