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.

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.