Category: Writing

According to Foucault, between the time of the plague and leprosy in the middle ages and today, which of the following transformations has taken place? Disease has become more commonplace, despite the use of disciplinary mechanisms. The body has been transformed from a raw material into a sovereign object. O Techniques that only responded to extraordinary phenomena have been transformed into techniques for everyday use. O [all of the above]

Case study excerpted from https://practicalbioethics.org/case-studies-good-death-or-assisted-suicide.html
The Case of Mr. Perry and his Pacemaker
Tarris Rosell, PhD, DMin
Rosemary Flanigan Chair at the Center for Practical Bioethics
Mr. Perry (not his real name) was 83 years old and had several medical problems. He had spent the past several months in and out of hospitals and rehab. Prior to that, he lived independently in a small Midwestern town. Widowed many years ago, he subsequently enjoyed the company of a lady friend who lived down the street from the Perry home. He had five adult children and numerous grandchildren.
Life should have been relatively good for this octogenarian. But life was not good. Not anymore. “My body is all worn out. I’m worn out. Don’t want to do this anymore, Doc. They say I can’t go home and be safe. And I’m NOT going to a nursing home. No way! Just stop that little gadget that shocks me and the part that keeps my heart going. I want them stopped. Yes, the pacemaker, too. A magnet will stop it, right? Just do it. Please.”
Mr. Perry had a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) implanted a few years ago. It included an electrical pacing component for heart rhythms, on which the patient was 100% dependent. The defibrillator had shocked him, more than once, just before he came to the hospital E.R. with this request. That was the last straw for Mr. Perry. No more shocks for him. No nursing home or rehab or hospitalizations or medications. And no more mechanical pacing either. “I’m tired of fighting.”
Deactivating an internal defibrillator is one thing. The patient’s cardiologist didn’t need an ethics consultation for that decision. “If he doesn’t want to be shocked again, that’s his decision. And if it went off again after he’d requested it stopped, that could be a kind of torture,” she reasoned. Deactivation happened quickly after admission from the Emergency Department. A “Do Not Attempt Resuscitation” order was placed in the chart.
But the pacemaker, also? He wanted it stopped. Ought we do so? Would that be ethically respectful of this patient’s autonomy? Or would it be physician-technician assisted suicide?
“If we stop the pacemaker, Mr. Perry, you will die within a few minutes.”
“Yes, I know. I’m tired of fighting. Please.”
A hospital ethics consultation landed on the side of permissibility and respect for a capacitated patient’s autonomy. Subsequently, Mr. Perry had his wishes respected, and he died peacefully surrounded by family and a family friend, who read scripture and offered prayer. A priest chaplain had previously given last rites. His lady friend sat by his side, held his hand, stroked his arm and said, “We’ve had good years together, but you’ve suffered enough. I’ll let you go.” Mr. Perry’s last words were, “Thank you.”
Questions
Did Mr. Perry give true informed consent according to the model of informed consent outlined by Rozovsky and Rozovsky or was his judgment clouded by his illness?
Is this a case of voluntary active euthanasia or voluntary passive euthanasia?
Was having an ethics committee to decide removing the pacemaker necessary? Was the decision base too broad in this case?
Would Hardwig argue that Perry had a duty to die? According to Callahan, should Perry have been given the cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator (CRT-D) device in the first place?

1. Sources and Uses Table 2. Returns Unlevered IRR b. Levered IRR c. Equity Multiple d. Stabilized Yield e. Stabilized Cash on Cash 3. Data Tables Measuring IRR at the following: a. Tenant 1 rents ($1/SF increments) vs cap rates b. Land purchase price ($5 / SF increments) vs debt interest rate (0.25% increments) c. Tenant 2 rents ($2 / SF increments) vs TI’s ($10 / SF increments) 4. Please build a waterfall reflecting the following: a. 5% GP Investment / 95% LP Investment b. Pari Passu until a 8% return c. 20% to the GP and 80% to the LP until a 12% return d. 30% to the GP and 70% to the LP until a 15% return e. 40% to the GP and 60% to the LP thereafter

1. Symb 1.013(Scheme: R: Richard will, T: Terry will, X: Kit can.)Richard won’t, if Terry will assuming that Kit can’t.
2. Symb 1.020(Scheme: T: Alfred concentrates, P: Alfred will pass).Alfred will pass on the condition that if he will pass only if he concentrates then he will pass.
3. Symb 1.026(Scheme: R: Richard will, T: Terry will, X: Kit will.)Given that it is not the case that if Richard won’t Terry will, Kit won’t.
4. Symb 2.036(Scheme: P: Ruth will pass, S: Ruth studies, T: Ruth is tired.)Ruth is tired; nevertheless she’ll pass.
5. Symb 2.053(Scheme: U: UCLA wins its first game S: USC wins its first game, Y: Cal wins its first game.)If UCLA and USC don’t both win their first games, then USC and Cal both do win their first games.
6. Symb 2.054(Scheme: P: Ruth will pass, S: Ruth studies, T: Ruth is tired.)Ruth studies hard unless she’s tired, in which case she doesn’t.
7. Symb 2.055(Scheme: P: Alfred will pass, Q: Alfred concentrates, R: Logic is difficult.)Unless logic is difficult, Alfred will pass if he concentrates.
8. Symb 2.058(Scheme: R: Richard will pass, T: Tony will pass. Y: Yiannis will pass.)If neither Richard nor Tony will pass, Yiannis won’t either.
9. Symb 2.065(Scheme: P: Richard pays attention. S: Richard loses track of the argument. T: Richard takesnotes. W: Richard does well in the course)Either it is not the case that Richard pays attention and does not lost track of the argument,or it is not the case that he does not take notes or fails to do well in the course.
10. Symb 2.078(Scheme: P: Richard will be disappointed. R: the critics approve. T: the concert will beworthwhile. W: the music played well.)Although Richard will be disappointed unless the critics approve, the concert will be worthwhileif and only if the music is played well.
11. Symb 2.079(Scheme: R: Donald is eager. S: Richard is eager. W: Donald is willing.X: Richard is willing.)Neither Donald nor Richard is eager, but each is willing if the other is.
12. Symb 2.084(Scheme: V: Donald is a lover of logic. R: Donald organizes his time. W. Donald enjoyswhiskey at night. Z: Donald enjoys Mozart in the morning)If Donald is a lover of logic who organizes his time, then he enjoys Mozart in the morningor whiskey at night, but not both.
13. Symb 2.093(Scheme: R: Richard will pass, T: Tony will pass. Y: Yiannis will pass.)No more than one of (Richard, Tony, and Yiannis, of course) will pass..
14. Symb 2.094(Scheme: R: Richard will pass, T: Tony will pass. Y: Yiannis will pass.)Exactly two of them (among Richard, Tony and Yiannis) will pass.

?Imagine two worlds with equal amounts of happiness and misery in them, only the first world is full of people who take pleasure in causing others pain, while the second world is full of cooperative and compassionate people living in extremely harsh environmental conditions. Which, if either, is the morally better world? Support your answer with reasons. Your answer should discuss how this scenario threatens to undermine the standpoint of hedonism.

question
a) What are the benefits of studying philosophy?
b) Can one be happy if one goes through life without questioning anything ? What do you think?
c) define what is philosophy?
d) identify the branches of philosophy?
e) explain the importance of studying philosophy?
f) explain what is philosophy of education?
g) relate the Malaysian Philosophy of education to educational practice?

Match the statements to the philosopher that said/believed that statement. Question 3 options: 6 Set out to doubt everything he could doubt. 5 Human beings have intelligence – which is the ability to read our experience and bring to light what is intelligible within it. 6 Believes that the things we experience have substance behind them, and the substance behind our sensations is matter, and the substance behind our reflections is mind. 2 Universal truth is something we abstract from our experiences. 6 This philosopher believes we must trace an idea to its corresponding impression of experience to determine the true content of that idea. 6 Every simple idea corresponds to a simple impression that resembles it. 3 Suggested that our minds rightly organize the experiences of cause and effect. 6 Was awakened from his intellectual slumber by David Hume’s philosophy. 1 Opposed the Sophists who believed that truth was relative. 5 Affirms that by using our intelligence or intellect, we can know that there is truth. 1. Socrates (469-399 BC) 2. Plato (circa 427-347 BC) 3. Aristotle (384-322 BC) 4. St. Augustine (354-430 AD) 5. Thomas Aquinas (circa 1225-1274 AD) 6. Rene Descartes (1596-1650 AD) 7. John Locke (1632-1704 AD) 8. David Hume (1711-1776 AD) 9. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 AD)

Read one of the essays by an APUS faculty, staff, or student found in the Week 4 Lessons, Readings & Resources.
– Write about the critical thinking process in this essay, the argument, and how it practically related to the profession in-question.
– Did the essay present a good thesis and argument? Did the evidence support thesis? Did the essay demonstrate objectivity, accuracy, currency, and credibility while also using sound thinking?
– Incorporate what you learned from the Week 3 and 4 Lessons, textbooks, and Readings and Resources.

The Liar’s Puzzle
“Interesting puzzle, the VanDorn case,” Sergeant McGuffy remarked to his lieutenant one day after it was all over. “The way I reconstruct the crime, the innocent people were so excited when they first talked to us, they each got one fact wrong. But, the killer wanted to confuse our trail – and so coolly lied from beginning to end.”
Knowing this much can you figure out who is the guilty one?
Egmont VanDorn has been found dead in his apartment. From the beginning, it is pretty clear to the police that this was no accident. Before they can be separated, the four young people who found the body – Arnold, Betsy, Charles and Daisy – eagerly begin to tell their story.
“If, as the police say, Egmont was injured between four and five,” said Daisy, “that must let us all out. We were all together having dinner for at least two hours before we came over here.”
“But we all arrived at seven,” Charles pointed out.
“Arnold said that it was six o’clock at the time, just before we opened the door. Didn’t you Arnold?” said Daisy.
“I said it was just seven on the nose,” said Arnold. “Sorry, honey.”
“I have no idea what he said or what time we got here,” declared Betsy. “The thing I remember is the gas in the hall. We rang the doorbell, and no one came and no one came, and then I smelled the gas. My heart turned over, I thought to myself, he’s dead. I just know he’s dead.”
“Don’t dramatize yourself,” said Daisy coolly. “There is no way that you could have smelled the gas before we opened the door. The place was locked up, and sealed too, tighter than a drum. We’d still be in the hall if Eggy hadn’t given me a key last week.”
“There was gas in the hall, all right,” said Charles. “I smelled it before we opened the door. You seemed to take forever getting your key out. When you finally got the door opened, the gas just streamed out.”
“That was a pretty dangerous thing you did, Charles,” said Arnold, “turning on the lights the way you did. Didn’t it occur to you that a spark at the light switch could have blown us all up.”
“The lights were already on, Arnold,” Charles replied.
“For my part, I’m sorry about pulling him out of the oven – tampering with the evidence and all that,” said Arnold. “Murder never crossed my mind. Locked room, you know. All I could think of was that maybe he was alive and we could still save him.”
“I don’t believe this,” said Daisy. “You didn’t pull him out of the oven. I did. You ran and opened the window. Very good move, too, I thought at the time.”
“I opened the window!” cried Betsy. “I was dizzy from the fumes, and I knew I needed to do something fast.”
“The only things you opened were the door to the liquor cabinet and a bottle of Scotch, Betsy.” Charles laughed at her. “And I thought they were good moves.”
“That was Arnold who got out the Scotch,” said Betsy. “Don’t you remember our sitting there after you called the police, and Arnold passing out the glasses?”
“It couldn’t have been me. Must have been you,” said Arnold. “I’ve never been here before, I didn’t even know where he kept the stuff. Charles, what did you do?”
“Do you know what? I don’t think I did anything. I remember quite clearly, walking over here with you after that long dinner we had together, and then seeing poor Eggy’s feet through the door. But after that, I don’t think I did a thing, except stand there gasping.”
Who did it?

1. What features of feminist ethics do you find most plausible? Why?
2. Do you think moral principles such as justice and rights have a place in any good moral theory? Why or why not?
3. What part do you think emotions should play in morality?
4. Do you believe there are innate differences in the ways men and women deliberate about moral issues? Or do you think any differences are the result of cultural influences? Explain. (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
5. Do you believe there are situations in which impartiality is important in moral reasoning? If not, why not? If so, give an example.
6. Suppose you have an opportunity to either (1) send $800 to Africa to save a dozen people from starvation or (2) give the money to your little sister to buy books for college. Which would you do? Why?
7. What is the attitude of feminist ethics toward moral principles? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant) Compare it with Kant’s view.
8. Which person would serve best as a moral exemplar: one who does the right thing out of purely rational motivation or one who does the right thing out of love? Explain your answer.
9. How do you think a rule-utilitarian would explain the obligations of a parent to a child? What about a Kantian? A virtue theorist? How do their responses compare with that of the ethics of care?
10. How does feminist ethics differ from Kant’s categorical Imperative? Explain your answer.
11. According to your text, to what do the terms “public life” refer? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
12. Alison M. Jaggar noted that western moral theory is said to embody values that are “masculine”. Explain what she means by that.
13. What is Feminine Ethics / Ethics of Care? What are its basic tenets and to whom are its origins attributed? (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
14. Alison Jaggar poses four (4) “Minimum Conditions of Adequacy” for feminist ethics; what are they and briefly explain each.
a.
b.
c.
d.
15. Whereas justice protects equality and freedom, care fosters _____________ and ____________. (Ethical Frameworks Inventory [EFI] relevant)
Please answer it more detailed, thank you!