The Well Being of Society

Written by Dane Lyons


Many timesrepparttar question has been asked. “What actions constitute for good and evil?” To this simple question there have been numerous answers.

Some people believe law is good and lawlessness is evil. Therefore actions which reside inrepparttar 119227 bounds ofrepparttar 119228 law must be good and those which do not are evil.

Some people believe God is good andrepparttar 119229 Devil is evil. Therefore actions which abide byrepparttar 119230 teachings of God are good and those ofrepparttar 119231 Devil are evil.

Some people believe that happiness is good and that which is not is evil. Therefore all actions resulting in happiness are good and those which do not are evil.

All ofrepparttar 119232 previously stated beliefs contain a great deal of merit but are also raw and undefined. My belief, in a sense, is simpler. Many timesrepparttar 119233 simplest answer really isrepparttar 119234 best. Although, life is a complex jumble of nuances that many times can not be easily defined. Therefore I treat my definition of good and evil as merely a starting point by which greater questions can be based.

I believe life is good and death is evil. By this I do not simply mean that it is moral to live and immoral to die for each man lives and most certainly does each man die. In thisrepparttar 119235 glory of life would be nullified by death and morality would be nothing as it would cancel itself out. My belief is that morality is not singular. It does not reside within nor is it relative to only ourselves. It is an absolute, life itself is morality. In this I believe society,repparttar 119236 interaction of all living things, isrepparttar 119237 greatest good.

Now we have a answer upon which all moral dilemmas can be based.

Is it good to kill a living being to preserve ones self? To answer this you must first ask “Does this preserverepparttar 119238 well being of society?” The answer is yes. In most cases it is morally sounds to end a life to preserve your own. To live we must eat and to eat we must kill.

Vioxx Withdrawal and Drug Litigation

Written by Richard Martin


On Sept. 30, 2004 Merck announced a worldwide withdrawal of Vioxx® (rofecoxib). Vioxx had previously been prescribed inrepparttar treatment of arthritis and pain. Worldwide sales of Vioxx in 2003 were an estimated $2.5Billion andrepparttar 119226 drug was marketed in more than 80 countries aroundrepparttar 119227 world. This is one of several recent pharmaceutical products to have been put inrepparttar 119228 spotlight by bothrepparttar 119229 national media and plaintiff lawyers. Since sometime inrepparttar 119230 mid to late 90s a substantial number of pharmaceutical medications and medical devices have been removed fromrepparttar 119231 market due to possible adverse health implications. The FDA acts as a regulatory body in approving health related products before they are marketed to consumers. The FDA moved to ban Ephedra inrepparttar 119232 US in 2004. However,repparttar 119233 recent headlines about voluntary drug withdrawals have produced questions as torepparttar 119234 FDA's recent performance. Many people believe thatrepparttar 119235 FDA did not testrepparttar 119236 drugs rigorously enough to determine allrepparttar 119237 possible health problems that they might cause. People believe thatrepparttar 119238 rise in litigation over these medications was due torepparttar 119239 fact thatrepparttar 119240 FDA now allows pharmaceutical companies to “fast track” their products and get them throughrepparttar 119241 process in a year. In fact, Vioxx was only released in 1999.

Cont'd on page 2 ==>
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use