Custom essays on Medical ethics

Currently, women have equal rights as to abortion and contraception and sterilization. However, these interventions are not equal. Contraception and sterilization – are effective forms of prevention of induced abortion, including illegal ones. Overseas statistics show that widespread use of contraception reduces the number of abortions. In Bulgaria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Germany, where the scope of modern types of contraception is 50-60%, abortion rate is in 2-3 times less. (United Nations Population Division)
IVF as procedure is, on one hand, an intervention in the process of the origin of life, but on the other – still allows women to have desired children in a barren marriages. ((Fletcher 1954)

Euthanasia in terms of medical ethics
For many years the topic of euthanasia has a mixed public reaction. Attention to the issue of euthanasia has increased with the development of social progress, and in particular – technology to maintain life of seriously ill people. The relevance of this topic can not be overemphasized, firstly, because it is linked with the most precious thing of a man – with his life, and secondly – because of the small level of scrutiny of the problem, the lack of lighting in the writings of scholars lawyers and the almost complete absence of relevant legal acts in the country’s legislation. Numerous debates on this subject are constantly breaking out among doctors, lawyers, psychologists, politicians, religious leaders. However, a clear answer to the question of the justification for the practice of euthanasia and can not be found.
Anyway, the Declaration on Euthanasia was adopted by the 39th World Medical Assembly, in Madrid on October 1987: “Euthanasia is an act of intentional deprivation of life of the patient, even at the request of the patient or on appeal of such a request of his relatives, is unethical. This does not preclude the need to respect doctor to patient’s request not to impede the flow of the natural process of dying in the terminal phase of illness. (Kathleen F, & Herbert H, 2002)
In Germany, the criminal law punishes “killing at the request of patient” by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years. In England also passed a law on the absolute prohibition of any euthanasia medical practice. (Kathleen F, & Herbert H, 2002)
In the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, after lengthy discussions legislation formally introduced the resolution of passive euthanasia, of course, with certain reservations regarding the exclusion of any public abuse. A doctor stops useless sustain of life but the basis for the decision to terminate treatment is free and informed will of the patient, and similar requests from closest relatives of the patient, unconscious state, are legally invalid.
But there is a point of view, that the prohibition of euthanasia infringes on human rights to death, we are talking about person’s own life, and therefore, he should decide what to do with it. This led to the fact that, for example, in California (USA) after years of debate on the referendum was adopted first in the world Law on the “Human Right to Death”, due to which terminally ill people can sign a paper with a wish to turn off the intensive care equipment. However, there is a condition that the doctor must carry out euthanasia, that is impossible, because the American Medical Association has adopted a decision to ban its members to participate in euthanasia, putting forward the slogan: “Doctors should not be executioners.” (The International Association of Bioethics)
Therefore, doctors strongly believed that patients need to be treated in all cases. The most important argument against euthanasia is that if we allow it, the doctors will not need to seek to alleviate the suffering of sick people. In medical ethics there is a sacred taboos – life is precious, and then talk about the cost of living is immoral.
The problem of euthanasia still remains of vital importance. The problem of euthanasia is treated differently; public opinion has the opposite points of view. In the case of full legalization of euthanasia, many will continue to believe that euthanasia (such as killing an innocent) is an absolute evil. Great is the danger of abuse. For example, in conditions of poverty euthanasia could become a mean of killing lonely old people, disabled children, persons suffering from cancer and AIDS. Acceptance of euthanasia law may also discourage the government incentive for funding research to find effective treatments. On the other hand, we can see that euthanasia has actually exists in medical practice, obviously, this problem requires urgent legal solutions.

Human cloning: pro and contra
The last decade of XX century was marked by another important event – a tremendous progress in cloning animals from somatic cells. Especially great response was received by Scottish scientists who made out of the cells of breast pregnant sheep its exact genetic copy. Cloned sheep Dolly developed normally and produced three normal lambs. After this, there was a number of reports about the reconstitution of genetic twins of cows, mice, goats, pigs from somatic cells of these animals.( Human Genome Project Information website)
The methods of cloning of animals is still far from perfect. Nevertheless, that successes has shown the theoretical possibility of creating genetic copies of human cells, taken from any single of his body. Many scientists were enthusiastic about the idea of human cloning.
However, most scientists and many politicians oppose the creation of human clones. And their objections and concerns are justified. First of all, it should be noted that the use of genetic engineering for eugenic purposes contrary to the moral and ethical principles, created by mankind. In addition, cloning, as well as other genetic engineering techniques can be used to harm people, as we know from the example of nuclear energy.
The process of cloning is of great concern, especially when it comes to human cloning. Supporters of cloning see it as primarily a way of reproduction, which can take advantage of people not having opportunities to have own children. As for its immoral side, immoral purposes, it is impossible to be fight with this, and therefore the focus should be only on the continuing ethical control over such research.
As we know, despite these arguments, the International Bioethics Commission announced the moratorium for five years to conduct experiments on human cloning. Motivation of the ban was: a high failure rate of damages of the embryos and the birth of the dead children, that is why it is not allowed to carry the experiment on People. (The International Association of Bioethics)
The ethical problem lies in the fact that the result of cloning is not a child of his parents but identical twin of father or mother, that, in turn, give rise to new ethical and legal issues. There is also a risk of abuse and speculation on the misery of childless people, that could discredit the very idea and the scientific search.
Cloning contains also serious biological problems. It is known that in the process of culturing cells in test tubes may arise harmful mutations. Therefore, human cloning could lead to an increase in genetically inferior human population.
Due to the achievements of genetic engineering and the real possibility of creating genetically altered human, the 29th Session of UNESCO General Conference in 1997 adopted the “Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights”. Article 11 of this document states that “there should be no practice contrary to human dignity, in particular the practice of reproductive cloning of human beings.” (UNESCO 1997)
The Council of Europe has also made additions to the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which states: “Deny to any intervention, which aimed to create human beings, identical to the other – dead or alive”. (The International Association of Bioethics)
But in any case, the problem of medical ethics is not to prohibit and not to impose a moratorium on new and old biotechnologies, but to contribute to their development and the correct moral use.

A variety of ethical issues associated with individual and community judgments about appropriate behavior in the field of medicine. In past period was assumed that each of these questions had only one true response. Today we understand that the accuracy of any answers is relative, as we more and more get acquainted with different religions and cultures, with the widest spectrum of views.

Bibliography:
Brody, B.A, 1988, Life and Death Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, J. F., 1954, Morals and Medicine: The Moral Problems of: The Patient’s Right to Know the Truth, Contraception, Artificial Insemination, Sterilization, Euthanasia. Boston: Beacon.
Jones, D., 2006, “The Hippocratic Oath II: The declaration of Geneva and other modern adaptations of the classical doctors oath”, Catholic Medical Quarterly (February 2006).