Moral Issues in the Society

Over the years two moral issues with multiple perspectives have been a cause of debates. Moreover, the validation of discussions depends from the circumstances, time, religious perspective, common law, societal judgment or commonsense among other factors.

The first issue regarding to the death penalty whether it should or should not be abolished. Before taking sides we need to understand those people who possibly are on death row or face the death penalty. On the one hand we have innocent people who may be subjected to the death. This is the main concern because over the years loopholes in the justice system did not give the full guarantee in determining whether someone is guilty or not (Burkhead 120). We have seen, read or heard about such revised cases and as a result we found sentenced person already executed to death. Very often, misinterpretation of facts or discovery of the real criminal later on does not make the perfect case. The second group consists of people who are guilty but can be rehabilitated instead of being subjected to the death penalty. This should be granted despite the extent of their crime because as human beings and social creatures, the most important thing for them is to be accepted back by the society. If a sentenced person comes to senses, genuinely understands and takes responsibility of one’s actions, then there is a chance that they can be rehabilitated. If reasonable grounds for pardoning can be granted in civil cases, then some considerations by experts outside the legal arena can actually go a long way in making sure that the justice system reconsiders the death penalty sentence (Burkhead 122). The final group of people under death-row consists of those who do not regret about their actions at all and if given a chance would repeat the same. This is the case of serial offenders who either act criminally for fun or have a clear set plan of their criminal actions.

These are the most dangerous people, moreover if let them free may be more harmful to the society. The burden in weighing viability of the death sentence therefore lies in determining the innocence or guilt aspect more than the intended results of the decision. Focus has to be on what is meant to be achieved by having the death penalty or completely disregarding the sentence.
I would prefer not to use death penalty,since the fact that everyone has a right to live and no one has any right to intentionally take away another human being’s life. A good example is a murder case where the convict is executed. This is a case where more than one life is lost whether it done legally or illegally. It is needful to give time to experts and rehabilitators in order to re-examine the convicts and proof whether they can be rehabilitated or sentenced to death, then a verdict can be made in consideration of all facts.

At the moment, we should pay attention if the execution of death penalty satisfies the aggrieved party as well as helps the convict in learning from their mistakes and taking responsibility of their actions (Burkhead 129). The current justice system bases this verdict on the facts of the case and the motive behind these facts. If we enhanced a human aspect to law, furthermore understood reasons why the identified motive was created, then we have a higher chance to understand the offender. This would lead to proper corrective measures and also enlighten the aggrieved parties in their role of creating an atmosphere for the criminal activity.
The second issue is whether physician-assisted suicide is wrong or right. Some of considered preferences of this practice include saving the patients from prolonged suffering and pain while the inevitable verdict of the situation is death through medical analysis.

This can create more time for medical practitioners to focus their time and resources on saving human lives that stand a chance on prevailing health conditions. In some cases, vital organs can be saved from possible damage and re-used to save more human lives in future. In some regions of the world, religious practices face restriction in taking away of one’s life as a hindrance to their faith. It is perceived that as long as someone makes a conscious decision to take their lives, no one has a right to determine a different way of action. Taking away someone’s life is seen as an equal right to the right of living. Therefore preservation of the right to die should be a basic freedom everyone should enjoy. The financial considerations of the patients in maintaining treatment that is futile by nature may not be viable for cost purposes. The practice shows that patient can save a lot of money and give less stress to close relatives who take care during the treatment. The social aspect of non-medical suicides is traumatic thus making assisted auicide free of the associated mess and less horrific. Based on the human aspect of pride and dignity, some patients would rather end their lives in a quickly and less stressful way. Thus to reduce a state where they fully depend from others in both general and personal needs. Therefore, one of the concerns is a creation of laws that make people not to abuse this freedom as well as fully preserve the value of life.

Taking into consideration the Hippocratic Oath some opposing views may arise (Smith 80). This involves observation of doctor’s ethics and honesty principles. This would steer them away from misusing their powers of determining who should be assisted through Physician-Assisted Suicide and who is not allowed. The challenge is in ensuring that corruption and malice does not take part during the decision. The act is also demeaning to the value of human existence and the abuse that cannot be efficiently controlled. Most of the world religion is against any form of suicide and would rather oversee nature take its course (Smith 97). The extent of ways beyond our known medical atmosphere and science can happen to change the decision of doctors on whether a person will live or die. Miracle healings happened before so we cannot take full consideration of what the doctor says. Before anyone make up one’s mind to take part in a physician-Assisted or any other form of suicide it is needful to advise. If this act is allowed, then close relations and doctors would easily give up on medical cases that are deemed fatal. Therefore, these views necessitate us not to use Physician-Assisted Suicide as a first measure under all circumstances.

I oppose the decision of Physician-Assisted Suicide because morally it denies one to fully experience what life has in store. Living some extra day may lead to discovery of facts and situations that would be very advantageous to the human lives. Assisted suicide denies the patient a chance to make an influence in life for an extra minute. Life is not only mean breathing but also how we impact on others by their knowing that we are alive. Therefore, considerations from both sides are as valid as the unique circumstances and it is up to the human conscience to determine what is good or bad and how it influence the society at large. The pillars of morality give perspective to the essence of life, moreover we should create an atmosphere that will lead to preservation rather than destroying life.

Buy essay writing on sociology , our UK or US writers will help you!