<p>The two most controversial ends of life decisions are those in which physicians help patients take their lives and when the physician deliberately and directly intervenes to end the patients’ life upon his request. These are often referred to as voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide have continued to be controversial public issues. This controversy has agitated the minds of great thinkers including ethicians, physicians, psychologists, moralists, philosophers even the patient himself. Hence the physician, patient, the public and policy makers have recently had to face several difficult questions.</p><p>Is it morally right to end the life of the patients? Is there any moral difference at all between Voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide? Should a terminally ill patient be allowed to take his life and should the medical profession have the option of helping the patient die. Should voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide be legalised at all? And what actually will be the legal and moral implications if they are allowed.</p><p>In a bid to find a lasting solution to these moral problems and questions has led to two different strong positions viz opponents and proponents of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. The centre of my argument in this work is not to develop new general arguments for or against voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to make a critical ethical comparative analysis of voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. This is the focus of my work. The sole aim of this work is neither to solely condemn nor to support voluntary euthanasia and physician assisted suicide but to critically analyze the two since we live in a world of pluralism.</p>

<p>Science and technology has been the bedrock of human growth and dynamism. Man has over the years distinguished his existence from all other beings by his ability to champion and fashion his existence. Among his tools is biotechnology which actually attenuates the fears of aging and death.</p><p>Human reproductive cloning stands out as one of the means through which biotechnology plans to achieve this perfect existence for man. Technological advancements in the field of biotechnology are now in the threshold of human procreation.</p><p>Human reproductive cloning is seen as an assisted method of reproduction which creates a newborn that is genetically identical to another human being.Human reproductive cloning as a technology and as a means of reproduction is not without its pros and cons. In as much as the technology promises to mention but a few, hope for the infertile couples and single parents, as well as the hope of reproduction without passing on hereditary diseases; it at the same time beeps some flashes of worry. Hence, the inherent threat to the notion of parenthood which does not smack of compromise, coupled with other ethical implications are reasons one may proffer not to have this technology.</p><p>Technologised parenthood stands out as an implication of human reproductive cloning and as such it considers issues in human sexuality i.e. the place of human sexuality in reproduction and then the nature of the family which is the playground of human existence. This thesis focuses on this implication of human reproductive cloning while making a critical exposition of the concept of human reproductive cloning.</p>

<p>The question of euthanasia has kept pre-occupying and agitating the minds of thinkers, sweeping the globe, pummelling pedagogy, assailing assumptions, and bludgeoning biases. Both the moralist, ethicist, theologian, psychologist, educationist, anthropologist, politician, physician, patient as well as the common man in the street are interested in it. This pervading interest simply arises out of the fact that euthanasia involves the question of life, and life is something that is a common denominator to all men.</p><p>The controversy hinges on the fact that, there are divergent views on the moral question of euthanasia. While some would unflinchingly opt for euthanasia others would prefer to oppose it to the best of their strength, yet others will remain agnostic about it. But the issue here remains: is euthanasia in any way morally justified? Has human life an intrinsic value? Or is human life valuable only when it is healthy? Are we the ones who decide when to die? Has the physician any right to either assist or terminate the life of the patient simply on account of suffering? Has the patient any right to end his/her life? Are there some conditions in which euthanasia could be allowed? Is suffering meaningless?</p><p>The topic of my project is: THE MORALITY OF EUTHANASIA IN THE LIGHT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S TEACHING. In this work, I shall present the official Catholic Church’s teaching and position on euthanasia, and also, avow the different arguments proposed by the proponents of euthanasia. I will use the church’s stand, as a foundation for a critical analysis of those who support Euthanasia. And finally a will make a critique of the church’s stand in my evaluation and conclusion.</p>

<p>In this modern period, societal and religious groups are strongly divided regarding the acceptability of abortion. Despite so many attempts by various groups to find a middle ground, the debate on abortion still remains largely polarized, at its most dramatic point with the extreme conservatives claiming abortion to be the moral equivalent of murder and the extreme liberals see it as devoid of moral import. And this polarization is due to the legal battle that continues to shadow moral discussions. An acceptance of an ethical nuance will here play as a concession on the deeply contested question of whether abortion should be a legally protected option for a woman, and to an extent blame for the continued crudeness which can be laid at the doorstep of a moral theory itself. Apparently, the ethical literature on abortion has focused almost exclusively on the tiniest moral assessment on whether and when abortion is morally permissible. This question is a crucial one indeed and its answer is desperately sought in this thesis by exposing the position of the Catholic Church.</p>

<p>It is self evident that our society is an information one. This is true from the things we see around us.The world is now a global village.It just take seconds for communication to be established from one part of the globe to another.What a tremendous achievement for information technology.Among the recent developments of information technology is the scientific wizardary of cyber medicine.The internet has definitely revolutionalised the healthcare industry. Many people in developed countries of the world seek medical information, advice or even buy drugs via the internet.So many websites rise every now and then claiming to provide various medical assistance to patients. But the application of information technology to medicine poses some ethical problems today. It is because of this that cyber medicine attracts my attention in this research.With this research, I hope to offer some recommendations for a morally acceptable cyber medicine .This will help to some extent in solving this all important problem ofcyber medicine for the good of the health care industry and the society at large.</p>

<p>Detta examensarbete handlar om vilka uppfattningar som finns om filosofiämnets syfte på gymnasiet. Det som berörs i uppfattningarna är huruvida de bygger på ämnets färdigheter eller kunskaper. Läroplaner (kursplaner) och läroböcker har analyserats och en grupp gymnasieelever har intervjuats. De läroplaner för filosofi som är analyserade är från år 1933, 1966, 1977, 1994 samt 2000. Läroböckerna som analyserats är Lars-Göran Alms <em>Gula idéer sover lugnt, </em>Martin Levanders <em>Filosofi. Ingen lära utan en aktivitet </em>samt Ulf Perssons <em>Filosofi – frågor och argument. </em>Elevmaterialet bygger på en gruppintervju med fyra elever enligt fokusgruppmetoden. Resultaten visade att läroplanernas bild av ämnet varierade. Tydligt var att ungefär varannan läroplan hade större fokus på kunskaper och varannan betonade färdigheter mer. Även om de olika läroböckerna varierade något stämde de ändå överens med den kursplan (2000) som de skall vara skrivna utifrån. Elevernas uppfattningar var att ämnet tvärt emot deras förväntningar lade större vikt vid kunskap än vid färdigheter, detta trots att de uppgav att de utvecklat vissa färdigheter efter genomgången kurs.</p>

<p>The current state of the global distribution of income, wealth, and well-being is in many respects the product of historical acts and processes. Of these, some have been just, others not. In philosophical discourse, processes of the latter kind are referred to as historical injustices. Of these historical injustices, the most protracted, extensive, and (presumably) the most devastating, is colonialism. For centuries, innocent people – in fact whole continents – were subjected to plunder, despoilment, land-displacement, exploitation, slavery, oppressive rule, cultural rape, and genocide. The extent and persistence of the consequences of this particular historical injustice are, however, contested territory. With regards to the exact causes of global poverty and destitution, measuring the effects of colonialism vis-à-vis other determining factors is an empirical impossibility. Nonetheless, it is beyond dispute that during colonial times vast amounts of riches were illicitly transferred from the colonies to their (mainly European) masters. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that this massive and prolonged one-directional transfer (from South to North) of wealth and resources necessary for nation-building, i.e. self-sustained and successful eco¬nomic development, has contributed, to a morally significant degree, to the unequal economic status of societies – resulting, ultimately, in the present unjust division of countries into developed, industrialized ones on the one hand, and under-developed (in many cases, extremely poor) ones, on the other. If this assumption is correct, then this is a problem of fantastic moral proportions.</p><p>The aim of this essay is to consider the moral implications of the consequences of colonialism in light of the problem of global poverty and against emergent, compelling theories of global justice. It is argued that the former colonies are justified in making reparative demands on their former colonial powers as a matter of rectificatory justice. The demands discussed here are aimed at property restoration and economic compensation. The salience of these demands is established by way of arguments for collective moral responsibility and historical (trans-generational) obligations. It is further argued that such reparations would constitute a great leap towards eradicating global poverty on the grounds that many presently poor countries were the victims of colonial atrocities. Such a leap would also take us closer to a just world.</p>

<p>The modern world is facing a revolutionary development in the clinical medicine and biomedical sciences. Due to the different life supporting systems, it is easily possible to keep patients with severe diseases alive. With organ transplantation a lot of people, who would otherwise die can live long and happy lives. In vitro fertilization allows a woman to bear the child that is not genetically related to her. Due to the possibility of contraception, safe abortions and prenatal diagnosis, women and couples can make preferable choices concerning their future child. Such medical developments and improvements have a great impact on our life, and provoke a lot of ethical questions and moral dilemmas.</p><p>The aim of this thesis is to answer the question whether prenatal diagnosis can be justified as it mainly leads to the selective abortion, whether and when the fetus counts as a person and whether the prospective parents can perform selective abortion on the basis of fetal disability; and to discuss ethical problems that are experienced by the doctor, who brings the news into the family and what is his/her role in the decision-making process.</p>

<p>Suffering from a terminal illness, or being chronically sick or severely disabled is not pleasant, which most of us will never experience life like this. However, there are people who are living in precisely that kind of constant, excruciating pain, agony and misery, 24 hours of the day, 365 days a year, stuck in a “living Hell” with no way of ending their enforced but unwanted torment – other than the highly controversial ‘therapy’ of euthanasia.</p><p>Those of us who are relatively healthy have a choice in how and when we end our lives. We can decide to wait until our life ends naturally, or we can speed up the process by committing suicide in whatever manner we choose. But, because of their illness or disability, the patients discussed in this thesis are being denied that same choice – because they must ask for help to die, they have had their right to decide matters such as when, where and how to go, for themselves taken away from them by people who believe that they know better than the patient what is best for them.</p><p>In Chapter 1, I will clarify some of the many, often contradicting, definitions and ideas associated with euthanasia.</p><p>In Chapter 2, because death is a very personal subject and everyone has different reasons why they want to die, I have used extracts from two very personal letters explaining why they sought euthanasia.</p><p>In Chapter 3, I will show how a patient considering euthanasia can use two Ends and Means arguments (Utilitarianism and Deontology) to decide if killing themselves would be the moral course of action to end their suffering. I will also discuss the morality of euthanasia eastern and western society.</p><p>In Chapter 4, the discussion turns to who would be the best person to help the patient die. I will examine how euthanasia can comply with various professional and personal codes of conduct and discuss the ideal character of the would-be euthaniser.</p><p>In Chapter 5 (the final chapter) I will conclude by using the information from the previous chapters to answer two important questions:</p><p>1. Whether it is ethical for a patient to even be thinking about euthanasia in the first place.</p><p>2. Who is (ethically) the best person to ask to kill the patient</p><p>This thesis is not about whether or not euthanasia should be legalised (as I will explain – euthanasia is already going on, albeit illegally) but to discuss the morality of asking someone else to go against all matter of strictly enforced and deeply ingrained legal, moral and professional rules imposed by society in order to help the patient die.</p>

<p>Do we have a moral duty to offer severely ill asylum- seeking children permanent residence permits?</p><p>This thesis analyses our moral duty to offer 410 severely ill asylum-seeking children permanent residence permits. During 2004 an emotionally charged debate started in Sweden. The debate concerned the deportation of 410 severely ill asylum- seeking children and their families. For this and other reasons Sweden was criticized by the United Nations commission along with human rights organizations for being too restrictive in its migration and asylum politics. My thesis outlines the migration and asylum debate and the refugee situation in the world at present together with facts about how the asylum procedure takes place in Sweden. Further I draw upon medical research connected to the asylum procedure along with how the Swedish Government and Save the Children respond to the migration and asylum debate.</p><p>I also explore which rights, in terms of legal implications and ethical principles, these children have. Additional I outline theories in political philosophy from the utilitarian and communitarian tradition. The two philosophers I refer to are Michael Walzer and Peter Singer to apply their views to my primary question. Finally, I reach a critical analysis where I summarize and discuss my research. In the end I offer my final reflections in order to further debate on migration and asylum issues.</p>