Final Exam

Just a reminder: the final exam is Wednesday, May 11th at our normal class time.  One change, though: it's being held in Madison 311, NOT our normal classroom.

Assisted Dying

Here are a few links on euthanasia:

• Some related ethical issues--like suicide and advanced directives--get their own entries in my favorite free online philosophy encyclopedia.
• The active/passive distinction highlights broader ethical worries: the difference between doing and allowing harms, and the doctrine of double effect.
• Tons of articles, videos, and other resources on euthanasia are available here.
• Last year, a moral philosopher was diagnosed with a brain tumor and wrote an article titled "It is monstrously wrong that patients cannot ask for euthanasia."
• In 1997, some well-known philosophers filed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing in favor of euthanasia. The court didn't listen: in two separate cases later that year, it decided in favor of upholding bans on euthanasia.

Youth in Asia

Ali G's Take on Euthanasia
[More on euthanasia]

Infants

Here are some links related to our class section on the ethics of treating infants with severe impairments:

• Disability rights attorney Harriet McBryde Johnson, who was born with a congenital muscular disease, wrote a fascinating account of meeting philosopher Peter Singer, who has argued that it is sometimes morally acceptable to withhold treatment from impaired infants.
• Singer's book on this topic (and others) is called Practical Ethics.
• McBryde Johnson's memoir is titled Too Late to Die Young.
• McBryde Johnson also argued to keep Terri Schiavo alive before the courts decided in favor of euthanasia. 
• Here's a lengthy TV interview with McBryde Johnson by a philosopher:

Persennhood

Here are some links related to our ongoing discussion of the the moral status of persons:

• Just a reminder that our term paper is on this topic.
• Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on person.
• Here is a nice essay that examines various proposed criteria for personhood, such as intelligence and the ability to communicate.
• Are dogs persons? One of my favorite radio shows recently devoted 3 episodes to the science of what dogs can and cannot understand.  Listen below:
  
  Part One
  Part Two
  Part Three
• How about dolphins: are they sea-persons?

Abortion

Here are some links related to our class discussions on the ethics of abortion:

• Recent scientific research suggests that the earliest fetuses can feel pain is about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.  
• One philosopher argues that even if you think abortion is morally acceptable, it's controversial and morally risky enough for you to lower your confidence in your own moral judgment.  
• Here are two articles debunking the myth of the Mozart Effect that we discussed in one of our classes. 

Extra Credit: Buchanan's Article

Here is the extra credit assignment on the Allen Buchanan article (pgs. 525-529) that I mentioned at the end of class this week.  Answer each of these three questions:

1. How does Buchanan define a “moral right” to a decent minimum of health care? (pg. 526)  Explain his definition in your own words.
2. In your own words, explain the reasons Buchanan gives for thinking that:
-many current U.S. citizens deserve access to basic health care (3 reasons on pg. 527); and
-the U.S. government should require all citizens to contribute to our health system. (pgs. 528-29)
3. In one sentence, summarize the main point (conclusion) of Buchanan’s article.

This is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, April 20th. 

Selling Organs?

The authors of Freakonomics wrote an interesting article that touches on a few things we discussed in class last week.  In the article, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner argue that one of the big reasons that it's illegal to sell human organs for transplants in the U.S. is that it simply strikes most of us as repugnant.  Shades of Leon Kass!

They argue, however, that repugnance isn't a good enough reason to object to a practice.  Further, they suggest that opening up an organ market would create an incentive for many to give up their healthy organs.  This, in turn, would lead to a larger supply of organs.
 
Levitt and Dubner wrote a sequel to their book with the cool title SuperFreakonomics.

Test Reminder

Just a reminder that we're having a test at the beginning of class on April 13th.  It's worth 15% of your overall grade, and will cover everything we've studied since I took over class on March 9th:

• Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill)
  
• Kant's Ethics (Immanuel Kant)
• Race and Gender (Susan Sherwin and Annette Dula readings)
• Stem-Cell Research (President's Council on Bioethics, Pontifical Academy, and Michael Sandel readings)
• Genetic Screening for Disabilities (Jeff McMahan and Dena Davis readings)
• Homosexual Parenting (Gillian Hanscombe reading)
• Cloning (Leon Kass and Carson Strong readings)
• Scarce Medical Resources (George Annas reading)

You will have about 50 minutes to take the test.  The format of the test will be mostly a mix of multiple choice questions and short answer questions. There will also be one 2-paragraph essay question, and one or two extra credit questions.

Lesbian Parenting

Since donor insemination first became popular in the U.S. in the 1980's, there was a bit of a baby boom among lesbian parents at that time. As a result, there are some long-term studies that have been wrapping up lately on the effects of being raised by parents who are lesbians. For instance, it seems that child abuse is much less likely to occur in a lesbian household. Other studies can be found here and here.

Also, one of my favorite movies of last year, The Kids Are All Right, is a comedy about a lesbian couple with two children who seek out their sperm-donating biological father. Here's the trailer:

The Wisdom of Kass

The Leon Kass reading on cloning that we studied in class was part of a longer article that is available in its entirety here.

Many critics take issue with Kass's claim that there is a wisdom to repugnance.  Here is a typical objection to Kass's view:

"Anyone who as ever taken an introductory anthropology course, or read Herodotus -- or gone to a different part of town -- will have learned that different groups feel disgust at different things. The affect seems to be hard-wired into us, but the occasions provoking it are varied.
...
"In short, disgust is not quite so unambiguous and inarguable an expression of timeless values as [Kass] has advertised. Given a choice between 'deep wisdom' and 'reason’s power fully to articulate,' we might do best to leave the ineffable to Oprah."

Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that one big difference between politically conservative and liberal people is the willingness to consider disgust as a morally relevant factor.  Here's his TED talk on this:

What do you think?  Feel free to let us know in the comments of this post.

Clone Wars

Here are some links on cloning:

• The Ethics of Cloning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Overview of Cloning Debate
• Science of Cloning (Human Genome Project)
• Email Debate on Cloning (Slate)
• Human Clones: Why Not? (Slate)
• UN Urges Ban on Cloning (Weekly Review)
• Confusion over Cloning (New York Review of Books)

Health Care Readings

In case you weren't there, here are links to the two articles I handed out in class tonight as assigned reading for next week's discussion about the economics of health care:

1. U.S. Health Care Reform
2. G.O.P. Blueprint Would Remake Health Policy

The Ethics of Killing

If you're interested in some thoughtful analysis of abortion, euthanasia, stem cells, impaired infants, cloning, killing, and personhood, among other things, you should check out Jeff McMahan's The Ethics of Killing. Here's a short description of the book:

"This magisterial work is the first comprehensive study of the ethics of killing, where the moral status of the individual killed is uncertain. Drawing on philosophical notions of personal identity and the immorality of killing, McMahan looks carefully at a host of practical issues, including abortion, infanticide, the killing of animals, assisted suicide, and euthanasia."

McMahan teaches philosophy at Rutgers. He also just wrote a follow-up book called Killing in War (here's an audio interview with him on that book). This is exactly the kind of careful, thought-out approach that I think difficult, important issues deserve.

Owning Our Ignorance

I advise the Owning Our Ignorance club here at CCC.  We have a lot of nerdy discussions, host movie nights, and do other stuff in pursuit of getting better at learning.  If you join our Facebook group, you'll be automatically invited to all our events. 

Our big project this semester is creating a radio show.  Well, the first episode of the Owning Our Ignorance Show airs this Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. on WDBK, the college radio station.  Tune in to 91.5 FM to hear Calvin, Destiny, Jordan, and Rachel discuss the role that humility plays in effective reasoning.

If you like the show, you can subscribe to the podcast here (or via iTunes).  Upcoming show topics include the following:

• the most important questions
• good vs. bad skepticism
• persuasion
• happiness
• art
• prejudice
• Ayn Rand
• our top 5 to learn lists 
• cognitive biases

Sandel's Justice

Michael Sandel wrote one of the articles we're reading on stem-cell research. He's also a political philosophy professor at Harvard. You can watch videos of his course on Justice here. The last episode is related to some of the stuff we're studying in class (abortion and same-sex marriage), so I've put up the video of it below:

Delusions of Gender

Psychologist Cordelia Fine has a great new book out called Delusions of Gender. In it, she debunks a lot of the myths about so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences between boys and girls. Our brains are much more malleable than these myths suggest, and such perceived gender differences are likely either non-existent or the result of social pressures.

Fine wrote a nice summary of her book here, and there are two good reviews of her book here and here.  Below is an excerpt from a talk Fine recently gave.



Cordelia Fine: Discovering Sexism in Neuroscience 

And speaking of social pressures to conform to your gender role, here's a comparison of the different words used in ads for boys’ toys and ads for girls’ toys.

(hat tip: Feminist Philosophers blog)

The Hard Sell, the Stem Cell

Here are some links on the ethics of stem-cell research:

• Ethics of Stem-Cell Research (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• A Moral Defense of Stem-Cell Research (Boston Review)
• New Extraction Technique that Doesn't Destroy Embryos? (New York Times)
  [Clarification (New York Times); Quelling the Hype (National Review)]
• Even Newer Technique (New York Times)
• Will Stem-Cell Research Help? (National Review)
• Selling Alternatives Short (National Review)
• What About Adult Stem Cells? (Weekly Standard)
• What Pro-Lifers are Missing in the Stem-Cell Debate (Slate)
• Embryo Ethics (Boston Globe)

System Justification

NYU psychologist John Jost does a lot of work on something he calls system justification theory. This is our tendency to unconsciously rationalize the status quo, especially unjust social institutions. Scarily, his research suggests that those of us oppressed by such institutions have a stronger tendency to justify their existence.

Jost has a new book on this stuff. Here's a video dialogue about his research:

Your Inner Bigot

There's an insightful article called "Finding Your Inner Bigot" that relates to our discussion in class this week on racism and sexism: does prejudice have to be conscious, or can we unintentionally do something sexist or racist?

Psychological evidence suggests that unconscious prejudice is real, and often a bigger problem today than intentionally discriminatory behavior. As the article puts it,

"If you ask physicians whether all patients should be treated equally regardless of race, everyone says yes. But if you ask doctors how they will treat patients with chest pains who are named Michael Smith and Tyrone Smith, the doctors tend to be less aggressive in treating the patient with the black-sounding name. Such disparities in treatment are not predicted by the conscious attitudes that doctors profess, but by their unconscious attitudes—their hidden brains."

Counteracting these unintentional, hidden prejudices is pretty tough. They require a long-term approach of the kind discussed in Aristotle's virtue ethics: noticing your bad habits, then consciously trying to break them and replace them with better habits. The hardest part about unconscious biases, though, is how difficult they are to notice in the first place.

Term Paper Guideline

Due Date: at the beginning of class on Wednesday, May 11th, 2011

Worth: 30% of your final grade

Assignment: Write an argumentative essay on the topic below. Papers must be typed, and must be between 600-1200 words long. Provide a word count on the first page of the paper. (Most programs like Microsoft Word have automatic word counts.)

Topic: Explain and defend your definition of person as it relates to morality, and specifically to the ethics of stem-cell research, abortion, and impaired infants.

(1) First, briefly explain and critically evaluate the different definitions of “person” that we have discussed in class. Be sure to explain each definition offered by the President’s Council on Bioethics, Michael Sandel, Mary Anne Warren, Tristram Engelhardt, and John Robertson.

(2) Second, explain how each of the following authors uses the concept of “person” to attempt to settle the particular ethical debate she or he wrote about (The President’s Bioethics Council and Sandel on stem-cell research; Warren and Marquis on abortion; and Engelhardt and Robertson on impaired infants).
[NOTE: Some of these authors think personhood is irrelevant to their issue.]

(3) Third, explain and defend your own definition of “person”: do you agree with one of these authors’ definitions, or do you have one of your own?

(4) Fourth, explain the solution your definition of “person” gives to the ethics of stem-cell research, abortion, and impaired infants.

When considering your definition of person, be sure to consider and answer the following questions: Which living entities are persons, and which living entities are not persons? Do you believe one needs to be a person in the moral sense in order to be worthy of moral consideration (for instance, do some non-persons have a right to not be killed and a right to not suffer unnecessarily)? Do persons have special moral significance? Can someone have moral rights before they have moral duties? Be sure to fully explain and philosophically defend each of your answers.

Consensus Email Tips

I'd like to clarify something for those groups choosing to do a consensus session. In the email your group (5:20 or 8:00) sends me a week before your consensus session presentation, I only want two things:

1. A formal premise/conclusion version of the main argument in your article.
2. Your group's systematic evaluation of this argument (check each premise and the argument's structure).

That's it! Furthermore, this is basically what I expect you to do in your group presentation: present and explain the main argument in the article, and lead a class-wide evaluation of this article using the thumbs-up/thumbs-down voting system.

In other words, I don't expect your group to give a general presentation on your topic. There's no need to go into a detailed explanation of the topic, or explain the science behind your issue, or whatever. Nor do I want you to make up your own argument for what you believe on the issue.

I just want you to present the author's argument as you understand it. I don't care whether you like or dislike this argument; your job is to (fairly) explain it to the rest of the class. If you dislike the arg, you can mention reasons why when you lead the class-wide evaluation of it.

So here's an example of the type of email I expect:

To: slandis@camdencc.edu, other group members
Sent: 1 week before our presentation
Subject: Bioethics Group #4's Arg

Susan Sherwin's Argument
P1) Poverty doesn’t fully explain why oppressed groups receive worse treatment in the U.S. health system.
P2) There are few women & minorities in positions of power in the health system.
P3) Those now in power often fail to see how their decisions harm oppressed groups.
C) Oppressed groups should have more power in the U.S. health system.

Our Group's Evaluation of Sherwin's Argument
P1: true, although we think poverty plays a larger role than Sherwin suggests.
P2: true (her stats are outdated, so it's probably improved a bit since then, but it's still predominately white males in power)
P3: questionable? We're a little confused by this point. It seems true sometimes, but is it often true, as the premise says? We're not sure.
Support: not good.  Even if it's true that there's a big problem in the U.S. health system, it's not obvious that Sherwin's proposed solution in the conclusion is the best way to fix the system.

That's it! It doesn't have to be a long email. Just give me the arg and your evaluation of it.

Revised Schedule

Based on our discussion in class on March 9th and our efforts to closely match the old schedule from your prior professor, here is our tentative schedule for the rest of the semester:

March 23: Race & Gender
-Susan Sherwin (pgs. 253-258) ← sample consensus session
-Annette Dula (pgs. 258-264) ← in class informal group work
-optional: (pgs. 211-214, 223-227)

March 30: Embryonic Stem Cells & Genetic Control
-President’s Council on Bioethics (pgs. 312-316)
-Pontifical Academy (pgs. 316-317)
-Michael Sandel (pgs. 318-319) ← in class informal group work
-optional: (pgs. 270-288)
-Jeff McMahan (pgs. 333-337)
-Dena Davis (pgs. 337-346) ← group presentation 4

April 6: Reproductive Control, Cloning, & Scarce Medical Resources
-Gillian Hanscombe (pgs. 406-409) ← group presentation 5
-Leon Kass (pgs. 438-443)
-Carson Strong (pgs. 443-447) ← in class informal group work
-George Annas (pgs. 500-504) ← group presentation 6
-optional: (pgs. 377-383, 457-462)

April 13: The Economics of Health Care
-TEST (on ethical theories, race & gender, stem cells, genetic control, reproductive control, cloning, & medical resources)
-New York Times synopsis of U.S. Healthcare Reform (handout)
-Allen Buchanan (pgs. 525-529) ← in class informal group work
-William Custer, Charles Kahn, & Thomas Wildsmith (pgs. 534-536) ← group presentation 7
-Paul Krugman (pgs. 533-534)
-optional: (pgs. 512-519)

April 20: Abortion
-Mary Anne Warren (pgs. 586-594) ← in class informal group work
-Don Marquis (pgs. 594-598) ← group presentation 8
-optional: (pgs. 546-559)

April 27: Impaired Infants
-Tristram Engelhardt (pgs. 646-650)
-John Robertson (pgs. 639-645) ← group presentation 9
-Robert Weir (pgs. 651-657) ← in class informal group work
-optional: (pgs. 624-630)

May 4: Euthanasia
-Daniel Callahan (pgs. 706-711) ← group presentation 10
-Daniel E. Lee (pgs. 722-725)
-James Rachels (pgs. 725-729) ← in class informal group work
-Winston Nesbitt (pgs. 729-732)
-optional: (pgs. 682-689)
-review for Final Exam

May 11: Final Exam
-TERM PAPER DUE
-FINAL EXAM

Group Presentations: 5:20 Class

Here are the groups for your presentations.  First, these 3 groups have already presented:

1. Informed Consent: Amanda E., Kevin Z., Whitney, Roxanne
2. Truth & Confidentiality: Christine W., Christopher, Kevin B.
3. HIV & AIDS: Ariel, Damond, Justina, Paige

Next, here are the groups who have yet to go, along with the date of each presentation, whether your group has chosen to do a consensus session or a research presentation (or hasn't decided yet), and the article your group is assigned to if you've chosen the consensus session:

4. Genetic Control (March 30th): Dan, Kamal, Kayla
   -CONSENSUS: article by Dena Davis on pgs. 337-346
5. Reproductive Control (April 6th): Aimee, Justine, Rianna, Takira
   -CONSENSUS: article by Gillian Hanscombe on pgs. 406-409
6. Medical Resources (April 6th): Dana, Eric, Joe, Marcee
   -CONSENSUS: article by George Annas on pgs. 500-504
7. Health-Care Costs (April 13th): Amanda B., Lauren, Mike, Othello
   -LEANING CONSENSUS: if so, article by Custer, Kahn, & Wildsmith on pgs. 534-536
8. Abortion (April 20th): Gwen, Kristen
   -CONSENSUS: article by Don Marquis on pgs. 594-598
9. Impaired Infants (April 27th): Ashley, Hannah
   -CONSENSUS: article by John Robertson on pgs. 639-645
10. Euthanasia (May 4th): Amanda F., DongHyuk, Doug
    -CONSENSUS: article by Daniel Callahan on pgs. 706-711

If your name isn't on this list, please let me know as soon as possible so we can figure out what group you're in. 

Group Presentations: 8:00 Class

Here are the groups for your presentations.  First, these 3 groups have already presented:

1. Informed Consent: Jamie, John, Leigh
2. Truth & Confidentiality: Jaclyn M., Mary, Quentin
3. HIV & AIDS: Katie, Kasey, Sharohn, Tabatha

Next, here are the groups who have yet to go, along with the date of each presentation, whether your group has chosen to do a consensus session or a research presentation (or hasn't decided yet), and the article your group is assigned to if you've chosen the consensus session:

4. Genetic Control (March 30th): Anthony, Dominique, Kari, Kelin
   -CONSENSUS: article by Michael Sandel on pgs. 318-319
5. Reproductive Control (April 6th): Alysia, Christina L., Mark, Tia
   -CONSENSUS: article by Gillian Hanscombe on pgs. 406-409
6. Medical Resources (April 6th): Lauren M., Melissa, Renee
   -NO DECISION YET
7. Health-Care Costs (April 13th): Chris, Jacquelyn C., Trupti
   -CONSENSUS: article by Custer, Kahn, & Wildsmith on pgs. 534-536
8. Abortion (April 20th): Amanda, Kelly, Liz
   -NO DECISION YET
9. Impaired Infants (April 27th): no one?
   -NO DECISION YET
10. Euthanasia (May 4th): Gary, Jessica, Kiyomi, Lauren P., Lindsey
    -NO DECISION YET

If your name isn't on this list, please let me know as soon as possible so we can figure out what group you're in. 

Consensus Session Guidelines

Throughout the semester we’ll be holding group presentations on specific issues we’ll be discussing in class. One option is to run a consensus session.  If you choose this, your group’s assignment is to figure out the main argument from a specific article, then present that argument to your classmates in class and lead a discussion about whether the argument is good or bad. More specific directions are below:

Preparing for the Consensus Session
First, your group’s job is to understand and evaluate the argument contained in the readings for your issue.

Understand
1. Figure out the argument in your assigned article, and summarize it in a clear premise/conclusion format.
NOTE: Try to keep the argument concise and easy to understand.

Evaluate
2. Evaluate the argument as a group. Check each premise, and check the argument’s support.
3. When evaluating, play the back & forth game. That is, consider as many responses to the argument and your criticisms of it as you can think of. Is the argument misguided? Mistaken? Can you revise the argument to overcome the criticisms you come up with?
4. Try to reach a group-wide consensus on your evaluation of the argument.
NOTE: It doesn’t matter which side you end up on! The goal isn’t to show there’s something wrong about the argument. Nor do I want you to defend the argument no matter what. The goal is to figure out whether it’s good or bad.

Your group must email me (1) your version of the argument and (2) your group's evaluation of it one week before you’re scheduled to lead a session. I will provide helpful feedback, and make sure you’re on the right track.

Running the Consensus Session
During your consensus session, your group’s job is to present your article’s argument to the rest of the class, and lead a class-wide consensus session on each argument. Each group member should present about the same amount.

Presenting the Argument
1. Explain the main point of the reading.
2. Explain the author’s argument in support of this main point. (Explain it slowly and clearly, like you’re teaching it to the class. Explain what each premise means in easy-to-understand language. Point out exactly where each premise came from in the reading. Explain why the author believes each premise is true.)
3. Hold a small question and answer round with the class to explain and clarify the argument before evaluating it.

Consensus Voting
4. Run a consensus session (a thumbs up/thumbs down vote) with the rest of class where you evaluate the first premise of the argument.
5. Call on students to explain their evaluation (especially those who voted thumbs down or in the middle).
6. Go back & forth with every dissenter with the goal of trying to reach a consensus (complete agreement for the whole class). At this point, you can briefly explain your group’s evaluation of the premise, along with why your group evaluated it the way you did.
7. Based on the class-wide discussion, revise, defend, or clarify the argument as needed. Revote on any revisions.
8. Repeat steps 4 through 7 to evaluate each remaining premise and the argument’s support.

Email Subscription

So why does this course have a blog? Well, why is anything anything?

A blog (short for “web log”) is a website that works like a journal – users write posts that are sorted by date based on when they were written. You can find important course information (like assignments, due dates, reading schedules, etc.) on the blog. I’ll also be updating the blog throughout the semester, posting interesting items related to the stuff we’re currently discussing in class. You don't have to visit the blog if you don't want to. It's just a helpful resource. I've used a blog for this course a lot, and it's seemed helpful. Hopefully it can benefit our course, too.

Since I’ll be updating the blog a lot throughout the semester, you should check it frequently. There are, however, some convenient ways to do this without simply going to the blog each day. The best way to do this is by getting an email subscription, so any new blog post I write automatically gets emailed to you. (You can also subscribe to the rss feed, if you know what that means.) To get an email subscription:

1. Go t0 http://cccbioethics11.blogspot.com.

2. At the main page, enter your email address at the top of the right column (under “EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION: Enter your Email”) and click the "Subscribe me!" button.

3. This will take you to a new page. Follow the directions under #2, where it says “To help stop spam, please type the text here that you see in the image below. Visually impaired or blind users should contact support by email.” Once you type the text, click the "Subscribe me!" button again.

4. You'll then get an email regarding the blog subscription. (Check your spam folder if you haven’t received an email after a day.) You have to confirm your registration. Do so by clicking on the "Click here to activate your account" link in the email you receive.

5. This will bring you to a page that says "Your subscription is confirmed!" Now you're subscribed.

If you are unsure whether you've subscribed, ask me (609-980-8367; slandis@camdencc.edu). I can check who's subscribed and who hasn't.

Course Details

Camden County College, Blackwood Campus
Philosophy 232
Spring 2011 

Section 51: Wednesdays, 5:20 – 7:50 p.m. in Madison 110
Section 53: Wednesdays, 8:00 – 10:30 p.m. in Madison 111

Instructor: Sean Landis
Email: slandis@camdencc.edu
Phone: 609-980-8367
Course Website: http://cccbioethics11.blogspot.com
Office Hourse: by appointment

Required Text
Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Medial Ethics, 8th Edition, by Ronald Munson

About the Course
This course is designed to introduce students to philosophical thinking and some specific ethical concerns unique to the medical community. During the course, we will be studying particular moral problems that face people in the biomedical professions. Topics include abortion, stem-cell research, genetic control, euthanasia, our treatment of animals, the economics of health care, race and gender, and truth telling.

We will also be developing various philosophical skills, including:

• Understanding: the ability to identify and explain an author’s main point in your own words, along with the ability to identify and explain an author’s argument in support of this main point.
• Evaluating: the ability to critically and charitably determine whether these arguments provide accurate, logical reasons in support of their main points, along with the ability to engage in critical and charitable dialogue with people who hold different views from your own.
• Defending: the ability to develop your own arguments in support of your opinions on the ethical issues we study, along with the ability to honestly assess your opinions and critically evaluate the quality of your arguments in support of them.

A broader goal of this course is to gain an appreciation for philosophical reflection. Hopefully, we will learn that careful, deliberate examination of the ethical assumptions we often take for granted can improve our own approach to morality, and make us better in our anticipated roles in the medical community.



Grades
90%-100%= A
80%-89.9% = B
70%-79.9% = C
60%-69.9% = D
below 60% = F

Test: 15%
Final Exam: 25%
Term Paper: 30%
Group Presentation (Consensus Session): 20%
Attendance/Participation: 10% total

Already Existing Grades from Assignments in the First 7 Weeks of Class: On March 9th, we will be discussing how to handle these grades.

Test: The test is scheduled for the first hour of class on April 13th. It will be on the topics that we cover in the 4 weeks leading up to April 13th (currently, this means the ethical theories of utilitarianism, Kant’s ethics, and Aristotle’s virtue ethics; abortion; stem cells & genetic control; and euthanasia).

Final Exam: The final exam is scheduled for May 11th. This exam is cumulative; that is, it will cover everything we study during our 8 weeks together.

Group Presentation (Consensus Session): This will be an in-class, group oral presentation. During the semester, we will be going over specific ethical debates. Each group of around 3 to 5 students will be assigned to present a short lesson on one of the articles we’re reading for class, and lead a class-wide discussion on the issue being debated.

Term Paper: This will be an essay in which you explain and defend your opinion on some of the applied ethical issues we’re studying.

Attendance/Participation: A lot of this will be based on your attendance. If you’re there every class, you’ll get full credit for the attendance portion of this grade. Also, there will be a lot of informal group work throughout the semester. Group work can impact this grade.

Extra Credit: I like giving extra credit! I’ll be giving some official extra credit assignments throughout the semester. I’ll also be offering some extra credit points more informally during class time. Try to remind me about this if I slack off on dishing out extra credit assignments.

Classroom Policies
Academic Integrity: Cheating and plagiarism (using someone else’s words or ideas in a paper or assignment without giving credit to the source) will not be tolerated in the class. Students found guilty of either will definitely fail the exam or assignment on which they plagiarize—and possibly the entire class.

Excused Absences: Make-up exams, presentations, and other assignments will only be rescheduled for any excused absences. Excused absences include religious observance, official college business, and illness or injury (with a doctor’s note). An unexcused absence on the day of any assignment or test will result in a zero on that assignment or test.

Disability Accommodations: If you have special requirements let me know as soon as possible so we can make all necessary arrangements.

Important Dates
January 18th: Last day to drop a course & receive a 100% refund.
February 1st: Last day to drop a course & receive a 50% refund.
February 8th: Last day to sign up to audit a course.
April 26th: Last day to withdraw from Spring Classes.

Course Schedule

*This schedule has changed drastically... see the revised schedule here!

March 9: Intro to Class /Mill, Kant, & Aristotle Review
-Introduction to class (figuring out where we are)
-Utilitarianism (John Stuart Mill) (pgs. 740-750)
-Immanuel Kant’s Ethics (pgs. 750-755)
-Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics (pgs. 782-784)

March 16: No Class
SPRING BREAK (no class)

March 23: Abortion
-Mary Anne Warren (pgs. 586-594) (sample consensus session)
-Don Marquis (pgs. 594-598)
-optional: (pgs. 546-559)
-in class informal group work

March 30th Embryonic Stem Cells & Genetic Control
-President’s Council on Bioethics (pgs. 312-316)
-Pontifical Academy (pgs. 316-317)
-Michael Sandel (pgs. 318-319)
-optional: (pgs. 270-288)
-Jeff McMahan (pgs. 333-337)
-Dena Davis (pgs. 337-346)
-group presentations 1 & 2 
-in class informal group work

April 6: Euthanasia
-Daniel Callahan (pgs. 706-711)
-Daniel E. Lee (pgs. 722-725)
-James Rachels (pgs. 725-729)
-Winston Nesbitt (pgs. 729-732)
-optional: (pgs. 682-689)
-group presentations 3 & 4 

April 13: Animal Research
-TEST (on ethical theories, abortion, stem cells, genetic control, & euthanasia)
-Peter Singer (pgs. 79-86)
-Carl Cohen (pg. 86-92)
-optional: (pgs. 22-24)
-group presentation 5 

April 20: The Economics of Health Care
-New York Times synopsis of U.S. Healthcare Reform (handout)
-Allen Buchanan (pgs. 525-529)
-William Custer, Charles Kahn, & Thomas Wildsmith (pgs. 534-536)
-Paul Krugman (pgs. 533-534)
-optional: (pgs. 512-519)
-group presentations 6 & 7

April 27: Race & Gender
-Susan Sherwin (pgs. 253-258)
-Annette Dula (pgs. 258-264)
-optional: (pgs. 211-214, 223-227)
-group presentations 8 & 9
-in class informal group work

May 4: Truth Telling
-TERM PAPER DUE
-Mack Lipkin (pgs. 152-154)
-Susan Cullen & Margaret Klein (pgs. 154-161)
-optional: (pgs. 102-116)
-group presentations 10 & 11
-review for Final Exam 

May 11: Final Exam
-FINAL EXAM