Can someone's quality of life ever be so bad that you are justified in taking care of them against their will in order to improve it? If so, how bad does it have to be?

I'm a medical doctor. I have had to do CPR (Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) in public, outside of the hospital, at least six times in my life. Only one time did a patient recover partly - for another two months. It is a well-known medical fact that a very small percentage of 'resuscitated' subjects recover entirely after their heart attack. If she survives, the patient will often be reduced to a vegetative state. I myself would definitely not want to be administered CPR in case of a heart attack. How does my behaviour/attitude square with the Golden Rule of doing unto others as I would have them do to me? I'm Dutch, and in Holland all medical doctors are sworn in with Hippocrates' Oath, which clearly conflicts with not administering CPR. Should I stop extramural CPR, or honour my oath in spite of myself?

If I own something that is essential for other people to live, like medicines, and I know that I have made it impossible for them to afford it, am I responsible for their death?

Are average people in the first world morally obligated to help people the third world?

What's the point of conceptual analysis when there's lexicography?

How can the universe always be said to have existed, when there is nothing in the universe that always existed? People, plants, planets - all these things come into existence and then decay and disappear. In other words, every thing in the universe needs a cause for its existence. God, on the other hand, needs no such cause. This is not because he is "causa sui" or "self-caused"(an absurd notion, for how can something that has no being produce it own being?), but rather, he is "sine causa" or "WITHOUT a cause". Something, after all, always had to have existed. This is the Uncaused (call it God), not the Caused (Universe), which is inherently unstable and subject to flux. Scott from Ireland.

Does the word "universe" denote a really existing thing, or is it just a kind generic term for all the things that exist? In other words: Is "universe" like the word "team" (because teams do not really exist, but only the individuals that make up a team can be said to really exist)?

Do you think it is wrong to sell something (an idea, a product) to someone who doesn't really want it by convincing him that he does?

Is there any way to justify the laws of logic without using the laws of logic?

I am a student interested in philosophy as a major. Are there any careers realistic for a philosophy major outside of teaching?