Prepare inclass debate on public health – SUBJECTIVE RELATIVISM – PRO
In other words, when does the safety of the general public outweigh the autonomy of the patient (if ever)?
The scenario this week focuses on mandatory testing for HIV. Keep in mind that you should also be arguing where the line is before just saying no one should be forced to do anything. Many public health issues impair or remove autonomy such as quarantines during major breakouts (COVID 19, Ebola, etc); mandatory vaccines (to attend public school); and mandated tests (to attend clinicals). In your debate make sure to cover all areas.
Category: Philosophy homework help
6) According to St. Augustine, is it possible to achieve true happiness by focusing on our body only? Why or why not? Do you agree or disagree, and why?
Statement A: I agree with Dr. O’Connor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing country, most have not done so adequately. The practical result is that the rich can literally live off the poor through the exploitation of their vital organs. Firmly stating that it is unethical to exploit the poor for body parts will not exhibit medical progress. Exploitation and a lack of regulation are precisely the reasons this is an issue in the first place.
Statement B: We can, and should, proceed with caution in the international area. Transplant tourism is not necessarily a problem. Room for improvement exists where regulations are concerned, but in most cases this is just an example of the way a world economy functions. Developing countries take advantage of industries with needs that they can address at a lower cost than their competitors. That’s a practically reality, even if it’s an uncomfortable one. As long as the organs come from ethical sources, it isn’t a problem. Even if there is a problem, we don’t want to dip our feet too far into international waters.
Statement C: Our statement should be concise and impossible to misunderstand, unequivocally condemning international organ transplants. All such transplants should be rendered unlawful immediately. That would surely send a message that could not be ignored, and that would likely spur the immediate reforms so desperately needed.
Statement D: Dr. O’Connor is on the right track, but we must keep in mind Dr. Reynold’s perspective as well. Transplant tourism is a serious problem and yes, we do have an obligation to point out unethical actions and offer some potential solutions. However, we should take care not to tread on international toes. Some reforms are already in countries known to have problems with black-market organs. The United States is often accused of forcing our views onto countries that may not agree with us. We have an obligation to speak out, but it will serve us better to do so in a culturally sensitive way.
Prepare an in class debate using the theory Care ethics – in a pro agruement for medical tourism/ transplant
https://webapps.srm-app.net/CanvasContent/SF/WCU_PHIL_434_BL_TEMPLATE/Assignments/wcu_phil_434_scenario_animal_research/wcu_phil_434_scenario_animal_research.html
To complete each scenario assignment: this will be due same day as class meets
1. Complete the entire scenario. Discuss both animal and human research, not just animal.
2. Fill out the template attached below, only those students who do not present will submit the template.
3. Compose the last question on the template reflection in a Word document and be sure to address, at a minimum, the following questions:
In this reflection you must first define the key terms of the debate (for example, define what Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide means and what are the different types depending on which topic you are discussing)
Define and explain the ethical theory you chose (show me you know exactly what the theory is and does – in your own words)
Present the evidence both pro and con and follow up how using your ethical theory is the best way to determine whether or not your stance is really ethical
Conclusion – any final thoughts and opinions would go here
2 to 3 resources as support for your evidence (text book counts as 1)
4. Support your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, including a minimum of one theory of ethics to defend your stance.
At the very end of Chapter 13, there is a Group Exercise that asks: What ideals would you go to war to defend? We are not going to ask you to go to war, but we are going to ask you to think about what ideals or values you believe would be worth defending – even to the point of risking your life in their defense.
When Nazi Germany overtook Europe in the early 20th Century, resistance movements sprung up in the occupied countries, and many civilians risked – and lost – their lives against Nazisim. Today, in Saudi Arabia, women who protested restrictions on the rights of women imposed by that country have been jailed, and remain jailed, even after some of the rights they asked for have been granted.
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
What core values would you risk your life and freedom to defend?
Could a nation going to war be appropriate in certain circumstances – or is war never an appropriate response?
This is not a group exercise – post your thoughts, considering the scenarios proposed in the text or any others you find important. Be sure to give your reasons for your answer.
Notice that this exercise requires deductive reasoning. You are stating a position and supporting it with “top down” reasoning. Be sure to review Three Features of Ideological Reasoning. Apply these concepts as you create your own arguments and evaluate those of your peers.
Remember that you are using ideological reasoning here. Is your post structured like an ideological argument, beginning with a general idea (opinion, belief, or principle) and moving down from these abstractions to their specific applications?
The text warns us that ideological arguments often fail the test of Truthfulness of the Premises. Have you tested the truth of your premises?
Note
You will be writing here about what you value highly. Others may not share your values. Indeed, you may find that someone will write something that is entirely opposed to your values. As critical thinkers and reasoners, we do not take offense because someone disagrees with us. Critical thinkers examine their own argument, and the arguments of others, objectively, rationally, and logically. Critical thinkers and reasoners do not find the opinions of others “right” or “wrong” – they find them well-supported or not well-supported.
Respect the opinion of your classmates. If you feel the need to disagree, do so respectfully and acknowledge the valid points in your classmate’s argument.
Do not write anything that sounds angry or sarcastic even as a joke, because without hearing your tone of voice, your peers might not realize you are joking.
The real objective here is discovering what values and beliefs are important to you and whether or not you have a sound basis for those beliefs.
Question: In 200 to 250 words describe how you encounter rhetoric in your daily life. Refer to concepts covered in class and Herrick this week. For example, you might write about the social functions of rhetoric: how do you experience them in your life? Or how are you aware of rhetoric’s use of symbolic meanings?
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: Chapter 6, 7
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)
Introduction
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions – but not their own facts. (Daniel Patrick Moynihan, cited in Vanity Fair, 2010, para. 2)
We form opinions – and make our judgments – based on facts we observe and values we hold. Our judgments are also influenced by the opinions of others. In the section An Expert on Hate in America in Chapter 6, one of the authors, Dr. Peter Facione, renders an opinion on a non-profit civil rights organization: Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Dr. Facione is a leading advocate and one of the most influential voices in the field of critical thinking.
His endorsement of the civil rights organization is unqualified. It is also transparent: Dr. Facione reveals that he is a financial supporter of the organization and has arranged speaking engagements for its founder. This is Dr. Facione’s invitation to you, the reader:
Knowing where you can learn more about the SPLC for yourself, and knowing about Dr. Facione’s endorsement and support of the Center’s work, evaluate this claim made by Dr. Facione: The SPLC is an expert on hate in America (p. 124).
The endorsement of the SPLC is contained in the most current edition of the text, whose copyright date is 2016. Since that time Morris Dees, co-founder and former chief trial counsel, has been fired (Hassan, Zraick & Blinder, 2019). Previously, there has been controversy about groups and individuals that are listed by the SPLC as hate groups (Graham, 2016; Price, 2018). The organization, which has nearly a half-billion dollars in assets, has also been criticized for how it spends these funds (Robinson, 2019).
Self-Assessment Question
Before you submit your initial post, make sure to read the assigned chapter. Then, ask yourself the following: Did the article in Chapter 6 of the text seem credible and reliable? Why? Be very specific:
Was it because it is in a textbook?
Because it was written by a learned and respected person?
Because of content in the article?
Because of your previous knowledge of the SPLC?
Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:
Conduct additional research on the SPLC. Did your opinion alter in any way? Why?
Only after you have done some responsible research should you begin to respond to the discussion prompt. The discussion is not about the SPLC; it is not about Dr. Facione. It is about what you have learned about forming opinions.
Your post must answer this question:
How do you define the term expert?
Your post must also discuss at least two (2) of the following questions:
How important are facts in the process of forming an opinion? Explain what you believe to be the purpose or function of facts in making a judgment.
How did you respond to the self-assessment question? Since doing further research, have you re-thought the way in which you assess credibility and reliability? What is the importance of factoring the recency of a reference or opinion (i.e., how old is it?) into an assessment of credibility and reliability?
How would you evaluate Dr. Facione’s claim The SPLC is an expert on hate in America (p. 124). Does the SPLC fit your definition of expert? Be specific in your answer.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least one peer. Further the dialogue by providing more information and clarification.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)
Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)
APA format for in-text citations and list of references