I have a philosophy paper on health ethics due tomorrow at midnight. Most of today was spent at school, feverishly trying to figure out what question to write about (being close to the last minute and all). After dinner, Andrew and I occupied a table at Starbucks for a good three hours, where I managed to churn out one thousand words on why autonomy was the most important consideration in ethics, and that people can do whatever they want with their body so long as it did not harm others. My problem? We had to either agree or disagree with the claim: no fence-sitting. I, of course, agreed with only half of it... so, now what? My take was that harm to others should not be the sole concern that can interfere with self-determination, nor should it be an unmoving claim. Can you make a decision to end your life if you are considered to be mentally incompetent? If we say that people can never exercise agency if it will harm another, is abortion not a valid choice if it is one day determined that it causes "harm" to a fetus? I kept thinking of too many possibilities that would require disproving too many objections.
At around 12:30am, I decided that this was not the topic for me. In the past few hours, I have listened to the Drake EP on repeat approximately four times (should I have to hazard a guess) and have written another one thousand words... on whether questions that arise from new medical technologies are actually new medical concerns.
Is this a cop-out for an easier question? I don't think so... prepping for the first question made me realize a lot of things about my own personal values and beliefs, but I don't think it had the makings of a good grade. I feel more confident about what I wrote, hurriedly, at the ungodly (but not untypical, for me) hour of 3:00am than what I did earlier today. I should trust my gut more often.
No comments:
Post a Comment