Category: Bioethics

This PowerPoint presentation is for a Fraud in Science class and will be presented with a partner. The presentation focuses on Andrew Wakefields MMR vaccineautism fraud case. The total presentation time is approximately 15 minutes, with my portion lasting about 8 minutes. My responsibility is to cover Section 1 (background on the people involved), Section 2 (background on the science, explained very simply), and Section 3 (only the first question: how the fraud was committed). The slides should include speaker notes under each slide to help me understand and present the material. The final product should be an easy to understand, editable PowerPoint (.pptx) delivered by Wednesday at 7:00 PM.

This is for the response portion of this assignment. I will attach two peers posts for you to choose to respond to, what I originally posted (titled DB 7), the rubric and the resources used for this weeks module.

According the instructor The response post to another student should add significantly to the discussion and extend the discussion using 150-300 words (due Sun night each week). See th for further information.

This weeks writing prompt was:

Consider the healthcare profession in which you currently work or intend to work. Then, drawing on the module resources, discuss one of the following ethical issues that you could face in your own circumstances as a healthcare professional: 1) navigating cooperation with the wrongdoing of others, 2) expressing conscientious objection, or 3) viewing healthcare as a universal human right vs. a commodity. Which virtues and principles could assist you in facing this ethical issue?

Not all resources need to be used but I recommend at least using the austriaco and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to support as those are the main ones in the class.

PHI 312 A WIP INT

5-6 pages (double-spaced, size 12 font, one-inch margins)

MLA format (

)

**Note that I will review outlines, thesis statements, and introductory paragraphs, but not entire drafts of essays.

Please answer the following essay question:

In recent years, ethicists have argued against most forms of medical paternalism. They have claimed that it is wrong for physicians to make decisions for their patients, or to impose their own values upon their patients. In this view, when physicians act paternalistically, they fail to show adequate respect for their patients autonomy. Do you agree? Is medical paternalism always wrong? Is it ever morally permissible for physicians to act paternalistically towards their patients? Explain and defend your answer. Be sure to consider at least one of the following articles in your answer: Whose Body Is It Anyway? by Atul Gawande (Canvas); The Refutation of Medical Paternalism, by Alan Goldman; Autonomy, Futility, and the Limits of Medicine, by Robert L. Schwartz; Why Doctors Should Intervene, by Terrence Ackerman

6.2 Online Ethical Debate Identify an ethical dilemma related to genomic healthcare issues. Each student needs to select their own unique scenario. Please do NOT duplicate material. Incorporate the ethical principle violated by the dilemma suggested. Be creative in your approach to the presentation of the debate scenario. Each student works independently on this assignment. Present your analysis, thoughts and arguments on the discussion forum and discuss rationale. Each student in the course needs to respond to a total of 2 students (minimum of 3 post) Here are some ideas to organize your debate: Introduction Outline your case with an introduction that states your main arguments and explains the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. Case Having outlined the main argument, then begin to build a case (the parts). Divide your case into a few arguments (parts) and justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of proof. Proof, or evidence, supports your assertion and develops an argument. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Here is an example of a case outline: The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does. This is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear in the media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonized politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than politicians. All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the counterarguments), but they give the case a wide range which covers all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well-argued one. Think: Can I argue that? Rebuttal of the Parts Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these components. Here are a few examples: Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and healthcare. This is true but is morally flawed. Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious and tabooer. This is logically flawed; the ban would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking. I will then look at the economic issues… Blah..blah..blah…(5 minutes later and still no mention of the economic issues) This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, to win this debate there are three things I must do…. If the speaker fails to do any of those things, you can then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words by his or her own admission he or she cannot have won the debate. Ask yourself how the other side approached the case. Is their methodology flawed? Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try to refute these. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a point of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You wont have time and your aim is to show the other sides case to be flawed in the key areas. Conclusion At the end, once 2 students have responded, it is useful to briefly summarize and agree or disagree with the arguement. atleast 250 words 3 sources

6.2 Online Ethical Debate Identify an ethical dilemma related to genomic healthcare issues. Each student needs to select their own unique scenario. Please do NOT duplicate material. Incorporate the ethical principle violated by the dilemma suggested. Be creative in your approach to the presentation of the debate scenario. Each student works independently on this assignment. Present your analysis, thoughts and arguments on the discussion forum and discuss rationale. Each student in the course needs to respond to a total of 2 students (minimum of 3 post) Here are some ideas to organize your debate: Introduction Outline your case with an introduction that states your main arguments and explains the general thrust of your case. This must be done briefly since the most important thing is to get on and actually argue it. Case Having outlined the main argument, then begin to build a case (the parts). Divide your case into a few arguments (parts) and justify your arguments with basic logic, worked examples, statistics, and quotes. Debating is all about the strategy of proof. Proof, or evidence, supports your assertion and develops an argument. It is usually best to put the most important arguments first. Here is an example of a case outline: The media exert more influence over what people think than the government does. This is true for three reasons. Firstly, most people base their votes on what they see and hear in the media. Secondly, the media can set the political agenda between elections by deciding what issues to report and in how much detail. Thirdly, the media have successfully demonized politicians over the last ten years so that now people are more likely to believe journalists than politicians. All of the arguments in this case outline are debatable (almost immediately you can see the counterarguments), but they give the case a wide range which covers all kinds of issues. The trick is not to come up with a watertight case, but a well-argued one. Think: Can I argue that? Rebuttal of the Parts Arguments can be factually, morally or logically flawed. These are the basics of rebuttal and almost every argument can be found wanting in at least one of these components. Here are a few examples: Compulsory euthanasia at age 70 would save the country money in pensions and healthcare. This is true but is morally flawed. Banning cigarette product placement in films will cause more young people to smoke because it will make smoking more mysterious and tabooer. This is logically flawed; the ban would be more likely to stop the steady stream of images which make smoking seem attractive and glamorous and actually reduce the number of young people smoking. I will then look at the economic issues… Blah..blah..blah…(5 minutes later and still no mention of the economic issues) This is a clear failure to explain a major part of the case and attention should be drawn to it. Even better is when a speaker starts with, to win this debate there are three things I must do…. If the speaker fails to do any of those things, you can then hang her or him by the noose by repeating their exact words by his or her own admission he or she cannot have won the debate. Ask yourself how the other side approached the case. Is their methodology flawed? Consider what tasks the other side set themselves (if any) and whether they have in fact addressed these. Consider what the general emphasis of the case is and what assumptions it makes. Try to refute these. Take the main arguments and do the same thing. It is not worth repeating a point of rebuttal that has been used by someone else already, but you can refer to it to show that the argument has not stood up. It is not necessary to correct every example used. You wont have time and your aim is to show the other sides case to be flawed in the key areas. Conclusion At the end, once 2 students have responded, it is useful to briefly summarize and agree or disagree with the arguement. atleast 250 words 3 sources

The Morality of Patenting Life. CO-2, CO-3, CO-4 In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in the Myriad Genetics case that a discovered human gene cannot be patented because it is naturally occurring. In other words, discovering something that exists is not a new creation. But what about a modified gene? Or a life form that is not naturally occurring? Harvards Oncomouse A transgenic animal is one that has DNA from another species injected into its genes. New research techniques were developed in the latter 20th century to create transgenic creatures. This led to applications to patent a resulting organism. For example, in 1987, a patent was granted on a polyploid oyster created by artificially inducing more than one set of chromosomes. The USPTO determined patents could be issued for non-naturally occurring non-human multicellular organisms, including animals. Harvard soon obtained a patent for the Harvard Oncomouse, a transgenic animal. Oncomouse was artificially created by injecting an oncogene into a lab mouse to make it more susceptible to cancer. The purpose was to use Oncomouse for cancer treatment research. The Harvard Oncomouse patent was not actively opposed in the U.S., but it was when Harvard filed for patents in other countries. Canada initially refused the patent and the patent application aroused furor in Europe. The European Patent Convention excluded inventions contrary to the ordre public or morality. Several opponents to Harvards European application cited this for basis to deny the patent on moral grounds because of misuse and suffering of an animal. Eventually, the European Patent Office (EPO) decided that the usefulness of the oncomouse for important medical research outweighed the mouses suffering. Upjohns Oncomouse However, in 1992 Upjohn sought to patent a transgenic mouse modified by injecting a gene to cause it to lose its hair. The purpose was to use the mouse for research to cure human baldness. The European Patent Office rejected this patent, finding the Upjohn mouse did not overcome the barrier of being contrary to the public good and morality. Reference: WIPO Magazine Article (2006) in Week 2 Lesson about the Oncomouse Patent Case: Bioethics and Patent Law. Compare: Dolly the Sheep story (in your eReserve reading this week). PROMPT What are the implications of the Harvard Oncomouse patent? The purpose of patents is to provide exclusivity of ownership of the invention to allow the inventor an opportunity to profit from the invention without competition. This legal protection inherently promotes innovation and creativity of new ideas which improve the quality of life and social welfare. Discuss the following issues presented by the mice patent scenarios. 1. Should a patent be issued in any case for transgenic animal creation or modification? Why or why not? 2. Explain the balancing test the EPO applied in reaching 2 different decisions. The starting point was morality objections to the patents. What was necessary to overcome the morality objection? What should be the considerations? Would you have issued the patent in either mouse case? Why or why not? Support your work with in-text citation and a listing of scholarly references.

Overview

Nurses sometimes work with individuals at the end of their life. This can be difficult for nurses, many of whom hope to help individuals recover. This exercise is intended to help nurses better prepare themselves to engage in care at the end of life. This exercise is divided into four parts. Be sure to complete each one.

Tasks

Part 1

• In 250500 words, reflect on how prepared you felt to give care to individuals at the of life before you began this class.
• Explain why you felt that way.
• If specific forms of care or specific procedures at the end of life are more difficult for you than others, focus on those.

Part 2

• In 7501000 words, use the readings, eLessons, and other material from this module to articulate the moral issues at stake in the areas you feel would be most difficult for you in end-of-life care.
• Engage at least one eLesson and two readings. Failure to do so will result in your assignment being returned ungraded.
• If this portion of the assignment is not met, your exercise will receive a zero.
• Quotations are welcome, but not required.

Part 3

• In 5001000 words, explain your moral stance using appropriate terminology.

Part 4

• Explain how your understanding of the nursing profession and your understanding of end-of-life issues can help you feel more comfortable providing care.

For this paper, engage two or more additional readings at the end of the assigned chapter 10. To be clear, the additional readings are found on p. 568-625. Pick two or more of those and specify them by specific author name, not Vaughn. I want to know where you’re pulling from. I want you to know how the assignment is weighted. It has four parts: 10-30-30-30. So, go light on the first section. It’s only 10% of the paper grade. Go deeper on part 4, provide 500+ words for just that section is suggested. The instructions make it appear otherwise.

This paper is double-spaced.

Part 2 refers to the additional readings in Vaughn, Chapter 10, p. 568-628.

REFERENCES

Use this eLesson for this paper: Concordia University Irvine. (n.d.). eLesson: Refusing Treatment and Withdrawing Life Support. https://resources.cui.edu/courses/hlmg467/modules/3A/story.html

And pick three readings from Chapter 10 pages 568-625 of this book: Vaughn, L. (2023). Bioethics: Principles, issues, and cases (5th ed., pp. 551564). Oxford University Press.

While rounding with a cardiology team in the hospital, I encountered an ethical dilemma involving medication risk and patient understanding. During rounds, a cardiologist recommended starting a newly approved anticoagulant for a patient with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease. The patient shared concerns about bleeding. In response, the cardiologist emphasized the benefits of the medication based on a recent clinical trial but did not explain that the same study showed a significantly higher rate of major bleeding. Because I was familiar with this study, I recognized that the patient may not have been given complete information needed to make an informed decision (Eikelboom et al., 2017). This situation raises ethical concerns related to patient safety, honesty, and informed consent. This ethical dilemma involves the patient, the cardiologist, the pharmacy student, and the hospital team. The main issue is that the patient is being asked to agree to treatment without full and fair disclosure of risks. When important information is left out, it is difficult to ensure that the patient truly understands what they are consenting to. This places the pharmacy student in a challenging ethical position of deciding whether to remain silent or speak up to protect the patients safety and understanding. Several bioethical principles apply in this case. Autonomy is affected because informed consent requires patients to receive complete and truthful information. Beneficence is present because the cardiologist is attempting to improve the patients cardiovascular outcomes. Non-maleficence is involved because anticoagulants carry a risk of serious bleeding, and failure to discuss this risk may lead to harm (Kaatz et al., 2015). Justice also applies, as all patients deserve honest and balanced information when starting high-risk medications (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). To navigate this ethical challenge, there are several possible courses of action. One option is to remain silent and allow the cardiologist to continue the discussion without intervention. Another option is to speak directly to the patient and explain the bleeding risk, which could create confusion or interfere with the physicianpatient relationship. A third option is to speak privately with the cardiologist and discuss the missing risk information in a respectful and professional manner. The most appropriate course of action would be to privately speak with the cardiologist. This approach allows concerns about bleeding risk to be addressed without undermining professional relationships. It also gives the cardiologist the opportunity to provide balanced information so the patient can make an informed decision. This decision aligns with ethical expectations related to informed consent and respect for patient autonomy (AMA Journal of Ethics, 2012). Although this approach is appropriate, challenges may still exist. The cardiologist may feel the benefits outweigh the risks, or the patient may decide not to start the medication after learning about the bleeding risk. However, ethical practice requires respecting patient decisions when they are made with complete and honest information (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019). In conclusion, this ethical dilemma highlights the importance of transparency and patient advocacy in healthcare. By respectfully addressing the concern with the cardiologist, the pharmacy student supports patient safety, informed decision-making, and professionalism within the healthcare team. References Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 8th ed. Oxford University Press; 2019. Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;377(14):13191330. Kaatz S, Ahmad D, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2015;13(11):21192126. AMA Journal of Ethics. What should physicians disclose to patients? AMA J Ethics. 2012.

Please follow instructions as attached

Vera is a 21-year-old woman who has faced a series of difficult medical interventions due to serious medical issues, including kidney failure, pulmonary obstruction, diabetes, and liver disease. Vera’s doctors have determined that Vera’s lung disease requires surgery but Vera has become resistant to medical intervention. Veras parents, with whom she lives, have gotten Vera to agree to this major surgery, but in return received a promise from her parents that they would not pressure her into any other intervention. This surgery, she insisted, would be the last intrusive procedure she would undergo. It isnt worth it anymore, she says.

During the surgery Dr. S unexpectedly discovers what appears to be a malignant growth. Given the seriousness of a malignant growth, and the fact that Vera would likely reject another surgery, Dr. S decides to seek permission from Veras parents for him to remove the tumor right now while Vera is still in surgery. Her parents agree to the extension of the surgery for tumor removal, as Dr. S hoped they would.

After the surgery, Vera feels betrayed by Dr. S because she had made it known that she did not want any additional surgery. But Dr. S feels he did what he needed to do to provide the best medical care to his patient.

Were Dr. Ss actions of extending the surgery to remove the malignancy, and asking Veras parents for consent, ethically permissible?

(Please remember to cite from the readings in support of your chosen position.)