Life is the most precious and exquisite gift that one could ever receive. A humans life can exist within the longest and shortest period of time. Birth would be the beginning of life and death would be the end of it. With that being said, we can realize the absurdity of life for no matter what we do we will stay face death.
If there is a place which can witness the beginning and ending of a persons life it can be the hospital. We all know that hospital thru their doctors and machines can prolong the life, but hospital can as well shorten life as well thru euthanasia. An American philosopher and bioethicist of the Dan Brock in his work Life and Death: Philosophical Essays in Biomedical Ethics specifically Voluntary Active Euthanasia and Quality of Life and Human Difference explores latent insight and effects permitting euthanasia. According to Brock (1992) physician assisted suicide is when a patient thru his or her request take a lethal those of medication provided by physician on the other hand voluntary active euthanasia is when the physician is the one who dispenses the lethal dose. The matter on this is who acts the last one, on physician assisted suicide it was the patient while on the voluntary active euthanasia it was the physician, but in both cases, it was the patient who decides on this. Giving a good death is the foremost motive of euthanasia by means of fulfilling the request of a patient.
Brock (1992) stated that self-determination or autonomy and well-being of an individual are the moral permissibility of voluntary active euthanasia. In other words, self-determination is when a person is free in doing a decision for his or herself and autonomy is that life should end when people are concern on the suffering. On that note, well-being is best served through dying by euthanasia. Euthanasia is taking the life of an innocent but in the context of Medicine according to Brock (1992) allowing to die and not killing when a physician discontinuing the treatment to patient. Moreover, he also stated that the distinction between killing and allowing to die lies on its action and exceptions.
Thus, Brock (1992) also added in his work the possible good and bad consequences of permitting legal euthanasia. The first advantage is respecting the free will of the patient, if euthanasia can be done legally then the patient can have it. The second one is, it can benefit a larger number of people for by legalizing this would reassure the hegemony of the process of dying by deciding to remove the life sustain support of the patient. Lastly allowing euthanasia permissibly it will help the patients to stop the suffering and implausible pain they are going through with.
There are wiles consequences of euthanasia that Brock (1992) gave that makes euthanasia to be ruthless. The first is that when physicians were allowed to do euthanasia legally then patients might develop a fear towards physicians for it is ironic to see it. For physicians are healers then they will administer euthanasia by stopping the life support, they should prolong the life of a person and not to stop it. Second one would be if they will permit doing euthanasia it will then dwindle the health care that the society wants for an individual. Society can euthanasia wrongly or it can also be abused. Moreover, another effect is that by making euthanasia as a choice then it people can deny the other alternatives that can make them live longer by default. Lastly is that by authorizing or legalizing it will wane the disgrace towards homicide and there will be more killers or murders.
With the above work of Brock, the following paragraph will provide the peer review of the different people. This will provide a better understanding of the work and the philosophy of Dan Brock. According to Gorovitz (1995) the way Brock write is very convincing and aggressive and prompt question thought. Gorovitz (1995) is vocally telling and questioning Brock on his philosophy on euthanasia, an instance Brocks belief on assisted suicide and euthanasia and that and that it is fine to surrender life, with that Brock always depends on what the patient wants and does not appeal to additional clarification that should be Gorovitz (1995). In addition to that Gorovitz (1995) stated that his idea of the patients interest is too narrow in Brocks idea of patient-centered point of view of he doesnt involve the family of the patient in making important decision, no sense of respect for self-determination on the part of the family of the patient. Gorovitz (1995) said that Brock debunks the aim of medicine which is preservation of life for in selecting other treatments, it is not what will boost the healths patient but what is the preeminent for overall well-being, the idea is cogent but it is a threat on the medical field.
Another review by Tomlinson (1994) however said that the idea of Brock on the difference of killing and letting the patient die is an excellent and critical on ethical assumptions. But Tomlinson (1994) said that there are also absurd ideas of Brocks in his work as mentioned above which debunks his idea of the model of objective elements of good life and he is really against subjective, but this was deflated when he discussed about the informed consent of the morality of suicide for, he banked on subjective ones. In addition, Tomlinson (1994) also said that the analysis of Brock urges ethical monism in which there is a greater value in an option when doing a decision, this is to devalue the other thought. Thus, when Brock explains about the voluntary active euthanasia, people were able to grasp the injustice right to be killed, in which Tomlinson (1994) said that the patients request didnt prevail on grounds of paternalistic. Another one is the discussion of Brock about cost worthy health care Tomlinson (1994) said that Brocks did not explain how cost worthy health become high cost low benefit on health care, Brock just assumed he shouldve asked how. Nevertheless, the work and philosophical analysis of Brock is an outstanding source for bioethics.
Another work of Brock that is part of his work Life and Death: Philosophical Essays in Biomedical Ethics in which it relates to the euthanasia is when Brock said that because of the open to the levelling down objection there is a difficulty in the parity of health care even if equality can be reach. Thus Norheim ( 2009) accepts the idea of Brock that there is a difference in the result of prioritarianism and egalitarian (pluralist) in health outcomes and the distinction between the two is the reason. Leveling down does not just display being pluralist but demands on the non-instrumental ones to the result of equality in general. In addition Norheim ( 2009) also said that levelling down is never a good idea but the equality is frequently is. Egalitarians can still uphold equality by when fairness and goodness is attained and this is by merging equality, prioritarianism and aggregation together.
Lastly, Wasserman, Bickenhard and Wachbroit (2005) reviewed the work Brock in which part of Brocks work Life and Death: Philosophical Essays in Biomedical Ethics. Brock argue however that there are two principles (Person-Affecting Harm Prevention Principle and Non- Person-Affecting Harm Prevention Principle )which the moral intuition requires. According to Wasserman et. al., (2005) the writing and the philosophical analysis of Brock is very direct an instance is when Brock immediately presented in his work couple number of examples and principles that clear to the two moral principles that was mentioned above. But Brock according to Wasserman et. al., (2005) is an impersonal descriptivism, idealism and his sociological realism this shows that his ideas is lacking of philosophical framework. These are the reviews of the intellect people to Dan Brock, most of those that were sited said that because of his idealism Brock tends to assume that is why he is needs philosophical framework that he is still wasnt able to provide with.
Since Dan Brock is a very direct, aggressive and persuasive with his ideas and this is according to the people who reviewed him. Aside from that, Brock is as a bioethicist and he is very subjective with who would much more be affected he is always leaned towards the one who will suffer the most or he prioritizes it more. Moreover, he is as well an idealist person that is why it was always question on lacking of frameworks and of his sociological realism for bringing up social issues. He as well believed in the equality, for he believed in egalitarianism , for one should be receiving equal treatment.
Thus, if he, Dan Brock then would analyze the dialogues in the first part of the movie where the officers were observing on their planes on their new system called Fail Safe System, he would then said that it is very like him on how one of the officers convince one of his commanding officer that the money that was spent to the project were put in good place. Also, the idea of it and with the was they converse was very idealistic as much as Brock was. Moreover, he could then comment that on how persuasive the dialogues are on this part of the movie yet some dialogues were as well direct for one of that officers were very direct tell that no need to snow him for that the money should be really in good place.
In addition, the dialogues on the officers when they were talking about the Fail Safe Zone the one questioning or the one who visited asked directly the officer there about it and it was as well answered directly. With that, With the way they converse Brock would agree on that, for Brock is very direct in his philosophical ideas and thoughts. Furthermore, dialogues were as well too pretty aggressive especially when the problem or the plot of the movie were put into context for, they, characters were asking too many questions already why they level of readiness was getting higher even if it was not yet proved that it was something from Russia or it was just some private planes.
Moreover, it was mentioned above that Brock is a persuasive in his philosophy and he believes in egalitarianism or in equality. When the President was a making a decision, I would then tell that Brock would first then do a list down of the pros and consequences of his decision and not just like the president in the movie, I could say that Brock would do that for he was able to do it with his work Voluntary Euthanasia in which the good and bad consequences of legalizing it was aforementioned above. The dialogue should be direct enough in the first place not just like the movie that the President didnt say immediately what he wanted then the President after shouldve explain why I happened, that it was a malfunction of the system like that. For being direct can prevent confusion on what the actual problem and should be the solution is. And yet the dialogues of the President of United Sates should be more convincing, persuasive yet direct to the President of Russia for the President of Russia was very tough in saying that there was really a motive of US that they will bomb Russia. Brock would also say that with the best flowery words can be the best one which can save the country for it can change on how people will think with that they can change their decision and they can or might be able to listen to your words turn everything into places which you want. Just like when President of the United States he could change the thinking of the other President by being convincible enough then no hard decision was able to do.
With the decision of the President of the United States, I could then say that Brock can related it to euthanasia in which the United States is the dying patient and the Russia would be the physicians. In which with the self determination of United States to tell Russia that it is ok to kill United State, this is through shooting the planes of the Unites States in order to prevent from more suffering. Thus, the once that would suffer most would be the nation of each country for it could mean war for there has been a history that the two were under war, even if it was just all a mistake due to the system malfunction. And this is with the autonomy of the President.
On the other hand, with the decision of the President in which if a bomb would drop on Moscow then they will globule a bomb in the New York and it happened with that, the President abide his promise. With this, Brock would then be happy and would then agree with the decision of the President for there would be equality with it but a list of pros and consequences would be made for there should be equality in damages and in suffering even if it hard or impossible to get. But with the decision there was an equality for Brock believes in the practice of egalitarianism. In the part of the decision wherein your country was bombed because the malfunction that was came from United States and then as promise the President of United States would do the same, this is not just because this is what the President promised but this was as well for the equality for in the first place it was just all a mistake a malfunction that came from Fail Safe System. Even if it was ironic and aggressive this then would be the comment of Brock for there were as well ideas of Brocks that was pointed out above that were ironic and his thoughts also were aggressive which was stated above and even by the people who reviewed him.
With the given work of Dan Brock and reviews of the people above. Together with , his critical, direct and persuasive thoughts and ideas together with him, Dan Brock being an idealistic and social realism and with his credence on egalitarianism or in equality those the basis of the comments on the dialogues and decision making were able to deduce from those.