Three Discussion Questions

Oct 29, 2007 15:11

Please answer the questions as honestly as possible ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Comments 9

helluvahat October 29 2007, 23:38:37 UTC
Are there answers to these questions? I mean I think I know what I think but I'd like to know what the real answers are.

Reply

knigel October 30 2007, 00:15:02 UTC
Heh, I'm looking for your answers. I just made them up; therefore, I have no answers for them -- yet.

Reply


dragonappartion October 30 2007, 00:17:20 UTC
Milbert- [you've been watching L+O SVU] The judge was wrong, as the tumor was the cause of his actions changing his normal behaviour.

Dr. Froop- If he was so sure, he should have been able to gain funding another way, through his research data up to that point.

Dr. Eve Eel- yes she should continue. She went to great lengths to make sure Karl was in a sound mental state, and thus his consent should stand up in court.

Reply

knigel October 30 2007, 00:29:39 UTC
L+O SVU?

Reply

magickhands October 30 2007, 15:54:47 UTC
law and order special victims unit

Reply

frankie23 October 30 2007, 20:06:08 UTC
Pretty much what she said, though I disagree in the scenario with Dr. Eel; modern scientific practice is founded on the concept that seriously radical experiments are not performed on humans. Regardless of his consent, a board of ethics inquiry would likely disagree with her, and thus strip her of her license. Such a risk cannot be worth the unknown potential reward, due to the innate, unavoidable fact that the results might not be useful. If it was certain that useful, earthshakingly informative results would be found, that might be different, but with a lack of such guarantee, her ethics would likely be found to be faulty.

Reply


candacepoet1 November 2 2007, 11:01:52 UTC
I'm going to be in the minority and will probably draw a lot of "gunfire," but I think in the last cases, the doctor MUST comply with the ethics s/he has sworn to uphold. From Plato to Aristotle to Kant, over and over the message is that one must obey the law, even if one feels it to be wrong. Work for the change in the law, yes, but in the final gambit, one must bow to the law. In the first case, I am undecided. I think perhaps that the judge was overly strict in his application of the law. There are mitigating circumstances, that can be proved medically. I personally would have sentenced him perhaps to house arrest for a relatively short time and periodic checkups for a longer time.
Love and Light, Candace

Reply


shine_to_shame November 11 2007, 10:56:11 UTC
I'll try and answer later. Check this out, though; it's very much related.

http://www.myspace.com/experimentalphilosophy

Reply


robotics_girl December 21 2010, 01:44:22 UTC
HEY!

Long time no speak
how are you?

Obviously i've been off LJ in a LONG time, looks like you too.

Hope you are well
miss ya!

Reply


Leave a comment

Up