Description

BIOETHICS ASSIGNMENT 1 

In this assignment, you will construct an argument based on a case study about a topic from the course that we have explored. You will then propose an objection to your own argument, then respond to it. This pattern—argument, objection, response—is the core of a philosophy paper and an important skill for any argumentative essay. The purpose of an argument is to persuade your reader, not just report that you have a view. In other words, you need to give reasons why you think your reader should agree with you. 

Your paper must have the following parts. Note that I use examples from topics we’ve covered so far, but you have to write on one of the case studies at the end of this document. Papers that are not about one of the cases will receive a zero. 

Part One: Thesis 

Recommended length: <50 words 

In one sentence, state your thesis. Format this section as follows: 

Thesis: [Thesis goes here] 

Your thesis is the main point or goal of the argument. One clear way of doing this is by completing this sentence: “In this paper, I will argue that…”. Above all else, remember that we care about your argument. We want to know what you think. Merely describing 

someone else’s views without any analysis of those views is insufficient, though it’s perfectly fine for your thesis to be a defense or rebuttal of someone else’s view (e.g., “In this paper, I will defend Dresser’s view that Margo’s advance directive should not be followed”). 

Your thesis should be about bioethics and it should be prescriptive, which means that it should be about how things should be done or the way the world ought to be, not about the way people or things are. “It’s always wrong to lie to patients” is prescriptive. “Doctors don’t lie to patients” is not. 

A good thesis is spicy: i.e., it’s controversial. Defending the status quo is usually less interesting than proposing something new. For example, arguing that Beauchamp and Childress are correct that there are four principles and that no principle gets priority in

all situations might be correct, but it’s uninteresting. Find something interesting. All else equal, it’s better to go for a spicy (but defensible) thesis than a less spicy thesis. However, a thesis can be too spicy: i.e., the view is implausible. For thesis ideas, see the prompts below. Where relevant, your thesis should engage with readings or lectures from the course. For example, if you discuss paternalism, you should mention Conly. 

A thesis can be positive or negative. A positive thesis defends a view: e.g., “I will defend Conly’s claim that coercive paternalism is ethically justified.” A negative thesis argues against a view: e.g., “I will argue against Conly’s claim that coercive paternalism is ethically justified.” There’s no correct approach. Some people find positive theses easier; others are the opposite. Use what works for you. 

Part Two: Description 

Recommended length: ~100 words 

In this section, describe the relevant information the reader needs to know to understand your argument. You may assume that the reader is familiar with the case, but hasn’t read the course material before. Tell them what they need to know to make sense of your argument. You don’t need to summarize the entire paper or everything about the topic, which would take too much space.Just include the relevant bits. 

Part Two: Argument 

Recommended length: ~200 words 

In this section, give your argument. Convince the reader that your thesis is correct. It is better to focus on depth over breadth: choose one argument or point and explore it instead of writing on a bunch of different points. This is the central section of the assignment. Remember that the goal is not merely to tell the reader that you have a view. Instead, you’re trying to convince the reader. What is the best reason you have for your view? Why should others agree with you? 

Since your thesis is prescriptive, it’s unlikely that empirical evidence is the best way to support it. “Here’s a poll showing that people care about informed consent” gives us a reason to care about informed consent, but it doesn’t ultimately explain whether or in what ways informed consent is ethically important. Be mindful of this point from the syllabus: “There is no need, e.g., to spend long hours in the library or on the internet reading unassigned books and articles so that your papers have lengthy bibliographies.

In fact, you are strongly discouraged from consulting material outside of the course.” Even more strongly, you aren’t allowed to use external sources. You still need to give citations with page numbers, but external research usually leads to worse papers (seriously!). Use your brain and the course content instead. 

You’re welcome to use a case to argue your view, but keep in mind that cases tend to use more words. If you use one, describe only the most relevant details. 

Part Three: Objection 

Recommended length: ~200 words 

If your thesis is interesting and your argument is persuasive, your reader will be intrigued but will have questions. In this section, describe the best objection you can think of to your own view. Considering an objection is a kind of stress test for your argument. Ultimately, considering and then refuting good objections makes your argument even stronger. We care about finding the truth, and the way to do that is to test your views against the best objections you can find. 

Coming up with a good objection is hard to do! You’re allowed to talk to your TA, the professor, or others to find a good one. The goal is to find a steel man objection, which is the opposite of a straw man. A steel man is an objection that your opponent would give if you were to debate them. 

A good objection directly engages with the argument instead of merely offering an argument for the other side. In other words, the objection should raise a problem with the argument, not just say “here’s an argument in favour of the opposite conclusion” that isn’t connected to the original argument. 

You can simply format this section as “Objection” and then write the objection. In a paper, you want to be clear that you’re no longer giving your own argument. You can do this by saying things such as “Here’s an objection that someone might give to the previous point” or “the argument I’ve presented has the following potential problem”. Regardless, make sure it’s clear to the reader that you’re giving an objection. 

Part Four: Response 

Recommended length: ~200 words

If your objection is good, your reader will now be skeptical of your thesis. That’s the point! In this section, you need to re-convince the reader that your initial argument (from Part Two) is correct by explaining how the objection from the previous section fails. A good response directly engages with the objection instead of simply giving another argument in favour of your thesis. 

Rubric 

All else equal, your grade will be higher if your assignment accords with the following points: 

1) The thesis is prescriptive, clear, and ethically interesting. It concerns a topic from the course that we’ve covered. 

2) The argument is plausible and easy to follow. It clearly connects to the thesis by giving support specifically for the claim made in the thesis. The argument is focused: it advances one central point instead of listing multiple points in a shallow way. The argument should engage with relevant material from the course. 

3) The objection is a strong objection to the argument. It’s a reasonable objection to the argument and is a ‘steel man’. The objection clearly responds to the argument instead of just giving a different argument for the opposite view. 

4) The response is a good defense of the original argument. It responds to the objection instead of simply advancing a new point in favour of the original argument. 

5) The assignment is written clearly without grammatical or spelling mistakes. 

External Resources 

You may not use ChatGPT, the generative feature of Grammarly, or any other AI tool. You may not use external sources. 

Other Details 

Note the following requirements, as described in the syllabus. The assignment must be: 

• Not a word over 750 words (not including the title or the bibliography, but including in-text citations and footnotes when used). Papers that go over will lose

10 points. You can divide the words between the parts however you like, though I recommend following the length suggestions above. 

• Written with citations for any sources you use. Please see the syllabus for more information or ask your TA if you’re unsure what is required. Papers that fail to give proper citations will lose 30 points for each missed citation. 
• You must give at least two relevant direct quotations from the readings with proper citations. Papers that don’t do this will receive a failing grade. ● Double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, 2.54 cm margins. ● Submitted on Quercus. 
• Saved as docx, not pdf. 
• Prepared for anonymous grading: include your student number, not your name. 

Cases 

Choose one case from below for your assignment. You do not need to repeat the details of the case in your assignment, but you should briefly describe the tension involved. Your discussion should engage with relevant course readings or lectures. For most cases, there are multiple readings and lectures you can draw on. You should use whichever ones you think are most relevant to your discussion. 

Case 1: Mary & Jodie 

In 1993, a woman delivered conjoined twins, Marya and Jodie, who were linked at the pelvis. Mary’s brain development was severely limited, and the lungs and heart on Mary’s side of the body functioned very poorly, so both twins relied for oxygenated blood on the functioning heart and organs on Jodie’s side of the body. If nothing was done, the one functioning cardiovascular system would wear out in a year or two and both girls would die. However, if surgeons separated the twins now, Jodie would have a very good chance of having a normal life and lifespan. But this would require clamping off the artery keeping Mary alive, and she would die immediately. The hospital wanted to separate the twins now, but the parents opposed the operation on the grounds that the surgeons would be murdering Marya to save Jodie. What is the right thing to do in this case? 

Case 2: The Nocebo Effect

A patient, Timon, presents to the clinic with an enlarged prostate gland that is causing painful urination. The doctor wants to recommend the drug Finasteride, which is usually effective in shrinking the gland, but also has side effects, including sexual dysfunction. Since the patient would probably want to take the possibility of this side effect into consideration when deciding whether to accept this treatment, the doctor initially plans to disclose this information to the patient. But then the doctor comes across a study (Mondaini et al. 2007) that gives them pause. The researchers found that when the possibility of sexual dysfunction was not disclosed, only 15 percent of patients experienced it, but when it was disclosed, the percentage jumped to 43 percent. Should the doctor tell Timon about the side effect or not? 

Case 3: The Defibrillator 

Paty, a 29-year-old patient, required an implantable defibrillator to treat a serious congenital heart disease that could cause his heart to spontaneously stop beating, requiring a shock to restart it. Although the device had fired twice, presumably saving him in both cases from a serious cardiac arrest, Paty did not believe he needed it. And he found the wires visible under his skin unsightly and embarrassing. Paty asked to have his defibrillator deactivated and removed, despite warnings that without it he would be at very high risk of a life-threatening heart attack. Eventually, the device was taken out, and Paty did indeed suffer a heart attack (as it turned out, he survived, but with significant cognitive impairments). The device was later re-implanted. Did the doctors act ethically by turning off the defibrillator for Paty? If not, what was the right thing to do?

SOLUTION: BIOETHICS ASSIGNMENT 1

Thesis
In this paper, I will argue in support of respect for autonomy medical ethical principle that
upholds the use of informed consent by medics focusing on cases with high potential for nocebo
effect. In such instances, patients must…………..

……..Get the rest of BIOETHICS ASSIGNMENT 1 for just $20