What is that requirement?

Learning Goal: I’m working on a writing multi-part question and need an explanation and answer to help me learn.of 3 Automatic Zoom Actual Size Page Fit Page Width 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 200% 300% 400% Module 6 Reading Questions Read the following selections from our text: Truog and Miller “The Dead Donor Ruler and Organ Transplantation” (pp 338-340) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs “Withholding and Withdrawing…” (pp 341-343) Michel “Suicide by Persons with Disabilities…” (pp 348-354) Mappes “Some Reflections on Advanced Directives” (pp 363-370) News Articles (these are located in Module 6 in the submodule ‘Module 6 Reading Questions Material’) “Let’s Change the Rules for Organ Donation” “Complexities of Choosing an End Game for Dementia” Respond to the questions here and submit to the Module 6 Reading Questions Assignment Dropbox. Truog and Miller article questions: 1. Organ transplantation is guided by one “overarching ethical requirement.” What is that requirement? (And make sure to state what it requires) 2. Why was the redefinition of death by the ad hoc committee at Harvard related to the dead donor rule? 3. Truog and Miller say that the arguments about why brain dead patients should be considered dead have not been entirely convincing. What are some of the reasons they mention? What overall “uncomfortable” conclusion do they draw? 4. Truog and Miller say that the dead donor rule has again been challenged by a different practice—what is that practice? And why do they say this practice (and the accompanying conception of death that goes along with it) is problematic? 5. Why do Truog and Miller say that reliance on the dead donor rule and its need to rely on a definition of death has undermined trust in the transplantation enterprise? 6. According to Truog and Miller, why has reliance on the dead donor rule compromised the goals of transplantation? 7. How do Truog and Miller propose to characterize the ethical requirements for organ transplantation? What reasons do they point to in support of their view? Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs questions: 1. Explain why “the withdrawing or withholding of life-sustaining treatment is not inherently contrary to the principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence” (p 341). Use your own words. 2. Explain the distinction between extraordinary vs ordinary treatment. Give an example of a treatment that can be considered ordinary in one context but extraordinary in another context. Be specific.You can make use of Handout: Ordinary vs Extraordinary Treatment. 3. What does the Council say about the status of artificial nutrition and hydration—how does the Council itself view ANH? 4. The Council claims that there is no ethical difference between withdrawing and withholding life-sustaining treatment, and offers three reasons for this. Explain each reason. 5. What are some areas of concern with allowing an expansive policy of respecting a patient’s requests regarding life-sustaining treatments? (p 342) Michel questions: 1. What are the three basic types of cases involving refusals of life-sustaining treatment? Which type will Michel focus on? 2. The types of cases that Michel focuses on have been described by the courts as cases involving patients refusing life-sustaining treatment. How does Michel propose we view them instead? 3. Michel says that correctly describing the cases she wants to focus on is important (page 349). Why does she think it is important to correctly describe these cases? Explain in your own words. 4. What general point does Michel draw from her discussion of the Larry McAfee case (p 351)? 5. What general conclusion is Michel arguing for? Mappes article questions: 1. What, according to Mappes, are some benefits of a living will? 2. What is one common shortcoming to living wills? Explain. 3. Why might advanced directives be “hopelessly vague”? 4. Does Mappes think everyone should have an advanced directive? He discusses some reasons that he says are good reasons for having a proxy designation. What are they? And what are some good reasons for having a living will? (His discussion of all this is on pages 366-368 in the section “The Relative Value of Advanced Directives”). 5. Does Mappes think it is sometimes justified to not honor a living will? In what sort of cases? (there are three types of cases) 6. What is the “past wishes versus present interests problem”? Be thorough and explain in your own words. 7. Mappes says that related to the past-wishes-versus-present interests problem is the problem of personal identity? What is that problem? 8. Describe the case of Albert H and what moral issues it raises. 9. What is the problem of incompetent revocation? What moral questions does it raise? Reflection Questions: After reading the article “Complexities of Choosing an End Game for Dementia” (questions 1-3) and “Let’s Change the Rules for Organ Donation” (question 4) and thinking about the ideas in the readings from the text, address the following questions: 1. (Background questions) What is VSED (refer to the news article )? What is the “new” debate about it, according to the news article? What is the main “dizzying” moral and ethical issue raised by the article?What does Jerome Medalie want? Why wouldn’t he qualify for VSED? 2. If Medalie eventually becomes incapacitated by dementia, and using ideas from the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs article from the text (in particular, questions 1,2, and 3 you answered for this reading), what would be important to think about regarding Medalie’s request? Would it be morally acceptable or not? 3. From the Mappes article, review what the past wishes/present interests problem is (question 6). If in the future Medalie becomes happily demented, how should health care providers resolve the past wishes/present interests problem as it relates to Medalie? Would they be justified in refusing to honor his living will? What do you think generally about Medalie’s request (whether or not he becomes happily demented)—should his request be honored? Why or why not? 4. Based on the piece “Let’s Change the Rules for Organ Donation,” what is the proposed change to organ donation outlined in the piece? Would Truog and Miller agree with that change? Why or why not? What do you think?
Requirements: 2 pages   |   .doc file

Calculate the price of your order

550 words
We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM
Total price:
$26
The price is based on these factors:
Academic level
Number of pages
Urgency
Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Read more

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Read more

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Read more

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Read more

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.

Read more