Julesroges

 From my research on the topic I realized that it is pretty obvious that gaming the organ transplant waiting list is pretty unethical. In order to create a more complex argument, I will further my research on the role of the hospitals and organ allocation organizations. I will research how organizations try to prevent doctors from manipulating the waiting list and how they enforce their rules. The responsibilities of the organ allocation organizations to those waiting for organs conflict with the doctors' responsibilities to their own patients. I believe the rights of the organizations handling organ donations outweigh those of the doctor because the system is responsible for many lives that are waiting on the list for an organ.  How the four pillars factor in this topic:  justice - system needs to make sure that it is working fairly in who gets the organ and when.  beneficence - system needs to do good and ensure they save the most lives possible non-maleficence - d...

 My topic will be on whether or not doctors should manipulate the organ transplant list in order to help their patient receive an organ. In order for a person to move up on the waiting list for an organ transplant, their disease must be more severe than others. A doctor can help a patient move up on the list by giving them more intense treatment to make it seem like their disease is more severe. However, this can come into conflict with the pillars of non-maleficence and justice. First of all, by increasing the strength of treatment, this can negatively affect the patient and could possibly end up killing them. The doctor has to risk inflicting some harm on the patient just for the chance to receive and organ and survive. Second of all, when a doctor helps their patient move up on the waiting list, by effect they are bumping others down on the list. Some people may have been patiently waiting for an organ so it is not just for doctors to scheme their patients way up on the list. A ...

 I find myself taking a position in favor a paternalistic approach. I am pretty far left on the spectrum since I support the use of mandates, such as vaccine and mask mandates in order to promote the common good. It is essential for the government to step in and require everyone to help play their role in stopping the spread of viruses. I believe that during pandemics, such as COVID 19, it is necessary for the government to act as a parents as many people act like children and refuse to do the "right" thing. For example, many people refused to get vaccinated or wear masks because of their political views. In times when people put themselves over the common good I believe it is the government's job to step in and limit their freedom in order to do what is in the best interest of everyone. The biggest weakness in my argument is that vaccine mandates may not always be in the benefit of the people because some believe there are adverse effects from them. If these vaccines can...

For my topic, I would like to explore vaccine mandates and the viewpoints of those that are supporters and opponents of vaccine mandates. This issue has become very controversial in recent years with COVID-19 and the global pandemic. Supporters of vaccine mandates argue that they are necessary because it is for the common good and benefits everyone involved. This argue they are important in order to protect those that are more susceptible to viruses, such as COVID-19. On the other hand, opponents argue that these mandates impede on individual autonomy over their own body. They argue that if the government is able to mandate vaccines they will be able to continue to expand their power over the people. Many people that refuse to get mandatory vaccines do so due to religious, medical, or personal reasons. Opponents to vaccine mandates also believe that these vaccines can be harmful and have detrimental effects on those that receive them. However, supporters argue that science has proved t...

A new idea that I want to explore in the characters of Grey's Anatomy is how much they have to sacrifice or risk for their job. As doctors that are on call, many of these doctors are tired and do not get enough sleep for a few days. They sacrifice their own well being for the well being of their patients. These doctors are also willing to risk their jobs for their patients, especially when they act against the laws or rules of the hospital in an attempt to do good for their patients.  Another new idea is the conflict between forming relationships with patients and being professional. A lot of the time, the doctors in the series build strong bonds with their patients. This sometimes clouds their judgement and leads them to act off their emotions instead of facts. Furthermore, this struggle between empathy and professionalism is seen in Meredith Grey and Richard Webber. As a young intern, Meredith tends to have a soft spot for all her patients making her willing to break the rules mo...

 I have watched the first 15 seasons of Grey’s Anatomy. This show has an ensemble cast in which we get to see romantic relationships as well as the power dynamic and relationship between interns, residents, and attending doctors. In this series, the doctors go above and beyond to help their patients, even if it means breaking the rules or laws. For example, the main character, Meredith Grey alters a clinical drug trial by switching a patient’s drug from placebo to experimental. She does this to help a patient receive an actual treatment that could possibly cure her instead of wasting time on a placebo drug. In another instance, multiple doctors help a man afford surgery and treatment for his daughter by committing insurance fraud. These doctors are willing to sacrifice their job in order to help their patients. They display values such as empathy, compassion, and selflessness. As one of the most successful series, Grey’s Anatomy has influenced pop culture and now we expect medical ...

 This is my dog, Loki.