Biomedical Ethics: Assignment Week 6
Discussion Exercise: Chapters 21, 22, 23
Objective: The students will complete a Virtual Classroom Discussion Exercise that will Extend your knowledge beyond the core required materials for this class, Engage in collaborative learning with other students to improve the quality of the learning experience for all students and Apply the higher cognitive skills associated with critical thinking to your academic and professional work.
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES (10%):
Students will judgmentally amount the readings from Chapters 21, 22, 23 on your textbook. This assignment is prearranged to help you to learning in all disciplines because it helps student’s process information rather than simply receive it.
You need to read the PowerPoint Presentation assigned for week 6 and develop a 2-3 page paper replicating your appreciative and competence to apply the readings to your ethics knowledge. Each paper must be typewritten with 12-point font and double-spaced with standard margins. Follow APA format when referring to the selected articles and include a reference page.
EACH PAPER SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
1. Introduction (25%) Provide a brief synopsis of the meaning (not a description) of each Chapter and articles you read, in your own words that will apply to the case study presented.
2. Discussion Challenge (65%)
Imagine an event of catastrophic proportion involving mass casualties, disrupted or non-existent services (power, transportation, and communications), scarce food and water, limited emergency personnel and medical supplies, overwhelmed hospitals, perhaps contamination from biohazard materials or nuclear fallout, etc.
Now imagine that a new set of rules has been established to guide first responders in the field whenever a “catastrophe” occurs. A system of “response triage” is required, whereby precious and limited resources will be directed to those who could most probably contribute to continued survival and eventual recovery of the community. Those who would require a disproportionate share of resources to live, and those who will most likely not survive the event, are given lower priority for distribution of assistance, including food supplies and medical treatment.
Without any formal discussion of what ethics are and how ethical decisions might be made in the field, we can see that the ethical problems are endless, but are basically summed up by asking:
1. IS EVERY HUMAN LIFE OF THE SAME VALUE AS OTHERS?
IS EVERY HUMAN LIFE OF THE SAME VALUE AS OTHERS?
· If decision-makers were to set criteria for determining the “fittest” for survival, upon what criteria would those decisions be based?
o The richest and most powerful men?
o Young men and women with the highest sperm and ova counts?
o Mature thinkers who might carry forward lessons that are likely to help humans survive in changing circumstances?
· How would these criteria be measured?
o How would we “value” people who work in health care, education and food production, as opposed to sanitation workers, truck drivers and musicians?
o How would we account for discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc.?
o How would we deal with the sick, aged, institutionalized, and immobilized? The poor? Illegal immigrants? Orphans? AIDS patients? Others?
Would we leave these more vulnerable segments of society behind, so to speak, instead of giving them preferential treatment? Is this approach “ethical”? Is this approach “moral”? Is this approach legal?