RESPONSE PAPER ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS OVERVIEW The idea behind each Response Pa

RESPONSE PAPER ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
OVERVIEW
The idea behind each Response Paper is for you to reflect on the case or article and to write a
thoughtful, well-reasoned response to the situation or issue presented, incorporating any
arguments or conclusions you may make in light of the other readings and presentations in the
course.
INSTRUCTIONS
Your evaluation of the case should be based on the following questions: Do you agree with the
ultimate outcome of the case or conclusion to the article? What would you have done
differently? Are there any red flags that are raised in your mind? As a Christian, how should you
respond to situations or arguments like these? The prompt for each Response Paper will present
additional, specific questions for you to consider as you read the case. Each prompt will identify
which questions you must address and which ones you may consider and optionally address in
your response.
One thing to avoid is an emotional response. You may passionately disagree with the outcome or
the views of the author(s) or judge(s); however, you must not turn your Response Paper into an
emotional rant. Each paper must be a reflective, intellectual, academic response to the merits of
the case or article. Also, be respectful of those involved. Do not insult them by calling them
names or using other derogatory language. This will lose you points. You can disagree and be
respectful about it.
You must write at least 500 words (about 2 pages) for each Response Paper Assignment. Your
grade will be reduced if you go below the minimum. Each Response Paper Assignment must
follow current Turabian format. You must submit each Response Paper Assignment as a
Microsoft Word document using the submission link in Canvas. Do not cut and paste your paper.
Instead, attach it as a separate file.
Response Paper Assignment: Principles of Bioethics
Patient Choice vs. Patient Good
“Mrs. Wright, a fifty-five year old woman with advanced multiple sclerosis, was admitted to the
chronic care unit of a hospital. As part of the admission routine, a full diet was ordered. At lunch
time, Nurse Klein observed that Mrs. Wright was eating very slowly and appeared to have
difficulty swallowing some of the foods on her dinner tray. Mrs. Wright explained that she
needed to chew the food well in order to avoid choking. After staying with her until she finished
her meal, Nurse Klein told Mrs. Wright that she was going to fill out a special diet requisition for
a soft diet.
At dinner time when her food tray was presented, Mrs. Wright became very angry and upset. “I
won’t eat this slop!” she asserted. “Bring me some real food that I can get my teeth into.” Nurse
Klein patiently explained to her why it was best that she eat a soft diet and informed her about
the risks of choking and aspiration. She also pointed out that the nursing staff would have limited
PHIL 380
Page 2 of 4
time to spend assisting her with meals. Even so, Mrs. Wright was adamant. “It’s my life and I
will live it the way I want!” she insisted.
The next day arrangements were made for nursing staff to meet with Mrs. Wright and her
husband. During the discussion, it became clear that Mr. Wright supported his wife, and that the
couple had thoroughly explored the options and were prepared to accept the consequences of
their decision. They had also discussed the implications their decision would have on family
members. Having realized that the Wrights were not going to change their decision, the nursing
staff approached Mrs. Wright’s physician and convinced him that it would be in her best interest
to order her a soft diet. This only further angered Mrs. Wright.”
(Michael Yeo, Concepts and Cases in Nursing Ethics [Lewistown, NY: Broadview Press, 1991],
68–69.)
Address the following questions:
1. Which 2 of the 4 principles do you think are in conflict in this case? Support your answer.
2. Which principle do you think should take precedence in this case? Support your answer.
Other questions to consider:
1. In light of the couple’s statement that they had “thoroughly explored the options and were
prepared to accept the consequences of their decision,” do you think that should have
ended the discussion?
2. Do you think the nursing staff were justified in approaching the physician and convincing
him to write an order for a soft diet?
3. Can you think of a creative alternative that might resolve the conflict between the couple
and the staff?
Response Paper: Active and Passive Euthanasia Assignment
In the Learn section of Module 4: Week 4, find the item Read: Active and Passive Euthanasia
and address the following questions:
In this article, philosopher James Rachels attempts to erase the distinction between active
euthanasia (AE) and passive euthanasia (PE) and suggest that if one is ethically permissible, the
other should be also be permissible in similar, morally relevant situations. Read the article and
address the following questions:
1. Rachels’s first argument is that AE is often preferable to PE because AE is more merciful
towards those who are suffering extreme pain. Do you agree? While one can recognize a
strong emotional appeal here, is this morally relevant to the issue of intentionally ending
a life? Do you think his use of the Down’s syndrome child is effective?
2. Rachels’ s second argument is critical of decisions based on “irrelevant grounds.” What
are the irrelevant ground he mentions? Do you think he makes a good argument here?
Do you think that the fact he uses a downs syndrome child muddies the water with this
point?
PHIL 380
Page 3 of 4
3. Rachels claims that the analogy of the boy in the bathtub contains 2 cases “that are
exactly alike except that one involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone
die.” Are they exactly alike? What are some differences between the “boy in the bathtub
illustration” and the active/passive distinction?
4. According to the Reading & Study material, are AE and PE “exactly alike except that one
involves killing whereas the other involves letting someone die”?
5. In his fourth argument, Rachels seems to believe that the only difference between AE and
PE is that AE involves action and PE involves inaction. Is that true? Is that what makes
the moral difference?
Response Paper: Davis vs. Davis Assignment
In the Learn section of Module 5: Week 5, find the item Read: Davis vs. Davis and address the
following questions:
1. What do you see as the main problem in this case? Can you foresee a way it could have
been resolved earlier than coming to court? What could the couple have done to avoid the
problem?
2. Explain how the court resolved the case. Do you agree with the majority opinion of the
Tennessee Supreme Court on this resolution? Why or why not?
3. In what ways does this case affect the way you view in vitro fertilization (IVF)?
4. What ethical principles come into play with IVF as it is normally practiced? Which 2
principles can you see coming into conflict, and what would be a way to resolve them?
Other questions to consider:
1. The court depended for much of its testimony—both scientifically and ethically, and
especially with regard to the status of the pre-embryo—on the standards set by the
American Fertility Society, an organization funded and supported primarily by fertility
clinics. In light of the statement that the decision to declare these frozen pre-embryos as
persons “would doubtless have had the effect of outlawing IVF programs in the state of
Tennessee,” do you think this raises a question of a conflict of interest, since these clinics
have a vested financial interest in the outcome of this case? Why or why not?
2. The curt depended heavily on the distinction between embryo and pre-embryo, claiming
that at the “8-cell stage, the developmental singleness of one person has not been
established.” Do you think the designation of “pre-embryo” should have an effect on how
we judge the moral status of these zygotes? Or is this just another stage of development,
similar to childhood and adolescence?
Response Paper: Buck v. Bell Assignment
In the Learn section of Module 6: Week 6, find the item Read: Buck v. Bell (1927) and address
the following questions:
1. What 2 principles are in conflict in this case? Support your answer.
2. What are some red flags you see in how the trial came about and the persons involved?
PHIL 380
Page 4 of 4
3. Do you think forced sterilization of those deemed genetically inferior is an appropriate
way to deal with the disease?
Questions to consider:
1. How much do you think the decision to treat Carrie as “feebleminded” was based on a
moral evaluation of her unwed pregnancy (and her mother’s moral background)? Do you
think this raises questions about the other 60,000 institutionalized patients who were
sterilized between 1927 and 1974?
2. The court argued that forced sterilization as necessary for the public good was similar to
forced vaccination. Do you think that argument is successful? In what ways are forced
sterilization and forced vaccination analogous and disanalogous?