Before starting on this paper, you may want to visit my other page on how to write a better philosophy paper.
These are the topics that I will make available to you for the two papers, due May 12th and June 10th BY MIDNIGHT. All papers must be submitted in electronic format (preferably Microsoft Word and preferably as e-mail attachments) by the due date. Hard copies can also be handed in if you like, but electronic copies are required. There will be a deduction from your grade for any unexcused lateness. That penalty will be one step on the grade scale (e.g. from a B+ down to a B, etc.) for every day it is late and I am not contacted with a good reason for its being late.
Now that all the fire and brimstone has been dispensed, try to enjoy working on this paper. As I said in class, you can choose another topic of your own design, so long as you sit down and discuss it with me and then let me write the question you are to answer. You have plenty of time to write the paper, so you would be well advised to write a draft well in advance, let it sit for a while, talk to me, talk to your classmates, rewrite the parts you don't like, etc. The idea is to figure out the important stuff and polish your presentation of it a bit. You have around 2500-3000 words, or around 8-10 pages. Don't go too far over the word count, because in doing so, you are violating the spirit of the assignment in a way that will lead me to grade with much higher expectations. Just think about the topic, read your notes, read some of the books on reserve, and make the point as clear as possible for your idealized audience (who just happen to have red pens in their hands).
You will also want to consult the following list of secondary sources. Remember that your work should include consideration of the arguments and interpretations of other sources as well as your own. Though I will not impose a formal requirement here, I would be suspicious of any paper that did not make reference to at least two or three other sources.
(Click here for additional web resources)
Paper One - Due May 13
1. The rationing of scarce treatments (e.g. organ transplants) has traditionally been approached from either a utilitarian or an egalitarian framework. That is, we may stress either what creates the most good for the most people or we may stress our duties to treat each person fairly in the distribution process. Defend one of these two views against the best objections raised against it.
2. Stanley Milgram's work in Obedience to Authority presents a number of vexing questions about informed consent and disclosure. Milgram might contend that his groundbreaking research would not have been possible without such deception. Could such a case be made for Milgram, or do concerns about test subjects override any such benefits in this case?
3. It has been said that genetic testing would permit us to see a variety of serious medical conditions in advance, perhaps early enough to treat, thus preventing suffering and probably saving lives. On the other hand, many critics of genetic testing and the Human Genome Project have seen a serious threat in the possibility that people will be screened for their genetic characteristics and excluded from employment, insurance plans or otherwise discriminated against. Most bioethicists concede that our probable course lies somewhere between utopia and dystopia, so present a view on how the issues in question here could be treated in a just fashion.
4. Is there a "right to my identity" that extends to control of all of my genetic information, including whatever might be done with it in the future? Offer a thorough defense of one side of this debate and respond to the best criticisms.
5. It is often said that doctors and institutions have an obligation to obtain informed consent for the care they give and the research they do. But this clashes with the fact that much medical and scientific information is too complex for many patients to comprehend. Offer a fuller account of what medical professionals' obligations in this area might be and the principles and theories from which they emerge and respond to the best criticisms.
Paper One - Due June 11
1. Some theorists would suggest that the principle of nonmaleficence obliges us never to practice even voluntary euthanasia. Present such an argument against voluntary euthanasia and offer a critique of it. Does it succeed?
2. Beauchamp and Childress famously offered three standards for surrogate decisionmaking for formerly and never-competent patients; (1) full autonomy, (2) substituted judgment and (3) patient's best interests. Offer a defense of one of these standards or a hybrid of two with some principled way of mixing the two.
3. Is there a right to a decent minimum of health care? Consider either a utilitarian, egalitarian or libertarian argument about such rights and respond to criticisms from the opposing views. (Note: It will be especially helpful to look at Beauchamp and Walters's introduction to the chapter on justice issues.)
4. Discuss the "Oregon Plan" described in Beauchamp and Walters. (You may consider the version of the plan as they describe it; if legislation has subsequently changed it, you will not be responsible for discussing those changes.) Is the plan a fair and just way to ration and distribute health care?