It is argued that participation in capital punishment would tarnish the reputation of the medical community and associate medicine with death and execution. However, the Hippocratic oath and code of ethics has previously been revised to accommodate the Roe vs Wade legislature (George, 2011), which addresses the issue of abortion. Again, the ANA takes an opposition stance regarding the topic of abortion, but does not condemn nurses from participation.  A letter written by a nurse to the editor of the Nebraska Nurse questioned the ANA’s stance on both these issues stating: You can’t throw me to the wolves they come when i call “The nursing’s ‘ ethical code of conduct, stipulates that “the nurse does not act deliberately to terminate the life of any person.” and … “historically, the role of the nurse has been to promote, preserve and protect human life … regardless of the personal opinion of the nurse on the appropriateness of capital punishment, it is a breach of the ethical traditions of nursing, and the Code for Nurses to participate in taking the life of any person. The writer questioned if the ANA would take the same stance on nurse participation if the words capital punishment were PRO: “The crimes of rape, torture, treason, kidnapping, murder, larceny, and perjury pivot on a moral code that escapes apodictic [indisputably true] proof by expert testimony or otherwise.

Click to buy it on Justablink

But communities would plunge into anarchy if they could not act on moral assumptions less certain than that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west. Abolitionists may contend that the death penalty is inherently immoral because governments should never take human life, no matter what the provocation. But that is an article of faith, not of fact. The death penalty honors human dignity by treating the defendant as a free moral actor able to control his own destiny for good or for ill; it does not treat him as an animal with no moral. You can’t throw me to the wolves they come when i call People fear nothing more than death. Therefore, nothing will deter a criminal more than the fear of death… life in prison is less feared. Murderers clearly prefer it to execution — otherwise, they would not try to be sentenced to life in prison instead of death… Therefore, a life sentence must be less deterrent than a death sentence. And we must execute murderers as long as it is merely possible that their execution protects citizens from future murder.” Is it ever morally acceptable to take the life of another person? On the surface, this question seems relatively self explanatory. Many people would say that murder is not acceptable. This is a basic idea that almost everyone is taught through our laws, religions, upbringings, etc. However, there are some situations that make people question this basic moral principle.

Where to get it?

One very important example is the concept of capital punishment, which is the legal killing of a person as a punishment of a crime he or she committed. It is important to look at the cons and pros of capital punishment in order to form and educated opinion on whether it is a morally correct system or not. You can’t throw me to the wolves they come when i call Capital punishment demands more money from our law abiding citizens, and uses money as a factor when valuing life. It also has a hard time giving moral reasoning to take away someone’s right to live. However, it makes sure these murders will never have the chance to harm any more innocent people, making it, in my opinion, morally acceptable. A specific example of two murderer college students gives an insight to why capital punishment might be immoral and wrong. This situation says that there are two college students who kidnap a child, and demand money from the family if they want him back.

Homepage: Dnstyles