Euthanasia In Our Society Today Essays - Euthanasia, Medical Ethics

Euthanasia in our society today Matchmaker.com: Sign up now for a free trial. Date Smarter! Euthanasia In Our Society Today Euthanasia is a controversial subject, not only because there are many different moral dilemmas associated with it, but also in what constitutes its definition. At the extreme ends of disagreement, advocates say euthanasia (which in Greek means "easy death") is a good, or merciful, death. Opponents of euthanasia say it is a fancy word for murder. Between the two extremes, there are various positions for and against euthanasia. One position opposes cases of "active" euthanasia, where an active, or overt, effort is made to bring about death, such as in administering a lethal injection, but accept "passive" euthanasia, which is generally described as declining to initiate extraordinary or even ordinary medical treatment, as moral. Another position advocates that passive euthanasia is acceptable when the person to die has consented. Other positions include situations where a terminally ill patient is unable to consent as justifiable, because it resolves a hopeless situation. Conversely, even with this gradation, some opponents to euthanasia believe that voluntary, passive euthanasia is the same as suicide; involuntary euthanasia is considered to be murder. Because euthanasia poses classic dilemmas as to its morality, it is not surprising that many issues arise in the legal and medical arenas. In law, the resolution of a particular case cannot always be applied to resolve another. In the medical realm, interpretation of medical doctrine concerning treatment of terminally-ill patients can result in entirely different applications. In two relatively recent cases, the Supreme Court had to decide the future of patients that were considered to be in chronically persistent vegetative states. The courts had to decide whether to continue with the prevailing treatment, as advocated by the medical community, or discontinue treatment at the request of the patients' guardians. The courts considered several factors in making a determination: What are the state's interests in terms of human life? When does the patient's right to refuse treatment override the state's interest? What does the right to refuse treatment entail, and is it included in the patient's right to privacy? Do a patient's guardians have the right to refuse treatment on behalf of a patient? What constitutes ordinary and extraordinary medical treatment? The court indicated that a patient's right to refuse treatment was an extension of the constitutionally-derived "right to privacy" and, more importantly, permitted the assignment of those rights to Quinlan's guardians.

Rutherfordium Facts - Rf or Element 104 Facts

Rutherfordium Facts - Rf or Element 104 Facts The element rutherfordium is a synthetic radioactive element that is predicted to exhibit properties similar to those of hafnium and zirconium. No one really knows, since only minute quantities of this element have been produced to date. The element is likely a solid metal at room temperature. Here are additional Rf element facts: Element Name:Â  Rutherfordium Atomic Number: 104 Symbol: Rf Atomic Weight: [261] Discovery: A. Ghiorso, et al, L Berkeley Lab, USA 1969 - Dubna Lab, Russia 1964 Electron Configuration: [Rn] 5f14 6d2 7s2 Element Classification: Transition Metal Word Origin:Â  Element 104 was named in honor of Ernest Rutherford, although discovery of the element was contested, so the official name was not approved by the IUPAC until 1997. The Russian research team had proposed the name kurchatovium for element 104. Appearance: Rutherfordium is predicted to be a radioactive synthetic metal, solid at room temperature and pressure. Crystal Structure: Rf is predicted to have a hexagonal close-packed crystal structure similar to that of its congener, hafnium. Isotopes: All of the isotopes of rutherfordium are radioactive and synthetic. The most stable isotope, Rf-267, has a half-life around 1.3 hours. Sources of Element 104: Element 104 has not been found in nature. It is only produced by nuclear bombardment or decay of heavier isotopes. In 1964, researchers at the Russians facility at Dubna bombarded a plutonium-242 target with neon-22 ions to produce the isotope most likely rutherfordium-259. In 1969, scientists at the University of California at Berkeley bombarded a californium-249 target with carbon-12 ions to produce alpha decay of rutherfordium-257. Toxicity: Rutherfordium is expected to be harmful to living organisms due to its radioactivity. It is not an essential nutrient for any known life. Uses: At present, element 104 has no practical uses and is only application to research. Rutherfordium Fast Facts Element Name: RutherfordiumElement Symbol: RfAtomic Number: 104Appearance: Solid metal (predicted)Group: Group 4 (Transition Metal)Period: Period 7Discovery:Â  Joint Institute for Nuclear Research and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (1964, 1969) Sources Fricke, Burkhard. Superheavy elements a prediction of their chemical and physical properties. Recent Impact of Physics on Inorganic Chemistry, Structure and Bonding, Volume 21, Springer Link, December 3, 2007. Ghiorso, A.; Nurmia, M.; Harris, J.; Eskola, K.; Eskola, P. (1969). Positive Identification of Two Alpha-Particle-Emitting Isotopes of Element 104. Physical Review Letters. 22 (24): 1317–1320. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.22.1317 Hoffman, Darleane C.; Lee, Diana M.; Pershina, Valeria (2006). Transactinides and the future elements. In Morss; Edelstein, Norman M.; Fuger, Jean. The Chemistry of the Actinide and Transactinide Elements (3rd ed.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer ScienceBusiness Media. ISBN 1-4020-3555-1.

Summary Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Summary - Assignment Example They would discourage traditional rigid hierarchies and form flexible structures around them giving utmost autonomy to their people. These leaders would prepare more leaders under them and diversity in workforce would be valued and appreciated, much importance would be given to the aspiring vision and mission of the organization, as they provide uncompromising direction to their people in indecisive circumstances. The utmost importance would be given to the work and leadership would provide such an inspiration, that people would fall in love with their work and become self driven. Belief in feedback from the clients or employees would be important aspect of the learning culture promulgated by such leaders with emphasis on established core values while providing an essential framework for success. These leaders would realize the importance of healthy communities and work towards creating them in order to achieve greater success in their work. In defining the term leadership or who wil l be the leader in the coming era it is important to understand that leaders have followers, it is recognized by results and that leadership attributes can be learned, they are not endowed on someone from birth. The status of leadership would earned by having belief in oneself and one’s vision, exhibiting passion for the job and by loving people; in doing so one would display and exercise honest means and extend trust to surrounding people (Hesselbein et al., 1996). Leaders are doers and not preachers; they prove themselves first and then command others, their character is seamless with a habit of sharing awards and developing others while on the way to achieving organizational objectives. Furthermore they believe in team work, creating future leaders for their organization and leaving a proud legacy behind them. Their workforce is engaged and empowered with a clear sense of direction and a passion for achieving results. The collection of these beliefs on the leaders of the f uture were all written in 1996, a proof of success and accuracy lies in the attributes of current leaders and ones that are to come. What these management experts wrote some 16 years ago is more or less apparent in leadership of today and it provides a convincing path for the potential ones. I firmly agree to the above mentioned characteristics and attributes of the future leaders although in defining the future leader a distinction should be made between business leaders of tomorrow and those who command the political realm. I see a great difference between the two types of leaders not just in America but around the world. What business leaders usually practice in daily lives is adopted by political leaders after decades. Another aspect missing in the conclusions drawn by the writers is the dark side of the leadership, it is more than often that one sees a Machiavellian approach adopted by leaders in the practical world and it is a fact that most of the time this approach provides short term results. An approach that schemes and plots or uses unfair means to motivate teams and get desired results. Is there a place for these Machiavellian leaders in the future? I guess we will never know. Furthermore what these manageme