Ethics and Health Care Professionals, Spring 2014

Suggested topics for paper
(5 pages, due Wednesday, March 26)

1) Provide an informed and critical account of the various arguments surrounding the question of whether alcoholics (or other substance abusers, or individuals whose “lifestyle choices/behaviors” have resulted in organ damage) should compete equally, or not, for scarce human organs. Here you’ll want to draw on at least some of the positions defended by Moss & Seigler (“Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Organ Transplants?”), or the many opposing positions in the online etc., literature, though you don’t necessarily have to limit yourself to those arguments

2) Comprehensively review the ethical arguments made for, and against, “surrogacy for hire” agreements. What are some of the ways the practice has been defended. What are some of the ethical criticisms of surrogacy (see much available online). Which do you think are the most convincing arguments? In presenting your own position, make an effort to respond to the claims of the opposition.

3) Many of the same ethical questions surrounding surrogate motherhood also appear in recent debates regarding other “reproductive technologies” (unauthorized use of eggs/embryos, research exploitation of desperate potential parents, consent agreements, “custody” fights over egg/sperm, freezing eggs, lack of review board oversight, etc.). Imagine yourself as a member of a national “Bioethics Review Committee” charged with making recommendations regarding these new technologies. Write a “position paper” reviewing what you consider to be the most important ethical concerns in this debate, and suggesting acceptable guidelines.

4) In light of the arguments presented in Pence’s article (in form of a handout) on severely impaired newborns (handout), the video on the Dutch practice of terminating (some) severely damaged neonates (to be viewed Monday, March 24), and the arguments discussed in class on this topic, what would you defend as an ethically acceptable policy regarding the “killing” or the “letting die” of such newborns?

5) Defend or criticize the claim, “There is no significant moral difference between killing and letting die.” (See many online links.)

6) How would you describe the ethical significance of the Tuskegee syphilis study (handout and on e-reserve)? What are its implications for researchers/medical practitioners concerning the determination of informed consent, the design of research and experimental projects, and the obligations of truth telling? What are some defenses of the study?* *(Optional: Compare Tuskegee with the current controversy over the use of placebos in NIH/CDC funded research on pregnant HIV-positive women. Are the justifications in either case convincing? Why or why not?)

7) Special topic—see one of us first.