Name: Jose Alberto P.

Aganon Subject : Bioet ics

Date: October 15, 2011

1. For me, the Philosophy, Science and Religion are somewhat inevitable concepts or views which deal to almost all issues or situations that are present. Philosophy gives us the power and the principles which came from using our great ability to reason out. Science is an aspect which continues to pursue with new knowledge and explanations as to how and what are things are. Religion gives us a perspective basing on the spiritual belief and orientation. hen we are making our moral decision, this three concepts ! perspective are to be taken into consideration. hen deciding we apply philosophy by analy"ing and finding the reason for the morality of the action or thing. #nd religion, we are always in every means bounded with our spiritual orientation, the things imparted to us by our church, which is somewhat very powerful since it always affect all acts and decision done when evaluating morality. For example, is arriving at a moral decision regarding contraceptives. Philosophy would say that we should first find the reason for it and what are its pros and cons. Science would say that it is good and effective and that it is applicable to the present situation. #nd religion would say that no, it is not moral since it contraindicates the $hristian principle and the divine law. %. &he idea that human and soul is not separate or the embodied sub'ectivity is (uiet complex. For me, as a student of the bioethics, this tells us that when we move, when we make decisions, when we interact and whatever we do, our body and our soul is not separated. e cannot say that when we please our selves we use our body alone and that if we decide and make our choice that our soul is the only one working. )t tells us students that our body and soul works as one. &he soul doesn*t decide what our body will do or vice versa but it tells us that they work )&+ and not F,R. -es they are two entities but they function as one. .. /ioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. /ioethicists are concerned with the ethical (uestions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. )t can be view in three ways like 0escriptive /ioethics which is the way people view life, their moral interactions and responsibilities with living organisms in their life. )t also is connected to ethics of science and technology, medicine and other likes. Prescriptive /ioethics is to tell others what is ethically good or bad, or what principles are most important in making such decisions. )nteractive /ioethics is discussion and debate between people, groups within society, and communities. /ioethics and philosophy are interrelated to each other since whenever we are faced with bioethical issues they always play a ma'or role in determining the soundness of the

outcome. hen we deal with bioethics we always use our reasoning, its pros and cons and that principles that are involve in it and how they affect the humanity. 1. For me the two ethical theories or principles that ) chose to compare with regards to 'ustice are the principle of ethical relativism and 2ohn Rawl*s theory of 'ustice. 3sing the theory of 'ustice, we can say that the theory of relativism is somewhat wrong. &hey say that 'ustice depends on the orientation or to the belief that each socio cultural area possesses is the one that dictates if the action is morally right or wrong for example the one*s living in the north pole, it is morally right for them to leave their old ones on the cold to death. /ut when we use the theory of Rawl, we say that it is wrong since doing that violates the theory, for us every human being is has a value. 4veryone is important and that everyone must be taken care of which for me is the good description of 'ustice that is for every human alive. &hus for me, the theory of 'ustice is the better one. 5. ith the situation noted, ) think the concept of civili"ed society is somewhat not that a hundred percent anymore. &he dilemma is (uiet difficult since the concept is very nice but the situation presents a different feature. ith these individuals now, their mentality is already towards revenge and protecting their turf and will do any form of violence 'ust to convey their emotion and their belief. +aving the big difference or having view on things, making this emotion and mentality that ) am right and they are wrong are the reasons why civili"ed society is on the rocks. 4ven if we would like to live peacefully and civili"ed, our indifferences and having a different view and belief tends us to clash and for some turns into animalistic way of thinking thus leading to violence.

6. 0ealing with this patient is (uiet difficult to handle. ant to help and be real but having the fear and possibility that by doing this, it can harm or worst put an end to his!her life. For me the two principles which are (uiet having trouble are beneficence and non maleficence. )n this situation, for me, the hard part is doing good which is beneficence, in which we should tell the truth to the patient 'ust like veracity since he or she is the one who is directly affected with it and that she has the authority to decide upon knowing her situation on the other hand, non maleficence can also take its role, which is doing no harm. +aving the possibility of a heart attack upon her or him knowing the condition is the reason for having trouble to inform the patient. #t the end of the day, ) would say that we should tell the truth t the patient, this is difficult but we should make her somewhat prepared about it, we should be strong and give facts to the patient and be able to have the proper support that she or he needs upon knowing it. )t is hard but ) believe it is the right one. 0ying knowing your condition than letting the patient die and holding back to the things he ! she must have known.

7. For me, considering this topic, it is still hard to pick a side to which ) will cling my answer, but having principle or the vision for open mindedness, ) would say that lets go for the R+ bill. -es, if we cling to the church side, we would immediately say 8,, but for me, we should be oriented to reality. $hurch says that it is bad but in practice the contraception usage is widely used. e should be atleast be open minded that the methods for example discipline is already ineffective to the present time, yes we can say before it was very effective, but yesterday is not the same as today. e should adapt to the present not the present adopting to the our previous clings. #nd that one point also is that, before we negate something or oppose, we should first see the bill because a ma'or part of it is good, not having the mentality that R+ bill is contraception alone. 9. For me, my first choice is the medication that can give the most rapid healing effect to the patient. /ut before giving this drug, ) would first inform the patient or anyone that is related to her, and would obtain an informed consent from them. &his is very important for me since this would save me from any lawsuit but more importantly ) did present the drug from the patient and she has the autonomy to decide o it. -es, it has a great conse(uence which is sterility but for me, at least it gives me a higher possibility that the patient will live, unlike using the second drug that yes, it won*t result to sterility but it takes longer to effect. ) don*t want to risk the life of the patient, there is a drug which doesn*t have a side effect but ) can*t wait for it to take effect because possibly by the time that the drug will have its effect, the patient already passed away. /etter choose something that can save life immediately that to something that has lesser conse(uence but the prognosis of saving the life would take a longer time. :. For me, ) would have my side on, anti cloning or to those who are against it. #t immediate thinking we could say yes it is great it can extend ones existence and would produce better individuals but having a closer look at it, it has a greater reason for humans to hate it. +aving these hidden or underground operation is not good, if we would introduce something like this we should be open this to every individual and have a thorough explanation of it. 8ext is that since the price is too high for everyone, this shouldn*t be allowed since this would only cater to those ones who can afford it thus giving there the luxury to be a more powerful individual. 8ext is that the dispatching of the imperfect or defective clones, it is immoral and something that is unacceptable and even the good clones, since it is already manipulating something that shouldn*t be. For me it is unacceptable and not something ) would be grateful to happen. 1;. For me, this dilemma is (uiet difficult, but thinking in a way and having to use a bioethical principle of 'ustice ) would give the bag of blood to the patient having leukemia. )t is hard, we can say that the patient who was hit of the car needed it more but using the principle of 'ustice, ) say that the leukemia patient should receive it solely because that blood it meant for her, and that it*s like a line, where in the leukemia patient is the one in front. e should follow and respect the line or the ranking and we should

also take into consideration that the life also of this patient is at risk and that she waited also for her turn. So for that ) would give it to the leukemia patient.