Assignment Question
Read and comment on at least TWO OTHER articles and summaries (other than yours). Include a heading with the name of the person to whom you are responding. Your comments should be positive, thoughtful, and demonstrate that you read your classmate’s article and summary. Each comment post should tell us what you learned about the case and what your thoughts are regarding your classmate’s analysis in the seven-step decision model. To DEMONSTRATE that you have read your classmate’s summary, refer to specific items from the summary in your comment. First Discussion Comment: “Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Abortion Pill Access” By Mark Sherman/AP 12/12/23 This case is the first case regarding abortion for the Supreme Court since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court will be hearing appeals from the Biden administration as well as the maker of mifepristone, the abortion drug in question. The court is being asked to reverse an appellate ruling that would impose restrictions on the drugs, including cutting off mail access, even in states where abortion is still legal. This case will be heard in the Spring of 2024. This case has a major effect on the individual rights of women and others with female reproductive systems. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, quality of life for those with uteruses is called into question every time their reproductive rights are called into question, and this case and its eventual decision will restrict access to safe abortion even further than it already has been. Roe v. Wade was a landmark case in ensuring reproductive rights. Access to abortion is part of this. With it being overturned there will be more cases like the one the article is talking about to follow, as more challenges to these rights come up.
Reversing the decision on Roe v. Wade would be the best case scenario, but that is unlikely to happen. At least in this case, if the court rules in favor of the Biden administration’s and the drug maker’s appeals, that would be a win for reproductive rights and help to retain safe access to abortion for those where it is already difficult to get. In my opinion, the “right” alternative is clear. Restricting access to safe abortion methods is not going to stop people from getting abortions. All it does is increase the risk of harm to those seeking such. Everyone has a differing opinion on abortion. Many have different moral stances on the topic. However, getting an abortion/access to safe abortion is not a question of the individual’s morality. The main consequence of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Biden administration and the drug maker is widespread upset. However, this is something that is unavoidable no matter the decision, so the long term consequence must be considered: reproductive rights and access to safe abortions (quality healthcare). The decision of the court will affect those with female reproductive systems across the country. I am still standing with my decision. The consequences of the overturning of Roe v. Wade are already being felt across the nation, and the reproductive rights of myself and so many others do not need to be challenged or restricted any more. Conclusion Overall, I have strong feelings on cases like these. This case deeply affects my own personal rights and the rights of people that I love. Restricting one of the most common methods of safe abortion will only serve to further call into question the legality of other safe and currently legal methods. Access to safe abortion should be a right, not a privilege, and something so sensitive yet important to many should not be challenged, but rather supported, regardless of our own personal choices.
Link to Article Second Discussion Comment:
1.) Determine the facts. The allocation uses of medical resources may be subject to be driven by two factors efficiency and equality.
2.) Define the precise ethical issue. How can we really understand health care allocation by considering both factors of efficiency and equality?
3.) Identify the major principles, rules, and values. Considering all aspects of healthcare allocation there is concerns regarding general concerns of distributive justice. Discussions are ongoing about usage of medical resources. Finally a potential discrimination towards allocation principles.
4.) Identify the alternatives. Resources in a social institution Fair medical allocation use of procedural principles. A bigger role in markets and healthcare insurance. A “basic healthcare” package,
5.) Compare values and alternatives. The set standard of medical allocation materials can de deducted by a certain rationale during a procedure of a surgery to minimize cost effectiveness. As well as maximizing and prioritizing health care resources by contributors or bigger companies willing to donate for the greater good of humanity known as utilitarianism. The last approach would be an economic solution for an increase of stability usage in the medical field and supply even more resources.
6.) Assess the consequences. No resources for allocation would result in more law suits if the public found out how the healthcare system reduced there allocation resources in a surgery or such. Legal complications would arise more resources would be a bigger problem depending how much usage in the healthcare system uses. Not enough discussions regarding what to do with a limited amount of resources in the health care system.
7.) Make a decision. Well, as I publicly wrote we need improvements in knowing what utilitarianism stands for the greater good of humanity. With that being said we need to allocate more resources fellow people can contribute in making a change by speaking out. The future danger of not knowing would harm us in our demise by not publicly speaking about this. We need more allocation regardless by the economy providing it to the healthcare systems. This was my resource and website I used feel free to check it out. to an external site.
