Deadlines
Writing Help
Important files to download:
Example of an 'A' debate contribution:
|
For writing tips, go to
A Rulebook for Arguments Purdue Online Writing Lab The Elements of Style MLA Handbook |
Instructions
Short papers
These papers should each be 750 words in length. Submit to Blackboard.
Prompt #1:
Imagine the following situation: A female patient, 40 years old, arrives at a hospital after finding a lump in her breast. She is accompanied by her husband. The doctor performs some tests and confirms breast cancer. The oncologist says that a mastectomy (removal of the breast) could be a good option to prevent further spread of the cancer while avoiding radiation. The patient initially expresses interest in this option, but after she is left alone with her husband, she becomes despondent and seems afraid to speak any further with the doctor or nurses. Her husband tells the oncologist that a mastectomy is unacceptable. From here on out, he takes over asking the doctor questions and making decisions for the patient; she nods in assent whenever he states what he thinks should be done. The doctors are concerned that the patient, who is able to make her own decisions, always seems to be deferring to her husband's decision-making. While the husband is in the restroom, the oncologist asks her if she is really comfortable with the treatment plan her husband is pushing. She responds that her husband should receive all information about her care, and the medical team should not undermine his decisions. Furthermore, she lets her physician know that her husband might want to shield her from certain information, which means the physician might be asked to lie to her. She tells the physician not to feel distressed about doing what her husband wants for her at this and all future appointments.
First, briefly contrast how Mill, Kant, and a relational account (choose one) conceptualize autonomy (or liberty for Mill). Then identify some concerns about autonomy or liberty that would be raised by these three different accounts in response to the above scenario. Depth is more important than breadth; instead of trying to offer a comprehensive analysis of all possible concerns that could be discussed, focus on one concern that Mill could raise, one concern that Kant could raise, and one concern that a relational theorist could raise. You will not have the space to critique the philosophies or bring your own opinion to bear in this paper. Be sure to define key terms, and cite where appropriate. Your paper should largely be in your own words, so avoid directly citing lectures and readings in excess. Do not bring in outside resources.
Prompt #2:
Bioethicists and medical professionals often disagree on when medical paternalism is justified. Historically, physicians viewed it as crucial to their role to exclude patients from decision-making whenever doing so was in the patient's interests (from the physician's point of view). Concerns about protection outweighed concerns about respecting autonomy. Recently there has been a shift toward respecting patient autonomy, even when doing so will lead to poor health outcomes. Some argue that this shift in thinking and practice has gone too far, and physicians are being reduced to "mere technicians" of the body. Reflecting on our readings, provide a few moral considerations that should help us determine when medical paternalism could be justified when a patient is legally competent. The quality of these considerations matters more than the quantity; make sure the considerations you mention are developed and clear. Define key terms, and make philosophical distinctions as appropriate.
These papers should each be 750 words in length. Submit to Blackboard.
Prompt #1:
Imagine the following situation: A female patient, 40 years old, arrives at a hospital after finding a lump in her breast. She is accompanied by her husband. The doctor performs some tests and confirms breast cancer. The oncologist says that a mastectomy (removal of the breast) could be a good option to prevent further spread of the cancer while avoiding radiation. The patient initially expresses interest in this option, but after she is left alone with her husband, she becomes despondent and seems afraid to speak any further with the doctor or nurses. Her husband tells the oncologist that a mastectomy is unacceptable. From here on out, he takes over asking the doctor questions and making decisions for the patient; she nods in assent whenever he states what he thinks should be done. The doctors are concerned that the patient, who is able to make her own decisions, always seems to be deferring to her husband's decision-making. While the husband is in the restroom, the oncologist asks her if she is really comfortable with the treatment plan her husband is pushing. She responds that her husband should receive all information about her care, and the medical team should not undermine his decisions. Furthermore, she lets her physician know that her husband might want to shield her from certain information, which means the physician might be asked to lie to her. She tells the physician not to feel distressed about doing what her husband wants for her at this and all future appointments.
First, briefly contrast how Mill, Kant, and a relational account (choose one) conceptualize autonomy (or liberty for Mill). Then identify some concerns about autonomy or liberty that would be raised by these three different accounts in response to the above scenario. Depth is more important than breadth; instead of trying to offer a comprehensive analysis of all possible concerns that could be discussed, focus on one concern that Mill could raise, one concern that Kant could raise, and one concern that a relational theorist could raise. You will not have the space to critique the philosophies or bring your own opinion to bear in this paper. Be sure to define key terms, and cite where appropriate. Your paper should largely be in your own words, so avoid directly citing lectures and readings in excess. Do not bring in outside resources.
Prompt #2:
Bioethicists and medical professionals often disagree on when medical paternalism is justified. Historically, physicians viewed it as crucial to their role to exclude patients from decision-making whenever doing so was in the patient's interests (from the physician's point of view). Concerns about protection outweighed concerns about respecting autonomy. Recently there has been a shift toward respecting patient autonomy, even when doing so will lead to poor health outcomes. Some argue that this shift in thinking and practice has gone too far, and physicians are being reduced to "mere technicians" of the body. Reflecting on our readings, provide a few moral considerations that should help us determine when medical paternalism could be justified when a patient is legally competent. The quality of these considerations matters more than the quantity; make sure the considerations you mention are developed and clear. Define key terms, and make philosophical distinctions as appropriate.
Debate contribution
On March 26th, we will have an in-class debate on a topic related to the course material. You will work with a group of students to present a case for your side of the issue. The night before, you (each student) must submit 750 words on what you want to contribute to the debate. Some possible questions you can respond to as your contribution: What are the competing interests or obligations in this issue? How should the moral interests be weighed or understood? Based on your position, what is the most challenging aspect of resolving these ethical problems? What is a problem with one of the opposing views? Do not attempt to answer all of these questions in your paper. Focus on one particular ethical/philosophical aspect of the case that you will present with your team. Depth and thoughtfulness are more important than breadth. You should incorporate ideas, terms, or insights from course material. Your contribution should reference at least one class reading and at least one debate reading. Submit to Blackboard.
Download the below document for more specific instructions.
On March 26th, we will have an in-class debate on a topic related to the course material. You will work with a group of students to present a case for your side of the issue. The night before, you (each student) must submit 750 words on what you want to contribute to the debate. Some possible questions you can respond to as your contribution: What are the competing interests or obligations in this issue? How should the moral interests be weighed or understood? Based on your position, what is the most challenging aspect of resolving these ethical problems? What is a problem with one of the opposing views? Do not attempt to answer all of these questions in your paper. Focus on one particular ethical/philosophical aspect of the case that you will present with your team. Depth and thoughtfulness are more important than breadth. You should incorporate ideas, terms, or insights from course material. Your contribution should reference at least one class reading and at least one debate reading. Submit to Blackboard.
Download the below document for more specific instructions.
in-class_debate_autonomy_and_health-sp14.pdf | |
File Size: | 152 kb |
File Type: |
End-of-Semester Assignment Options
instructions_for_end_of_semester_assignment_options_autonomy_and_health_sp14.pdf | |
File Size: | 321 kb |
File Type: |
Option #1: Extended Case Analysis or Extended Final Project
For this option, you would complete either an extended case analysis or extended final project. This single assignment would be worth 40%, and it would be due on 5/9 @ 11:59 pm. This means that nothing would be due on 4/12. You would still submit to Blackboard. The instructions are the same for the original assignments with a few small changes. See the above document for more details.
For this option, you would complete either an extended case analysis or extended final project. This single assignment would be worth 40%, and it would be due on 5/9 @ 11:59 pm. This means that nothing would be due on 4/12. You would still submit to Blackboard. The instructions are the same for the original assignments with a few small changes. See the above document for more details.
Option #2: Case Analysis + Final Project
Case analysis
Using the ethics case work-up handout (separate document on course website), you need to methodically break down a clinical ethics case. Your analysis should conclude with a concrete recommendation for what the medical professionals should do to resolve the case. Put yourself in the shoes of a clinical ethicist called for guidance. The analysis should thoughtfully integrate at least two class readings and two outside readings. The case analysis should be 1,500 words and submitted to Blackboard.
Download both of the below documents for more specific instructions.
Using the ethics case work-up handout (separate document on course website), you need to methodically break down a clinical ethics case. Your analysis should conclude with a concrete recommendation for what the medical professionals should do to resolve the case. Put yourself in the shoes of a clinical ethicist called for guidance. The analysis should thoughtfully integrate at least two class readings and two outside readings. The case analysis should be 1,500 words and submitted to Blackboard.
Download both of the below documents for more specific instructions.
case_analysis_autonomy_and_health-sp14.pdf | |
File Size: | 174 kb |
File Type: |
clinical_ethics_case_workup.pdf | |
File Size: | 161 kb |
File Type: |
Final project
You should find a topic relevant to the course that excites you. The topic should be manageable; in other words, “autonomy of pediatric patients” is not a manageable topic because it is too vast. Narrow in on a smaller topic that you can lay out and discuss critically. Once you find an alluring issue, you will need to research some of the necessary facts related to the topic, and you will also need to reflect on the relevant arguments that scholars have published. Then you need to make your own contribution. This project is meant to serve as a launching pad in case you wish to pursue it in the future for advocacy or scholarship purposes. You are free to take up any well-argued and well-researched position you find compelling. You need to email me by April 1st what your idea is for this project (failure to do so will affect your participation grade). Your project can be in one of four formats: 1) a traditional term paper, 2) a website, 3) a videotaped scripted debate on the topic (uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, or something similar) or 4) an extended Power Point/Prezi/Keynote (which you would not present). If you have another idea for a project format, you need to have it approved by me. Regardless of which format you choose, your project should be 1,800 words in length. You need to a) lay out the ethical issue, b) explain and analyze some published philosophical viewpoints related to the topic, c) carefully and precisely argue how you believe the problem should be understood or resolved, d) identify and analyze an implication for personal responsibility for specific moral actors, and e) provide a compelling objection to your position. If you have the space, I will give extra points for including a nicely reasoned response to the objection. Submit the paper, website content and link, video transcript and link, or Power Point/Prezi/Keynote PDF through Blackboard.
Download the below document for more specific instructions.
You should find a topic relevant to the course that excites you. The topic should be manageable; in other words, “autonomy of pediatric patients” is not a manageable topic because it is too vast. Narrow in on a smaller topic that you can lay out and discuss critically. Once you find an alluring issue, you will need to research some of the necessary facts related to the topic, and you will also need to reflect on the relevant arguments that scholars have published. Then you need to make your own contribution. This project is meant to serve as a launching pad in case you wish to pursue it in the future for advocacy or scholarship purposes. You are free to take up any well-argued and well-researched position you find compelling. You need to email me by April 1st what your idea is for this project (failure to do so will affect your participation grade). Your project can be in one of four formats: 1) a traditional term paper, 2) a website, 3) a videotaped scripted debate on the topic (uploaded to YouTube, Vimeo, or something similar) or 4) an extended Power Point/Prezi/Keynote (which you would not present). If you have another idea for a project format, you need to have it approved by me. Regardless of which format you choose, your project should be 1,800 words in length. You need to a) lay out the ethical issue, b) explain and analyze some published philosophical viewpoints related to the topic, c) carefully and precisely argue how you believe the problem should be understood or resolved, d) identify and analyze an implication for personal responsibility for specific moral actors, and e) provide a compelling objection to your position. If you have the space, I will give extra points for including a nicely reasoned response to the objection. Submit the paper, website content and link, video transcript and link, or Power Point/Prezi/Keynote PDF through Blackboard.
Download the below document for more specific instructions.
instructions_for_final_project_autonomy_and_health_sp14.pdf | |
File Size: | 236 kb |
File Type: |