Biomedical Ethics, taught online during the winter break by Professor Moore, was an intriguing course due to its analysis of controversial issues in today’s medical field. We had to formulate our own opinions and debate and converse with classmates on our ideals. This course was beneficial to me for Nursing because I will be faced with decision making that forces me to stop and put aside bias to make the lawful solution.
This artifact is my interpretation of the debate on the value of life when dealing with euthanasia patients.
“The “fault line” between “liberal” and “conservative views was explained and addressed with three solutions. Those solutions being conflation, compromise, and selection. Although the authors of this chapter believe that all three solutions are not probable, I believe that compromise has the greatest influence on dealing with value of life arguments. The book states that, “even if some members of the liberal and conservative camps agree on a practical judgement, typically their moral assessment and reasons will differ.” But does differing reasoning truly matter? If there can be laws legislated that offered benefits to both parties why should it matter if the parties are happy with legislation for different reasons? It should not matter, and compromise, such as on abortion cases, should be an enough solution to put down the debate on value of life. The book’s overall conclusion about the value of using the value of life in bioethics is that including value of life arguments cannot be solved with conflation, compromise, and selection. I disagree with this statement and believe that a compromise must be made in order for the fault line to disappear. Without including the value of life in bioethics, then these issues would not be resolved. “
