Technology ,Rights, Value and Free society Essay

Technology ,Rights, Value and Free society - Essay Example This essay argues that individual rights and the common good can be reconciled; that it would be disastrous to adhere to only one principle. For instance, some claim that the authority bestowed upon individuals by private property rights is very dangerous to the common good; criminologists claim that protecting the criminals’ individual rights is endangering the common good by letting criminals walk; advocates who are focused on the overall moral environment of the society claim that protecting the rights of individuals to take unsafe drugs will certainly challenge public moral standards, whereas others, who are interested in the market’s ethical standing, generally conveys displeasure with the right to freedom of trade and commerce, declaring that these sorts of freedom set free the forces of insatiability, greed, and materialism to the detriment of unity, peace, and civility. Reconciling Individual Rights and the Common Good The restriction of individual rights seldom takes place without asserting or demanding some public value from it. And leading scholars, such as Mesthene, and governing political forces use this public value to justify their agenda of restricting individual rights. However, the key questions are, should it have to be this way? Should individual rights go against the common good? Without a doubt, those who support the natural rights of individuals refuse to believe so. It was exactly to prove the harmony between individual rights and the development of the community. John Locke would definitely disagree that there should be a battle between these two principles. Indeed, the disagreement arises from a fundamental misinterpretation. This includes believing that the community is far from being â€Å"a community of human individuals who share certain community concerns which will best be served if each individual has his or her rights fully protected† (Machan, 1998, 154). The argument is that human nature brings people toge ther into one community and establishes principles by which society could be completely unified, at least in theory. This is the very argument supported by natural rights scholars-- that the common good is most successfully protected by awarding each individual prerogative. Within such prerogative every individual is in all likelihood be able to achieve the best s/he can, bringing about the little or no damage in the process, for by denying individuals the power to meddle in other people’s business, the damage or immortality they do will almost certainly harm only them. This will absolutely work as dissuasion to misbehavior, which, consequently, generates benefits to the larger society. Even those scholars, who thought that preferably the most appropriate course of action for all individuals is to work for the society, also thought that the common good could be gained by means of private avarice, as long as specific ideals of liberty are respected. Even ancient philosophers, such as Aristotle, claimed that private property rights would benefit the common welfare. As stated by Aristotle (Machan, 2004, 73): That all persons call the same thing mine is the sense in which each does so may be a fine thing, but it is impracticable; or if the words are taken in the other sense, such a unity in no way conduces to harmony. And there is another objection to the proposal. For that

Privacy and confidentiality ( health care ethics) Essay - 1

Privacy and confidentiality ( health care ethics) - Essay Example it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret† (as translated by Francis Adams). Why is it appropriate that the healthcare practitioners to keep mum over the medical conditions of patients? It just makes practical sense that medical professionals should uphold the confidentiality of their clients. This is because in the clinical setting patients are expected to fully disclose their habits, their ailments, their strengths, and their weaknesses. Beyond this, they are frequently required to undress and allow physicians access to their bodies for examination, treatments, and surgery. Thus, the patient is vulnerable, needy, and prone to feelings of shame. Patients endure these experiences because they want to be treated for what ails them and because they trust their physicians to keep their secrets. If this trust were eroded, it might follow that patients would become unable to seek medical attention or they will be hesitant to disclose some information that is vital for their treatment. Most often, dilemmas arise when medical practitioners should or should not disclose patient information. For, example, confidentiality is regarded as crucial by those involved in the care of mentally ill or emotionally disturbed patients. A stigma has traditionally surrounded those with mental disorders. This is why the preservation of confidentiality is necessary to ensure that patients are prepared to come forward for treatment and that they continue with treatment. Patients require that assurance. They do not want the risk of becoming the butt of cruel jokes and being socially ostracized. Another example, in family research, is that when both the husband and wife may report on sensitive topics such as his and her own and the partner’s extramarital relationships, marital aggression, or alcohol use. Margolin et al. (2005) revealed that the â€Å"standard safeguard for discomfort