Deadlines
Writing Help
|
Important files to download:
Examples of 'A' short papers:
Example of 'A' debate contribution:
|
General Grading Rubric (click to download))
For writing tips, go to
A Rulebook for Arguments Purdue Online Writing Lab The Elements of Style MLA Handbook | ||||||||||||
Instructions
Short Papers
You are required to write two short (1,000 words) papers based on the below prompts. Submit to Blackboard.
Prompt #1
You have two options for this paper. Choose one. Regardless of which you choose, the purpose of this paper is for you to explicate an argument. You need to identify the relevant argument and explain it clearly and precisely, without assuming your reader has read the same material. Be careful to cite in-text appropriately (including paraphrasing!!), but do not over-use direct quotations. Show that you understand the philosophical argument and can put it in your own words. Do not attempt to evaluate the argument (i.e., don't say whether you agree or disagree); you simply do not have enough words to pack all that into this paper. This is an exposition paper only.
In addition to explicating the argument, you should incorporate one case from any of our readings. For example, you could discuss healthcare workers during the SARS epidemic, the physician in the Carlos dilemma, or the physician in the anencephalic infant scenario. Do not waste words summarizing the case-- assume your reader knows the factual details. Use the case to your benefit to make the points in the ethicist's argument more concrete. Based on these instructions, you will have to bring in at least two class readings, though you may bring in more. Use your discretion. Depth matters more than breadth; in other words, the goal should be to delve deeply into a line of argument provided by the ethicist, so the goal should not be to give a comprehensive overview of everything contained in the article.
Option 1:
Explain how Edmund Pellegrino comes to the conclusion that "[w]ithout the [Hippocratic] Oath the doctor is a skilled technician or laborer whose knowledge fits him for an occupation but not a profession" (379). Clarify how Pellegrino views the essence of the profession of medicine and why he thinks the profession must have this essence.
Option 2:
Explain an argument that Robert Veatch offers in support of the conclusion that the Hippocratic Oath will ultimately be "relegated to the ash heap of history--a benevolently paternalistic morality that may have worked for a culture in which patients were patient--when they were [...] passive, long-suffering, ignorant, and believed to be incapable of making choices" (702). Articulate why Veatch believes that medicine does not have a fixed essence captured by the Hippocratic Oath.
Prompt #2
Choose one of the below arguments to criticize. You need to provide a singular, well-developed objection. You should begin by briefly articulating the part of the argument that is the subject of your critique (i.e., what the bioethicist has argued that you are now refuting). This part of your paper should be concise and focused; do not provide a lengthy summary of everything the bioethicist says, since you are only rebutting one aspect of the argument (not everything he/she says). Your characterization of the bioethicist's view must be charitable. Do not "straw man" your opponent--in other words, do not assume that your philosophical opponent is ignorant or oblivious. Be sure to define key terms.
Keep in mind that you do not need to agree with the objection you put forward, but you do need to make a compelling case against the argument you have chosen to critique. You should point out a problem with the argument and then motivate that problem--give your reader reasons to believe that yes, this is indeed a problem. Your objection should be philosophical and/or ethical in nature, so do not venture into (e.g.) legalistic or political arguments. Also, this is an objection paper, not an "object-and-fix" paper; do not attempt to fix or expand the bioethicist's argument after you give the objection because you do not have enough words to do this well.
First-person voice is perfectly fine. You may bring in any class materials, but do not bring in outside research unless approved by me. For your objection, do NOT simply summarize another philosopher's view. The point of this paper is for you to show original thought!! And again: Be careful to cite in-text appropriately (including paraphrasing!!), but do not over-use direct quotations.
Provide an objection to the one of the following:
Option 1:
Benjamin Freedman argues that clinical equipoise and theoretical equipoise are importantly distinct, and while the former is ethically required of all clinical research, the latter is misleading and irrelevant. More specifically, he contends that subjecting humans to clinical research requires, as part of its ethical foundations, that the research must begin in and be designed to disturb clinical equipoise. On his account, research can be ethical if clinical equipoise persists, even if theoretical equipoise is disrupted.
Option 2:
In relation to carrying out clinical research in developing countries, Margaret Little and Alisa Carse argue that "understanding which transactions count as truly exploitative is not, as current international standards now insist, simply a matter of invoking the standard of care that would be available in the ideal. [...] The enterprise of public health is not governed by the minimalist norms of the marketplace; nor, in the main, is it governed by unfettered pursuit of aggregate utility, indifferent to whom the utility accrues" (239-240). Their account of exploitation entails a number of moral responsibilities that researchers have when trying to gain medical/scientific knowledge from the world's poor, particularly in light of the normative enterprise that is clinical research.
Option 3:
Don Marquis argues for the impermissibility of abortion in almost all cases. He argues that the presumption against abortion is “as strong as the presumption that killing another adult human being is wrong” (194). He arrives at this conclusion by focusing on what makes killing of a human wrong in the standard case, and he believes that he has established a sufficient condition for its wrongness.
[For this, deal with his argument in his terms; don't attempt to bring in outside philosophical arguments that deal with other aspects of the abortion debate, since he is trying to advance the debate in a specific way that sidesteps other sets of arguments (e.g., the precise moral status of a fetus). Also, focus your attention on abortion in a specific case, such as when the pregnancy is unwanted but not due to rape.]
Option 4:
Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another’s body—even if one needs it for life itself” (56). She uses multiple thought experiments combined with careful philosophical argumentation to establish different facets of this conclusion.
[For this, focus on at least one thought experiment she offers without losing sight of the purpose of thought experiments (for example, don't critique JJT on the basis that the violinist or people seed examples are implausible). Deal with her argument on her terms; don't attempt to bring in outside philosophical arguments that deal with other aspects of the abortion debate, since she is trying to advance the debate in a specific way that sidesteps other sets of arguments (e.g., the precise moral status of a fetus). Also, focus your attention on abortion in a specific case, such as when the pregnancy is unwanted but not due to rape.]
You are required to write two short (1,000 words) papers based on the below prompts. Submit to Blackboard.
Prompt #1
You have two options for this paper. Choose one. Regardless of which you choose, the purpose of this paper is for you to explicate an argument. You need to identify the relevant argument and explain it clearly and precisely, without assuming your reader has read the same material. Be careful to cite in-text appropriately (including paraphrasing!!), but do not over-use direct quotations. Show that you understand the philosophical argument and can put it in your own words. Do not attempt to evaluate the argument (i.e., don't say whether you agree or disagree); you simply do not have enough words to pack all that into this paper. This is an exposition paper only.
In addition to explicating the argument, you should incorporate one case from any of our readings. For example, you could discuss healthcare workers during the SARS epidemic, the physician in the Carlos dilemma, or the physician in the anencephalic infant scenario. Do not waste words summarizing the case-- assume your reader knows the factual details. Use the case to your benefit to make the points in the ethicist's argument more concrete. Based on these instructions, you will have to bring in at least two class readings, though you may bring in more. Use your discretion. Depth matters more than breadth; in other words, the goal should be to delve deeply into a line of argument provided by the ethicist, so the goal should not be to give a comprehensive overview of everything contained in the article.
Option 1:
Explain how Edmund Pellegrino comes to the conclusion that "[w]ithout the [Hippocratic] Oath the doctor is a skilled technician or laborer whose knowledge fits him for an occupation but not a profession" (379). Clarify how Pellegrino views the essence of the profession of medicine and why he thinks the profession must have this essence.
Option 2:
Explain an argument that Robert Veatch offers in support of the conclusion that the Hippocratic Oath will ultimately be "relegated to the ash heap of history--a benevolently paternalistic morality that may have worked for a culture in which patients were patient--when they were [...] passive, long-suffering, ignorant, and believed to be incapable of making choices" (702). Articulate why Veatch believes that medicine does not have a fixed essence captured by the Hippocratic Oath.
Prompt #2
Choose one of the below arguments to criticize. You need to provide a singular, well-developed objection. You should begin by briefly articulating the part of the argument that is the subject of your critique (i.e., what the bioethicist has argued that you are now refuting). This part of your paper should be concise and focused; do not provide a lengthy summary of everything the bioethicist says, since you are only rebutting one aspect of the argument (not everything he/she says). Your characterization of the bioethicist's view must be charitable. Do not "straw man" your opponent--in other words, do not assume that your philosophical opponent is ignorant or oblivious. Be sure to define key terms.
Keep in mind that you do not need to agree with the objection you put forward, but you do need to make a compelling case against the argument you have chosen to critique. You should point out a problem with the argument and then motivate that problem--give your reader reasons to believe that yes, this is indeed a problem. Your objection should be philosophical and/or ethical in nature, so do not venture into (e.g.) legalistic or political arguments. Also, this is an objection paper, not an "object-and-fix" paper; do not attempt to fix or expand the bioethicist's argument after you give the objection because you do not have enough words to do this well.
First-person voice is perfectly fine. You may bring in any class materials, but do not bring in outside research unless approved by me. For your objection, do NOT simply summarize another philosopher's view. The point of this paper is for you to show original thought!! And again: Be careful to cite in-text appropriately (including paraphrasing!!), but do not over-use direct quotations.
Provide an objection to the one of the following:
Option 1:
Benjamin Freedman argues that clinical equipoise and theoretical equipoise are importantly distinct, and while the former is ethically required of all clinical research, the latter is misleading and irrelevant. More specifically, he contends that subjecting humans to clinical research requires, as part of its ethical foundations, that the research must begin in and be designed to disturb clinical equipoise. On his account, research can be ethical if clinical equipoise persists, even if theoretical equipoise is disrupted.
Option 2:
In relation to carrying out clinical research in developing countries, Margaret Little and Alisa Carse argue that "understanding which transactions count as truly exploitative is not, as current international standards now insist, simply a matter of invoking the standard of care that would be available in the ideal. [...] The enterprise of public health is not governed by the minimalist norms of the marketplace; nor, in the main, is it governed by unfettered pursuit of aggregate utility, indifferent to whom the utility accrues" (239-240). Their account of exploitation entails a number of moral responsibilities that researchers have when trying to gain medical/scientific knowledge from the world's poor, particularly in light of the normative enterprise that is clinical research.
Option 3:
Don Marquis argues for the impermissibility of abortion in almost all cases. He argues that the presumption against abortion is “as strong as the presumption that killing another adult human being is wrong” (194). He arrives at this conclusion by focusing on what makes killing of a human wrong in the standard case, and he believes that he has established a sufficient condition for its wrongness.
[For this, deal with his argument in his terms; don't attempt to bring in outside philosophical arguments that deal with other aspects of the abortion debate, since he is trying to advance the debate in a specific way that sidesteps other sets of arguments (e.g., the precise moral status of a fetus). Also, focus your attention on abortion in a specific case, such as when the pregnancy is unwanted but not due to rape.]
Option 4:
Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that "having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another’s body—even if one needs it for life itself” (56). She uses multiple thought experiments combined with careful philosophical argumentation to establish different facets of this conclusion.
[For this, focus on at least one thought experiment she offers without losing sight of the purpose of thought experiments (for example, don't critique JJT on the basis that the violinist or people seed examples are implausible). Deal with her argument on her terms; don't attempt to bring in outside philosophical arguments that deal with other aspects of the abortion debate, since she is trying to advance the debate in a specific way that sidesteps other sets of arguments (e.g., the precise moral status of a fetus). Also, focus your attention on abortion in a specific case, such as when the pregnancy is unwanted but not due to rape.]
Debate Contribution
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 clearly integrate at least one class reading and at least one debate reading. Submit to Blackboard.
Detailed instructions (download!):
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 clearly integrate at least one class reading and at least one debate reading. Submit to Blackboard.
Detailed instructions (download!):
| in-class_debate_ethics-bioethics-sp15.pdf |
Case Analysis
Using the ethics case work-up handout (below), 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 three outside readings. The case analysis should be 2,000 words and submitted to Blackboard.
You will need both of the following documents to do this assignment:
Using the ethics case work-up handout (below), 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 three outside readings. The case analysis should be 2,000 words and submitted to Blackboard.
You will need both of the following documents to do this assignment:
| case_analysis_instructions_ethics-bioethics-sp15.pdf |
| clinical_ethics_case_workup.pdf |
Photo used under Creative Commons from Eric Atkins
