Katharine Moser's Utilitarian Perspective

She tells her husband that she thinks “‘[they’d] better get to California because [she doesn’t know] whether [she’ll] ever make it again.’ ” Using an anecdote, she proves her point that once one suffers from MS, there is no way to “prevent or predict the damage”. She makes readers feel pity towards her as she uses a remorseful tone to convey her emotion towards the un predictableness of the disease. She then told the story of a friend who also had MS and explains how he questioned God about why he has to be cursed with this horrid disease. She responds to him by saying, “Why not?”

That's what Mairs hates; sympathy, She hates to feel like if she’s unequal or ineligible to do certain things when in reality, she does the same an ordinary person would do, if not more. “I lead, on the whole, ordinary life, probably rather like the one I would have led had I not had MS”(55). Nothing changed about Mairs since she was diagnosed but her physical appearance. Yes, here and there she faces depression; however, she was a graduate student, a wife, and a mother when she was diagnosed; and now, she is still a graduate student, a wife, and a mother. In fact she does more than the ordinary, not only does she complete her studies, she teaches writing courses, medical students on how to give

While reading this story, we get to see what it is like to live with MS or Multiple Sclerosis. Nancy Mairs in a way shows the negative effects of her condition which others do not always experiences. Yet, she always follows up a paragraph about the negatives with the positives. You see that while she has issues with being a cripple and this disease slowly taking over, she is still loving her life to the fullest.

Jaclyn donates a large majority of her time to organizations that support those affected by Huntington’s Disease. According to the Volunteering in Canada survey, Canadians across the country like Jaclyn devote almost 2.07 billion hours to volunteer activities, which is equivalent to just under 1.1 million full-time jobs. Volunteers like Jaclyn make it possible for charities and non-profits to reach their

[Lede:] Like most of us, Katherine Price Sloan Snedaker, Kansas—founder and executive director of PINKconcussions—intends to make the most of her brain while she’s got it. After all, she can’t take it with her. When the end inevitably comes, it’s her hope (and her advance directive) that scientists studying Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE)—a degenerative brain disease caused by repetitive brain trauma—will make even more of it. But she’s not waiting until then to make a difference.

It is patients’ right to opt for genetic testing on their own DNA, although they are accepting a great risk by doing so.

Just as most bioethicists and medical professionals agree that genetic testing for curable or preventable diseases is beneficial to patients, they also agree that genetic testing for incurable and untreatable diseases, such as Alzheimer's, is useless (Hubbard & Wald, 1999; Ridley, 1999). Although a negative test may afford a person the reassurance that he or she will not develop the disease, a positive test could be a death sentence. For example, since 1986 people who are at risk for Huntington's disease have had the option of being tested for the mutation on chromosome 4 that is linked to the disease (Ridley, 1999). In Genome, Nancy Wexler, a woman who set out to identify the Huntington's gene in the late 1970s, relates the story of a woman who asked doctors whether or not she had Huntington's disease (Ridley, 1999). Although the doctors found that the woman was showing subtle signs of the disease, she could not detect these signs herself. The doctors, rather than telling the woman that she had the disease, let her believe that she was well and did not have Huntington's disease. After the woman left the doctors' office, the woman's friend came into the office and asked the doctors what they had said to the woman, because earlier the woman had told her friend that she

First, I am not ready to know the future. It may be true that knowing the generic results could help to plan the future like long -term finances, getting married, and having a baby. However, having the test will be interrupt my life, and my mind will be thinking about it all the time. I will not be happy, and I will just waiting for the moment to come. Knowing if the result is positive will be a nightmare, so I prefer to enjoy the life. In the article “Closing the Lion’s Mount: Knowledge and Huntington’s disease”, author Sandra Kostyk quotes a woman who has Huntington 's Disease

I have always been one to side with a utilitarian’s point of view, such as Mill and Bentham. The greatest happiness of the greatest number, or as cold as it may be, sacrificing the few for the good of the many. Utilitarian moral theories evaluate the moral worth of action on the basis of happiness that is produced by an action. Whatever produces the most happiness in the most people is the moral course of action. I will give the best arguments against Utilitarianism, and show in my own opinion, why I think they are wrong.

Not only are there benefits with genetic testing, but there are benefits by not going through genetic testing. Genetic testing can be costly, and therefore will be less expensive by not following through with the tests. Genetic testing is usually not covered by insurance; therefore, many families would have to decide if the costly payments are worth their budget. More than one test may have to be used to detect if there is a disease taking course. Back to the military wife, two of her daughter Riley’s tests came back negative. At first, her daughter was diagnosed with developmental delays. Not only did she go through doing genetic testing, but she also did an MRI. Both of these tests didn’t

Utilitarianism: “The idea that an action is right, as long as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct (Oxford Dictionaries).” This theory was thought up as far back as the 17th century, but didn’t become well known until late into the 18th century when Jeremy Bentham a legal and social reformer gave a powerful presentation of the idea. “Create all the happiness you are able to create; remove all the misery you are able to remove. Every day will allow you, will invite you to add something to the pleasure of others, or to diminish something of their pains (Jeremey Bentham).” Deontology: “An ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether

In addition to this it has the property of universalisality in that the right action will be right for everyone. However, as a pragmatic and functional system of moral analysis, Utilitarianism has a number of difficulties. One of the major problems is the fact that it is extremely difficult to quantify happiness, and if it is not possible to decide which of several available actions produces the most happiness, it follows that it is not possible to decide which action is the right one. Also a particular action generating a high degree of happiness may have unforeseen consequences that have the opposite effect. Can it be morally right to have a completely innocent and well person killed if two seriously ill people could be saved by an organ transplantation? Is an action always and incontrovertibly right because it gives greatest happiness to the greatest number of people? – Brady(1999) refutes this: “the majority vote is not an ethic; it is a social choice technique.”

Utilitarianism can be generally defined as a way of thinking where one chooses an action based on the amount of happiness that it would produce. In the book Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, by Barbara MacKinnon and Andrew Fiala, the authors state “Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism,” and that “John Stuart Mill explained it as ‘actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.’” (MacKinnon 95). This means that utilitarianism focuses on result of an action based on happiness and that decisions can be taken made by looking at possible outcomes of that decision. What Mill stated would be defined as “ the principle of utility or the greatest happiness principle.”( MacKinnon, 95). This principle is one in which could be

Numerous moral theories have surfaced in the past years. They have been widely debated by philosophers and social reformers. It is important to understand what these theories are because of their influential tendencies in the way people act, especially in making morally right or wrong decisions. Utilitarianism is one of these many moral theories. Upon further analysis, problems with utilitarian thoughts are revealed. It has been widely debated by many philosophers, including G.E. Moore and Immanuel Kant. Like these two philosophers, I argue that utilitarianism is inadequate because of its contradictory nature as a moral theory. It highlights the principle of utility in seeking the greatest pleasure, allowing egotistic and hedonistic actions to be considered moral.

The theory of Utilitarianism states that actions should be judged as right or wrong depending on whether they cause more happiness or unhappiness. It weighs the rightness and wrongness of an action based on consequences of that action.