Les miserables: character analysis

Jean ValjeanJean Valjean is a central character of Les Miserables. His story is that of misery, pain, and injustice. Valjean is an epitome of change. He makes transitions from one kind of man to another, as dictated by his drastic experiences in life. Valjean’s life is a story of how an honest and good man can be hardened by society in general, and prison in particular.Because of Valjean’s unfortunate experience in prison, he hardens into a criminal and a social outcast. This transformation in Valjean’s life is a recognition of the observed truth and pattern of human behavior, wherein man changes, either for better or for worse, as a result of external forces such as society. The most important part of Valjean’s personality is his resilience and positive attitude towards life and change in general. He accepts the positive effect of other people in his life, and learns to love and care for such people.Ultimately, however, the good character of Valjean surfa ces, and even the bishop realizes that, as shown by this passage:â€Å"The bishop approached him and said, in a low voice, ‘Do not forget, ever, that   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   you have promised me to use this silver to become an honest man.' Jean    Valjean, who had no recollection of any such promise, stood dumbfounded. The   Ã‚   bishop had stressed these words as he spoke them. He continued solemnly,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   ‘Jean Valjean, my brother, you no longer belong to evil, but to good. It is your soul I am buying for you. I withdraw it from dark thoughts and from the spirit of   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   perdition, and I give it to God!†FantineFantine is one of the characters in Les Miserables who lived the less appealing life. She had been deprived of good opportunities since her childhood, such as education and care. Thus, she grew up to be an uneducated girl whom everyone else found easy to victimize.Fantine can easily be categori zed as a victim of society, since she had been deprived of education without her fault, and yet society readily found her corrupt and unfit for fruitful activity and relationships. A lot of people took advantage of her lack of knowledge, education and experience, and thereafter left her out in the cold. Fantine’s character is a perfect illustration of the bigotry in human society and the story of her life is but a perfect example of the way injustice ruins lives.Brought by her experiences, Fantine learned to have a different view of morality, as expressed in her statement, â€Å"[T]he guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.†CosetteThe character of Cosette is in many respects similar to that of Valjean, an effect largely influenced by the latter’s taking charge over her education and upbringing. Thus, like Valjean, Cosette exhibits her kindheartedness and morality through her actions, thereby manifesting that her initial exp erience with the cruel Thà ©nardiers did not corrupt her character. Cosette, at one point in the story, said, â€Å"[W]e bow to the man who kneels. A faith is necessary to man. Woe to him who believes in nothing.† Such a statement reflects her belief about man, and shows how pure Cosette’s character has remained.Fortunately for Cosette, she had not been exposed to the kind of cruelty and hardship that Valjean went through, although she expressed resentment over Valjean’s overprotective stance. When viewed as a whole, Cosette’s character does not provide a lot of conflict, she being one of the lucky personalities in the story.

Free Essays on The Roots And Reason Of Fascism

What exactly is fascism? Where did it come from? What on earth is it good for? Nowadays, fascism is most popularly associated with Mussolini’s Italy between the years 1922 to 1943, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany between the years 1933 to 1945. However, making Nazism synonymous with fascism would be a mistake: fascism has spawned into many forms, and although they share similar features, different nations have customized fascism to a point of significant differentiation. Between 1922 and 1945, fascist parties arose throughout the world. They included the Fatherland Front, led by Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, the Falange founded by Jose Antonio Primo in Spain, the Cross of Fire, renamed the French Social Party led by Colonel Francois de La Rocque, the Gentile National Socialist Movement and the South Africa Fascists, both in South Africa, the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, and the military dictatorship of Admiral Tojo Hideki in Japan (RoSo, 2002). Even Mussoliniâ₠¬â„¢s and Hitler’s fascist states - allied Axis forces in World War II – were far from identical. Up to and including the year 2002 fascist states and groups continue to exist all over the world. This makes fascism all the more intriguing to study, as unlike Communism, for example, it has no distinct author of one ideological abstraction. There was no Karl Marx of fascism, who exported his theories worldwide. Instead, fascism seems to be a condition that states let themselves fall into, and then upon which they fervently cling. Fascism grows up from out of the ground and is incubated in each nation individually: consequently, the ingredients are the same but the flavor is unique. This phenomenon occurs because fascism, for as long as it has been known, is rightly considered an ideology of negatives. For example, it is vehemently anti-Marxist, anti-democratic, and anti-liberal. This makes it difficult to define what exactly is â€Å"pure† fascism. Its origins hav... Free Essays on The Roots And Reason Of Fascism Free Essays on The Roots And Reason Of Fascism What exactly is fascism? Where did it come from? What on earth is it good for? Nowadays, fascism is most popularly associated with Mussolini’s Italy between the years 1922 to 1943, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany between the years 1933 to 1945. However, making Nazism synonymous with fascism would be a mistake: fascism has spawned into many forms, and although they share similar features, different nations have customized fascism to a point of significant differentiation. Between 1922 and 1945, fascist parties arose throughout the world. They included the Fatherland Front, led by Engelbert Dollfuss in Austria, the Falange founded by Jose Antonio Primo in Spain, the Cross of Fire, renamed the French Social Party led by Colonel Francois de La Rocque, the Gentile National Socialist Movement and the South Africa Fascists, both in South Africa, the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, and the military dictatorship of Admiral Tojo Hideki in Japan (RoSo, 2002). Even Mussoliniâ₠¬â„¢s and Hitler’s fascist states - allied Axis forces in World War II – were far from identical. Up to and including the year 2002 fascist states and groups continue to exist all over the world. This makes fascism all the more intriguing to study, as unlike Communism, for example, it has no distinct author of one ideological abstraction. There was no Karl Marx of fascism, who exported his theories worldwide. Instead, fascism seems to be a condition that states let themselves fall into, and then upon which they fervently cling. Fascism grows up from out of the ground and is incubated in each nation individually: consequently, the ingredients are the same but the flavor is unique. This phenomenon occurs because fascism, for as long as it has been known, is rightly considered an ideology of negatives. For example, it is vehemently anti-Marxist, anti-democratic, and anti-liberal. This makes it difficult to define what exactly is â€Å"pure† fascism. Its origins hav...

Free Essays on Mona Lisa

For this art essay I decided to learn and critique on an artist by the name of Leonardo da Vinci. I chose him because I didn’t know that much about him and wanted to know why he is so admired and famous? Did he become famous before or after he died? What makes Leonardo unique compared to other artists? I also wanted to learn more about the Mona Lisa. Why is it such famous and valuable painting for just being a picture of a lady? Is the Mona Lisa the Leonardo’s only famous painting? All of these questions I hoped to be able to answer. Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452 and died in 1519. Painting and being an artist is in the da Vinci genes. When Leonardo was just fifteen years old his artistic career had begun. He was an apprentice for a famous artist by the name of Verrochio. While working for Verrochio he did little things in the background of paintings and eventually became an even better painter than Verrochio. From here he became famous in his early twenties. He wasn’t only a painter, but also an inventor. Inventing things like flying machines, geometry, mechanics, municipal construction, canals and architecture. Leonardo da Vinci liked to use two main types of techniques in his paintings; sfumato and chiaroscuro. Sfumato is a technique that artists use to make smoky overall haze effect to a painting using a lightly tainted varnish. Leonardo da Vinci liked to use this technique because dusk was his most favorite time of the day and during dusk usually came fog. The other technique he liked to use was chiaroscuro. Chiaroscuro is a technique that an artist uses to define an object through contrast of light and shadowing. He liked to use this technique because it made a picture look more realistic and lifelike. Leonardo da Vinci was the first artist to study the human anatomy. This in return he would use in his paintings to give proportion body parts on human figures. Over Leonardo’s lifetime he did man... Free Essays on Mona Lisa Free Essays on Mona Lisa For this art essay I decided to learn and critique on an artist by the name of Leonardo da Vinci. I chose him because I didn’t know that much about him and wanted to know why he is so admired and famous? Did he become famous before or after he died? What makes Leonardo unique compared to other artists? I also wanted to learn more about the Mona Lisa. Why is it such famous and valuable painting for just being a picture of a lady? Is the Mona Lisa the Leonardo’s only famous painting? All of these questions I hoped to be able to answer. Leonardo da Vinci was born in 1452 and died in 1519. Painting and being an artist is in the da Vinci genes. When Leonardo was just fifteen years old his artistic career had begun. He was an apprentice for a famous artist by the name of Verrochio. While working for Verrochio he did little things in the background of paintings and eventually became an even better painter than Verrochio. From here he became famous in his early twenties. He wasn’t only a painter, but also an inventor. Inventing things like flying machines, geometry, mechanics, municipal construction, canals and architecture. Leonardo da Vinci liked to use two main types of techniques in his paintings; sfumato and chiaroscuro. Sfumato is a technique that artists use to make smoky overall haze effect to a painting using a lightly tainted varnish. Leonardo da Vinci liked to use this technique because dusk was his most favorite time of the day and during dusk usually came fog. The other technique he liked to use was chiaroscuro. Chiaroscuro is a technique that an artist uses to define an object through contrast of light and shadowing. He liked to use this technique because it made a picture look more realistic and lifelike. Leonardo da Vinci was the first artist to study the human anatomy. This in return he would use in his paintings to give proportion body parts on human figures. Over Leonardo’s lifetime he did man...

Bioethics of Euthanasia

Therefore, the family is also an institution which generates the same attachment to objectivity that encourages a certain set of goals. Ultimately though, it is one’s subjective experience that has it’s own social, physical, mental, and spiritual habits and attachments that cause the mind and body to perform and exist in a particular way. The overarching illegality of euthanasia across North America is supported by religious institutions which act as the sole moral platform for questioning the professional conduct of medical practitioners. The hegemonic belief that is fostered views euthanasia as a breach of non-maleficence, though doctors have and will likely continue to comply with life-ending aid in North America, regardless of recent deliberation regarding legislation. A legalization of euthanasia could ease tensions for physicians and patients dealing with chronic fatal health conditions, but would require specific criteria for legality. The debilitating suffering from a terminal illness should be the first criteria, as well as an autonomous request made by the sufficiently competent patient. Those who advocate for the legalization of euthanasia are part of a particular morality that sees beyond the mystical value of medical non-maleficence and opposes overarching institutional moralities that forbid life-ending decisions. Also of concern is the slippery slope argument, whereby any level of legal euthanasia would likely incite requests for more flexible criteria, publicly bringing into question the intangible value of human life. A central notion of biomedical ethics that stands as a major contender against the legalization of euthanasia is non-maleficence. To generally adhere to the principles of non-maleficence, physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients as these offer risk with no possibility of benefit and thus have a chance of harming patients. In addition, physicians must not do anything that would purposely harm patients without the action being balanced by proportional benefit (Beauchamp, 155). This benefit is not necessarily beneficial to the terminally ill individual who has requested euthanasia. The benefit referred to in the medical field is generally an extension of life and a restoration of health, which is not a reality for the terminally ill, rather a benefit might be an end to incurable suffering. Because many medications, procedures, and interventions cause harm in addition to benefit, the principle of non-maleficence provides little concrete guidance in the care of patients, and acts as a fairly weak argument against euthanasia. A helpful distinction when debating the validity of physician assisted suicide is that of ‘killing’ and ‘allowing to die’. If a patient is too frail to undergo restorative treatment, it can be said that the withholding of that treatment is allowing the patient to die. On the other hand, ‘killing’ entails taking action that would hasten the onset of death. There is considerable overlap between these two concepts, to the point that a clear distinction is not readily discernible (Beauchamp, 172). The prima facie nature of allowing a patient to die, as expressed by Beauchamp is acceptable under certain conditions whereby a medical technology is considered futile, or ineffectual, or a patient and/or surrogate decision maker has validly denied a medical technology (173). In the case that a patient is suffering unnecessarily, and has denied or been denied the opportunity for treatment due to severity of illness, should euthanasia not be an acceptable option? This action would undoubtedly fall under the category of ‘killing’, but if the nearest solution is the imminent death of a terminally ill patient, the concept of non-maleficence should not apply to a deliberate hastening of the patients’ biological shutdown. It can also be argued that fading to death in palliative care with little to no cognition is of little value, and coming from a strictly utilitarian perspective, in some cases, may be unnecessary. If an elderly patient has no immediate family, and is in the final stages of a degenerative disease, the option of the patient to deny extended care and hasten the imminence of death should ot be considered immoral. The approval of certain cases such as the example above would definitely introduce a ‘slippery slope’ argument whereby the notions and parameters of conducting euthanasia would be challenged, inflated, and publicly scorned. The infamous example of Dr. Kevorkian is indicative of the demand for physican-assisted suicide, and the flexible moralities of perhaps many physicians who are faced with the challenge of allowing a patient to pursue a hastened death. Michigan doctor Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for delivering a lethal injection to a 52-year-old man suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was the first time in five trials that Kevorkian was found guilty of a crime after participating in, by his count, at least 130 assisted suicides. Likened to â€Å"a medical hit man† by the prosecution, Kevorkian compared himself to Martin Luther King and told the court he was no more culpable than an executioner. The 70-year-old doctor had dared prosecutors to charge him and threatened a hunger strike if convicted. â€Å"Suicide†). The case of Kevorkian’s assisted suicides shows that public hegemonic belief places all burden on the physician involved, for it is technically legal to carry out or attempt suicide, but not with the aid of any other person, especially a clinician. These laws tend to make sense in every realm except the medical world, where euthanasia is an issue that arises with the terminally ill, and particular moralities strongly advocate for the right to die under certain circumstances, as illustrated by Kevorkian’s rash threats of a hunger strike if convicted. Obviously viewing himself as a liberator, Kevorkian’s particular morality quickly earned him a reputation, and having participated in over one hundred assisted suicides, he stands not as a reputable opposition to hegemony, but rather a moral pariah. Kevorkian’s comparison of his ‘moral fallacy’ with the conduct of an executioner is an interesting philosophical idea, and also illustrates the exclusivity of moral professionalism within the medical world. This is mostly apparent in the United States where there is a domination of privatized health care, and plenty of capital punishment. The application of morality is varied when it comes to death and dying, in a society where a 20 year old can be put to death for committing murder, and in the same society, a terminally ill, suffering patient cannot decidedly seek a peaceful death without moral intervention. In both cases, strong moral impositions are made, and guide the fate of both individuals. The convict has a chance at rehabilitation, and renewing his moral adherence and contribution to society, but is not rewarded the chance because his actions stripped him of his dignity. On the other hand, the dying patient is not permitted to seek assistance in death because common morality forbids it, much like the same common morality denies the convict a second chance. The patient is denied euthanasia because the hegemonic function of the medical field is to avoid non-maleficence, so according to the same morality, the criminal is denied rehabilitation and put to death because the function of the law is to appropriately punish offenders. This paradox shows how two distinct versions of the same common morality are stamped like a ‘cookie cutter’, yielding the anticipated results of the societal function: the patient can’t die because medicine is designed to keep him alive, and the criminal can’t live because capital punishment is designed to eliminate him. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the application of euthanasia in the medical field should be acceptable in certain circumstances, and that exclusive clinical moralities should allow deliberation on the subject, and not continue to function in a ‘cookie cutter’ fashion. In Canada and the United States, laws distinguishing ‘active’ and ‘passive’ categories of euthanasia are divided into four sections: â€Å"deliberately killing persons who wish to die or assisting them in suicide (active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide), deliberately killing persons whose wishes are unknown or opposed to such treatment (active involuntary euthanasia), withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means from those who do not want them used (forgoing treatment of competent individuals), and letting persons die by withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means when their wishes are unknown or when they want, or would tolerate, such means to be applied or maintained (forgoing treatment of incompetent individuals)† (Dickens, 136). According to these legal parameters, it would seem that active and passive euthanasia should only occur when indicated by the patient, living will, or a surrogate, such as active voluntary euthanasia, an d the forgoing of treatment to competent individuals. These two forms provide the patient with the moral decision to adopt the institutional values of their choice and affect their course of longevity and suffering. In the cases of active involuntary euthanasia, and the withholding of treatment from incompetent patients it can be said that, morally, the physician has no right to change the course of the patient’s treatment without clearance from a living will or surrogate. To conduct active involuntary euthanasia, or withhold treatment for no apparent reason indicated by the patient or surrogate, negligence would necessarily apply and represent the justified fault of the attending physician. Dealing with death is a subjective experience that generates fear, and causes humans to seek comfort in institutional beliefs, whether that be family, religion, other forms of spirituality, or modern medicine itself. Death reminds humans of their biological capacities and fleeting opportunities for experience in life, and generates a desire to medicalize suicide. â€Å"We want physicians to provide the means to end life in an antiseptically acceptable fashion. Knives, guns, ropes, and bridges tend to be messy. We seek a more aesthetically pleasing way of terminating life, one that leaves the patient looking dead, but not disgusting. For this, as in so much else in the 20th-century quest for happiness, we turn to the physician† (Paris, 33). Much like we seek aesthetic modifications from plastic surgeons, and mental stability from psychologists, we turn again to professional doctors for a method of dealing with the harsh reality of death. Though euthanasia may be an acceptable option for some people in certain sets of dire circumstances, it is the fear of death generated by the triumphs of medicine that provide the illusion that death and suffering are something a physician can cure. Medicinal miracles and the rise of technological medicine give people the impression that old losses are new triumphs, at least insofar as one can be kept alive for longer with chronic diseases. This notion sparks the fear of suffering before death, and that morbidity will be extended instead of compressed. Essentially then, it is the physician who bears all weight of the laws pertaining to euthanasia, which seems unjust when there is little more that medicine can do for a terminally ill patient than aid in their peaceful departure from life. The argument that legalized euthanasia would initiate the slippery slope, and â€Å"hospitals would become cruel and dehumanized places† are refuted by the suggestion and observation of the exact opposite (Schafer). As Schafer suggests, â€Å"experience has shown that what happened was exactly the opposite of what was predicted by the naysayers: Doctors and hospitals have become kinder and gentler, patients’ wishes are better respected than previously and society has come to accept the importance of individual autonomy at the end of life† (3). Clearly, the legalization of euthanasia would not entirely disrupt the nature of medical care in Canada, and with current debates indicating the possibility of change, society may undergo a change of ideas in the near future. The idea that euthanasia may provide a patient with more dignity at death than what is often referred to as ‘sedation to unconsciousness’ is becoming more common, and should not be deemed unacceptable next to palliative care. With the right safeguards in place, euthanasia should be one of many life-ending options available to Canadians near the end of their life, with palliative care being a morally adjacent decision. The subjective experience of death is one’s own, and even familial institution can only do so much to comfort the process of being terminally ill. Therefore it should be a decision of the patient to seek medical help, either in the form of sedation and longevity, or immediate peace. Bioethics of Euthanasia Therefore, the family is also an institution which generates the same attachment to objectivity that encourages a certain set of goals. Ultimately though, it is one’s subjective experience that has it’s own social, physical, mental, and spiritual habits and attachments that cause the mind and body to perform and exist in a particular way. The overarching illegality of euthanasia across North America is supported by religious institutions which act as the sole moral platform for questioning the professional conduct of medical practitioners. The hegemonic belief that is fostered views euthanasia as a breach of non-maleficence, though doctors have and will likely continue to comply with life-ending aid in North America, regardless of recent deliberation regarding legislation. A legalization of euthanasia could ease tensions for physicians and patients dealing with chronic fatal health conditions, but would require specific criteria for legality. The debilitating suffering from a terminal illness should be the first criteria, as well as an autonomous request made by the sufficiently competent patient. Those who advocate for the legalization of euthanasia are part of a particular morality that sees beyond the mystical value of medical non-maleficence and opposes overarching institutional moralities that forbid life-ending decisions. Also of concern is the slippery slope argument, whereby any level of legal euthanasia would likely incite requests for more flexible criteria, publicly bringing into question the intangible value of human life. A central notion of biomedical ethics that stands as a major contender against the legalization of euthanasia is non-maleficence. To generally adhere to the principles of non-maleficence, physicians should not provide ineffective treatments to patients as these offer risk with no possibility of benefit and thus have a chance of harming patients. In addition, physicians must not do anything that would purposely harm patients without the action being balanced by proportional benefit (Beauchamp, 155). This benefit is not necessarily beneficial to the terminally ill individual who has requested euthanasia. The benefit referred to in the medical field is generally an extension of life and a restoration of health, which is not a reality for the terminally ill, rather a benefit might be an end to incurable suffering. Because many medications, procedures, and interventions cause harm in addition to benefit, the principle of non-maleficence provides little concrete guidance in the care of patients, and acts as a fairly weak argument against euthanasia. A helpful distinction when debating the validity of physician assisted suicide is that of ‘killing’ and ‘allowing to die’. If a patient is too frail to undergo restorative treatment, it can be said that the withholding of that treatment is allowing the patient to die. On the other hand, ‘killing’ entails taking action that would hasten the onset of death. There is considerable overlap between these two concepts, to the point that a clear distinction is not readily discernible (Beauchamp, 172). The prima facie nature of allowing a patient to die, as expressed by Beauchamp is acceptable under certain conditions whereby a medical technology is considered futile, or ineffectual, or a patient and/or surrogate decision maker has validly denied a medical technology (173). In the case that a patient is suffering unnecessarily, and has denied or been denied the opportunity for treatment due to severity of illness, should euthanasia not be an acceptable option? This action would undoubtedly fall under the category of ‘killing’, but if the nearest solution is the imminent death of a terminally ill patient, the concept of non-maleficence should not apply to a deliberate hastening of the patients’ biological shutdown. It can also be argued that fading to death in palliative care with little to no cognition is of little value, and coming from a strictly utilitarian perspective, in some cases, may be unnecessary. If an elderly patient has no immediate family, and is in the final stages of a degenerative disease, the option of the patient to deny extended care and hasten the imminence of death should ot be considered immoral. The approval of certain cases such as the example above would definitely introduce a ‘slippery slope’ argument whereby the notions and parameters of conducting euthanasia would be challenged, inflated, and publicly scorned. The infamous example of Dr. Kevorkian is indicative of the demand for physican-assisted suicide, and the flexible moralities of perhaps many physicians who are faced with the challenge of allowing a patient to pursue a hastened death. Michigan doctor Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder for delivering a lethal injection to a 52-year-old man suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was the first time in five trials that Kevorkian was found guilty of a crime after participating in, by his count, at least 130 assisted suicides. Likened to â€Å"a medical hit man† by the prosecution, Kevorkian compared himself to Martin Luther King and told the court he was no more culpable than an executioner. The 70-year-old doctor had dared prosecutors to charge him and threatened a hunger strike if convicted. â€Å"Suicide†). The case of Kevorkian’s assisted suicides shows that public hegemonic belief places all burden on the physician involved, for it is technically legal to carry out or attempt suicide, but not with the aid of any other person, especially a clinician. These laws tend to make sense in every realm except the medical world, where euthanasia is an issue that arises with the terminally ill, and particular moralities strongly advocate for the right to die under certain circumstances, as illustrated by Kevorkian’s rash threats of a hunger strike if convicted. Obviously viewing himself as a liberator, Kevorkian’s particular morality quickly earned him a reputation, and having participated in over one hundred assisted suicides, he stands not as a reputable opposition to hegemony, but rather a moral pariah. Kevorkian’s comparison of his ‘moral fallacy’ with the conduct of an executioner is an interesting philosophical idea, and also illustrates the exclusivity of moral professionalism within the medical world. This is mostly apparent in the United States where there is a domination of privatized health care, and plenty of capital punishment. The application of morality is varied when it comes to death and dying, in a society where a 20 year old can be put to death for committing murder, and in the same society, a terminally ill, suffering patient cannot decidedly seek a peaceful death without moral intervention. In both cases, strong moral impositions are made, and guide the fate of both individuals. The convict has a chance at rehabilitation, and renewing his moral adherence and contribution to society, but is not rewarded the chance because his actions stripped him of his dignity. On the other hand, the dying patient is not permitted to seek assistance in death because common morality forbids it, much like the same common morality denies the convict a second chance. The patient is denied euthanasia because the hegemonic function of the medical field is to avoid non-maleficence, so according to the same morality, the criminal is denied rehabilitation and put to death because the function of the law is to appropriately punish offenders. This paradox shows how two distinct versions of the same common morality are stamped like a ‘cookie cutter’, yielding the anticipated results of the societal function: the patient can’t die because medicine is designed to keep him alive, and the criminal can’t live because capital punishment is designed to eliminate him. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the application of euthanasia in the medical field should be acceptable in certain circumstances, and that exclusive clinical moralities should allow deliberation on the subject, and not continue to function in a ‘cookie cutter’ fashion. In Canada and the United States, laws distinguishing ‘active’ and ‘passive’ categories of euthanasia are divided into four sections: â€Å"deliberately killing persons who wish to die or assisting them in suicide (active voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide), deliberately killing persons whose wishes are unknown or opposed to such treatment (active involuntary euthanasia), withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means from those who do not want them used (forgoing treatment of competent individuals), and letting persons die by withholding or withdrawing life-preserving means when their wishes are unknown or when they want, or would tolerate, such means to be applied or maintained (forgoing treatment of incompetent individuals)† (Dickens, 136). According to these legal parameters, it would seem that active and passive euthanasia should only occur when indicated by the patient, living will, or a surrogate, such as active voluntary euthanasia, an d the forgoing of treatment to competent individuals. These two forms provide the patient with the moral decision to adopt the institutional values of their choice and affect their course of longevity and suffering. In the cases of active involuntary euthanasia, and the withholding of treatment from incompetent patients it can be said that, morally, the physician has no right to change the course of the patient’s treatment without clearance from a living will or surrogate. To conduct active involuntary euthanasia, or withhold treatment for no apparent reason indicated by the patient or surrogate, negligence would necessarily apply and represent the justified fault of the attending physician. Dealing with death is a subjective experience that generates fear, and causes humans to seek comfort in institutional beliefs, whether that be family, religion, other forms of spirituality, or modern medicine itself. Death reminds humans of their biological capacities and fleeting opportunities for experience in life, and generates a desire to medicalize suicide. â€Å"We want physicians to provide the means to end life in an antiseptically acceptable fashion. Knives, guns, ropes, and bridges tend to be messy. We seek a more aesthetically pleasing way of terminating life, one that leaves the patient looking dead, but not disgusting. For this, as in so much else in the 20th-century quest for happiness, we turn to the physician† (Paris, 33). Much like we seek aesthetic modifications from plastic surgeons, and mental stability from psychologists, we turn again to professional doctors for a method of dealing with the harsh reality of death. Though euthanasia may be an acceptable option for some people in certain sets of dire circumstances, it is the fear of death generated by the triumphs of medicine that provide the illusion that death and suffering are something a physician can cure. Medicinal miracles and the rise of technological medicine give people the impression that old losses are new triumphs, at least insofar as one can be kept alive for longer with chronic diseases. This notion sparks the fear of suffering before death, and that morbidity will be extended instead of compressed. Essentially then, it is the physician who bears all weight of the laws pertaining to euthanasia, which seems unjust when there is little more that medicine can do for a terminally ill patient than aid in their peaceful departure from life. The argument that legalized euthanasia would initiate the slippery slope, and â€Å"hospitals would become cruel and dehumanized places† are refuted by the suggestion and observation of the exact opposite (Schafer). As Schafer suggests, â€Å"experience has shown that what happened was exactly the opposite of what was predicted by the naysayers: Doctors and hospitals have become kinder and gentler, patients’ wishes are better respected than previously and society has come to accept the importance of individual autonomy at the end of life† (3). Clearly, the legalization of euthanasia would not entirely disrupt the nature of medical care in Canada, and with current debates indicating the possibility of change, society may undergo a change of ideas in the near future. The idea that euthanasia may provide a patient with more dignity at death than what is often referred to as ‘sedation to unconsciousness’ is becoming more common, and should not be deemed unacceptable next to palliative care. With the right safeguards in place, euthanasia should be one of many life-ending options available to Canadians near the end of their life, with palliative care being a morally adjacent decision. The subjective experience of death is one’s own, and even familial institution can only do so much to comfort the process of being terminally ill. Therefore it should be a decision of the patient to seek medical help, either in the form of sedation and longevity, or immediate peace.

Zhongmin-MIT-Stanford-7days-editor-15561 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3750 words

Zhongmin-MIT-Stanford-7days-editor-15561 - Essay Example Obviously, he was not progressing much in his career. Soon, I noticed that he avoided talking with me directly and was not paying attention when I conducted team meetings. I also learned that he was trying to communicate the project matters to my manager, bypassing my authority. Knowing it was my responsibility to resolve the matter, I took the initiative to have a dialog with him away from the formalities of the office. So I invited him for lunch and simply tried to establish a personal connection between us. He gradually opened up to talk about his family and his hobbies, which were real estate and stock investment, two subjects that I was also interested in. That set the tone for the rest of the meeting. Once I felt he had settled down and relaxed, I asked him why he was avoiding me and not reporting to me. To my surprise, he was straightforward and told me that he felt uncomfortable to work under me as I was much younger than him and that other colleagues told him that he was passed up for promotion. Knowing his military background, I said that the purpose of a business reporting structure was to improve efficiency and to ensure group direction rather than enforce a hierarchy of status. I told him, â€Å"Patrick, we came from different backgrounds and I do not necessarily know more than you do. The management wanted us to work together on this project as our skill sets are complementary. It does not mean I am superior in any way to you. Let’s be friends and enjoy working together on this project† The following weeks, he let me help him with many development assignments. I took special care by choosing my words cautiously to ensure that he was comfortable in taking my guidance. Slowly, we drew closer and he was no longer nervous in my presence. He was a fast learner and I credited him for his progress in front of the executive team. He was so overjoyed that he was beaming all through that week. I realize now, that it must have been a rare

International Business College Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

International Business College - Case Study Example With the help of the current value of the possible future cash flows, the market values for interest and foreign currency exchange risk are found out. However, the information according to the sensitivity analysis will not necessarily signify the real changes in fair value that IBM would face in case of normal market conditions as, due to practical confinements, all variables except for the particular market risk factor are held constant. Coca Cola Company makes the use of derivative financial instruments mostly to lessen their exposure to unfavorable fluctuations in the foreign currency exchange rates and in interest rates and commodity prices involved as market risks. The company does not go into derivative financial instruments in order to carry out trading. In fact, risk by hedging and primary economic exposure is reduced by all their derivative positions. Owing to the high connection between the underlying exposure and hedging instrument, reciprocal changes in the value of the underlying exposure is used to counterbalance fluctuations in the value of the instruments. Practically all of Coca Cola's derivatives are simple, over-the-counter instruments with liquid markets. If the firm has borrowed on a floating rate basis, at very reset date, the rate for the following period would be set in line with the market rate. The firm's future interest payments are therefore uncertain. An increase in rates will adversely affect the cash flows. Consider a firm, which wants to undertake a fixed investment project. Suppose it requires foreign currency financing and is forced to borrow on a floating rate basis. Since its cost of capital is uncertain, an additional element of risk is introduced in project appraisal. On the other hand, consider a firm, which has borrowed on a fixed rate basis to finance a fixed investment project. Subsequently inflation rate in the economy slows down and the market rate of interest declines. The cash flows from the project may decline as a result of the fall in the rate of inflation but the firm is logged into high cost borrowing. 2.1 IBM As compared to an increase of $18 million on December 31, 2005, there would be reduction in the fair market value of IBM's financial instruments of $113 million, which would be a result of a 10% reduction in the levels of interest rates on December 31, 2006, keeping all other variables constant. On the other hand, as compared to a reduction of $8 million at December 31, 2005, there would be a hike in the fair value of IBM's financial instruments of $96 million, which would be a result of a 10% increase in the levels of interest rates, keeping all other variables constant. Alterations in IBM's interest rate profile and amount and debt maturities have

Computer Security Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Computer Security - Essay Example The network also makes it possible to share resources like printers and hard drives. This therefore reduces costs for of having to buy these resources. Proposed client-tier architecture The application architecture that I better and promises better security is that of 3-tier architecture. In this aspect the server will be installed in a data center with the server of the server program. Three-tier architecture has various layers with various functions. 3-tier architecture. The 3-tier client/server architecture was introduced to eradicate the problems that were associated with 2-tier architecture. With this architecture, a middleware lies between the server and the client. They are implemented in several ways, which include implementation as a message server, or application server or processing monitors. The functions of the middleware are queuing, execution of applications, staging of the databases, and prioritization for work in progress (Wegner, & Peter, 2007). This architecture im proves performance when the number of users is increased. It has the advantage of flexibility when compared to 2-tier architecture. One of the downsides of this architecture is the fact that the development is more complex than that of 2-tier applications. There are two types of 3-tier architectures 3-tier with message server In this type of 3-tier architecture, the messages are processed and prioritized asynchronously. This is done in such a way that the messages have a header which contains priority information, address and identification number. The message server provides a link to the relational database management system and other sources of data. Messaging systems are good alternatives to wireless infrastructures (Gorit, Dreoh, & Jeri, 2006). This architecture allows the main body of an application to run on a shared host instead on running on the his machine which is already overloaded due to its minimal resources (Rabaugh et al, 2001). The application server shares the sect ions of the business logic, computational and data retrieval engine. The good thing about this architecture is the fact that applications are scalable compared to 3-tier with message server. Furthermore, the installation costs are less on a single server compared to a situation where maintenance is done on each of the client machines. In the payroll program, the users will be configured so that they can access the server which is installed in a central location. The reason why I prefer this architecture is that one application program will be acquired and the rest will be in the server machine. It will be cheaper. The cost will be reduced in terms of purchasing the software that will be installed. This is because in this case one application software will be purchased which will be installed in the server. Given the many users who are going to use the program, it will mean that the applications would be bought for every user who will be required to use the payroll program. Another c ause for reduction of cost is that of maintenance. With this architecture, there will be maintenance of the server machine only. Maintaining one application is easier and cheaper in terms of expertise who will undertake the maintenance (Orfali, Dan, & Jeri, 2006). How to prevent interception There are mitigation strategies that are used to eradicate the risks that are associated with interception attacks. For spoofing and ARP poisoning, one way on which this can be mitigated is by using IP addresses which are static. Also the network administrator should make use of ARP