Can Machine Have a Conscience Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Can Machine Have a Conscience - Essay Example Maybe the urge is, at times, nothing more than the pressures or influences of past parental or societal training or perhaps it may arise from some form of social instinct buried deep in humans or from the understanding it is in the longstanding concern of the agent. However, in any case, it should be noted humans do act autonomously of some form of desire unlike a machine, which is guided by humans (Pitrat 41). No matter how intelligent machines are, they cannot have human’s thoughts and lifestyles. In the last ten years, AI has really progressed due to an increase in research collaboration that has resulted in inventing computers with high processing speed. A lot of researchers propose that within the current century, the AI will cross that of human beings. Furthermore, individuals such as Hall have great expectation (Tucker and Patrick 54). Some scientists believe robots will carry out more difficult work instead of human’s work in the future. In some specific situations, robots could judge and perform tasks individually out of people’s control. All in all, some scientists predict that robots will become more intelligent to help people. Start by defining what a conscience is and people find it is an inner or deep sense of what wrong or right in one’s behavior, motives or conduct, impelling someone towards the right action. A conscience can also be defined as the ethical, as well as moral principles, which guide or inhibits someone’s thoughts or actions, and which can be argued to be an inhibiting sense of what is prudent.

Medical Malpractice Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Medical Malpractice - Case Study Example Because we conclude that it is, we reverse and remand. A certain Doris Penrod filed an appeal to the court from a take nothing judgment in favor of David R. Schecter based from a medical malpractice claim. It was in August 2003 that she took her grandmother to a cataract surgery with Dr. Schecter. During the injection process, a small retrobullar hemorrhage occurred that can potentially cause damage to the optic nerve, if there is continued bleeding. After 15 minutes of observation, the RBH did not change; also, there were no swellings in the eyelids, no proptosis and eye discoloration. However, despite these, the surgery was cancelled to prevent any further complications. An eye patch was placed on the observed eye and the patient was discharged, yet after 25 minutes redness was observed around the patch and a large hemorrhage occurred around the eye. Immediately that afternoon, Jessica (Doris Penrod’s granddaughter) called Dr. Schecter (as advised by the doctor himself) but he refused to get the call and at the same time failed Tyenol 3 to the patient, otherwise Dr. Schecter could easily tell them to bring the patient to the hospital. The following day, a visit was paid by both Jessica and Penrod to Dr. Schecter and it was determined that the damaged eye have no vision, though it was able to perceive light. A week later, no vision was still present and the same situation continued until three weeks. Dr. Scheter advised them to see Dr. Roy Levit (a specialist) and it as found out that there was not muscular or retinal damage but a severe ischemic atrophy was diagnosed. Dr, Levit pointed out that the possible cause of this damage is the toxicity from the injection. The jury found out that the negligence of Dr. Schecter was not the proximate cause. Penrod on the other hand filed the complaint together with new and independent cause based that the proximate cause instructions was erroneous. Dr, Schecter pointed out that the error presented by the