You are presenting to the senior management team and your boss with the intent of persuading them toward a particular view. In order to make a sound case, you must provide background information and a clear understanding of each perspective, along with why your group is supporting that particular position. You will work in groups for this process and must address one of the following topics, based on what group you are a part of:
Telecommuting: Should employees be allowed to telecommute?
Form groups of 3-4 and select a topic from the list of topics provided above. Given the size of this class, there are 18 groups and each group is assigned a topic.
Conduct research of the topic you selected to gain an understanding and an overview of potentially conflicting viewpoints.
The assignment is to write a group position paper. The idea is to be as thorough as possible, while being succinct and efficient at the same time.
Your paper should include a one page summary of the background or history of the topic or issues being considered. Include why this topic is of interest to you and your group. Be sure to cite sources used throughout and include a reference page.
Opposing positions or perspectives should be identified. Write at least one to two pages providing justification or support for each perspective. Each perspective should be thoroughly explored.
Finally, establish a group position of which perspective your group supports. Write a one page summary of the group position, including why your group supports that perspective or position. Again, please be thorough and be sure to cite sources used throughout, including a reference page.
Papers should be written individually by each member of the group and submitted via canvas prior to coming to class to present. A sign up has been circulated during class for to sign up for topics and presentation dates. Presentations will take place during class. Each person in the group must participate in the presentation. Makeup presentations are not permitted except in cases of physician documented medical emergencies, pre-approved documented religious observance, and pre-approved documented university-sanctioned curricular / extracurricular activities.
Euthanasia is debatable topic which has elicited differences in opinions among professionals such as judges, lawyers, healthcare workers, religious leaders among others. It can be defined as the act undertaken only by a physician that intentionally ends the life of a person at his or her request (Deliens, 2003). It is divided into two; voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is where a physician ends the life of a patient on patient’s consents while in involuntary the physician ends the life without the patients consent ,which in most cases involves terminally ill patients (Saywer,1993). Despite the merits that euthanasia holds for the terminally ill patients, the reasons against it such as ‘slippery slope’, palliative care service and God’s will, are not just mere rumors, but intense reasons to be taken into consideration. The slippery slope argument claims that acceptance of a certain practice in society may result to another practice that is totally undesirable. Thus, the initial should be avoided (Lewis, 2007). The idea depicts that with time, people may begin compromising the regulations set by the relevant authority. This may be as a result of political influence, human weakness or other societal and personal reasons. Eventually, the morally unacceptable outcome (involuntary euthanasia) fits in society (Enoch, 2001). Acceptance of involuntary euthanasia brings out unpleasant consequences such as physicians getting imprisoned for going against their ethics. Religious people believe that physical, mental and moral pain have a value that can lead to spiritual growth and salvation (Paul 11, 1984). Thus, those suffering should be guided and encouraged to go through their pain. At no point in life should the thought of eliminating the terminally ill patients, or generally the ones in pain, be eliminated from society. To believers, no one can end an innocent life without going against the will of God. “…believers see in life something greater, namely, a gift of God’s love, which they are called upon to preserve and make it fruitful.”(Seper par 1, L 2-3, 1980). The latter consideration explains why suicide, which can be categorized as voluntary euthanasia, is against God’s love and sovereignty. Finally, euthanasia should not be allowed because it is against the palliative care principle of killing the pain, not the patient. Palliative care is an approach by specialized physicians which provides people with relief from pain, physical stress, and mental stress of the terminal diagnosis (NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms, 2014). The service is provided at any time of life old or young and is not limited to stage of illness. It is taken as an additional support given to terminally ill patients as end-of-life-care. The acceptance of euthanasia undermines the efforts by doctors and nurses to saving lives, discourages the search for new cures to diseases, and undermines the motivation to provide good care to the dying (BBC, 2014). The presence of palliative care explains why euthanasia should not be allowed to terminally ill patients. In summary, euthanasia is against God’s will according to believers. If allowed, it can gradually reduce the motivation of medical researchers and physicians on the daily work of saving lives. Furthermore, it can intensify unpleasant outcomes such as involuntary euthanasia where the perpetrator can imprisoned or fined with murder. Therefore, euthanasia should not be allowed for terminally ill patients . Reference BBC. (2014). Anti-euthanasia arguments. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/against/against_1.shtml Deliens L, & van der Wal G. (2003). The euthanasia law in Belgium and the Netherlands. Lancet. 2003; 362:1239–40. Enoch, D. (2001). “Once You Start Using Slippery Slope Arguments, You’re on a Very Slippery Slope”. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 21 (4): 631. doi:10.1093/ojls/21.4.629 Lewis, P. (2007). The empirical slippery slope from voluntary to non-voluntary euthanasia. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(1), 197-210. NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms. (n.d.) National Cancer Institute. Retrieved 15 July 2014. Retrieved from: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms Paul II, P. J. (1984). Salvifici doloris. Ediciones Paulinas. Sawyer, D.M, Williams JR, & Lowy F. (1993). Canadian physicians and euthanasia: 2. Definitions and distinctions. CMAJ. 1993; 148:1463–6. Seper, F. C., & Hamer, J. (1980). Declaration on euthanasia. The Furrow, 609-615.>GET ANSWER