Philosophy Question

follow this rule. comlpete it apa 7th format, make no grammer and spelling error. fill out this work in the file attached below.

In the scenario assignments, you are asked to reflect on responses to the presented scenario. It should not just be writing down your first reaction or what you already know.

Reflection involves critical thinking, which means rethinking your existing knowledge and previously held opinions in light of what we have learned about theories of ethics, logic, and reasoning. You will need to question your current knowledge and beliefs. Discuss the main points of the debate, what stance you take, support that stance, and discuss the opposing argument. Also, discuss an ethical theory that would apply to defend your view.

To complete each scenario assignment:

1. Complete the entire scenario.
2. Fill out the template attached below, ask your professor for details on submission.
3. Compose the last question on the template reflection in a Word document and be sure to address, at a minimum, the following questions:

• Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
• Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you think is the most ethical and why?
• Which ethical theory would you use to support your stance? Why does this theory work?

1. Support your conclusions with evidence and specific examples from the textbook, including a minimum of one theory of ethics to defend your stance.
2. Your reflection must be 1-2 pages in length and follow APA formatting and citation guidelines as appropriate, making sure to cite at least two sources.
3. Review the rubric for specific grading criteria

Scenario transcript:

Listen carefully to the upcoming discussion and reflect on your own perspective regarding the central issue. After the discussion, you will be presented with four different positions. Choose the one that best aligns with your views and be prepared to defend your selection.

Reflective Questions

• Why do you feel the way you do about the issue presented?
• Of the four responses offered in the scenario, which do you think is the most ethical and why?
• Which ethical theory would you use to support your stance? Why does this theory work?

Characters

Moderator

Dr. Michael OConnor

Dr. Gwen Reynolds

Debating Prenatal Testing

Scroll down to view the transcript as you listen.

More than 100,000 people in the United States are currently on waiting lists to receive new kidneys.

Due to the limited supply of organs for transplant, only around 27,000 kidney transplants took place in 2024.

It perhaps should not surprise us then, to learn that many Americans look for alternatives abroad.

But unlike other forms of medical tourism, organ transplants present a unique ethical quandary.

Organs obtained in other countries may come from questionable sources, and poor regulation and oversight make for muddy waters when looking for transplant solutions.

Our speakers on this issue today are Dr. Michael OConnor and Dr. Gwen Reynolds. We will begin with Dr. OConnor.

Transplant tourism is a serious and growing problem.

Patients are obtaining organ transplants abroad to avoid waiting lists and expenses in the United States, but it is not always possible to track the sources of these organs.

Many donors are paid to donate, and often receive very little compensation.

They may be plagued with regret and depression after they participate in the transplantation, not to mention they may potentially develop health problems of their own.

The overall implication is that the lives of poor donors in other countries are not as valuable as the lives of the American patients who are willing to travel abroad to procure the transplants they need.

Dr. Reynolds, your response?

The ethical quagmire of black market organs is related to transplant tourism, to be sure. But there are a number of other factors to consider before denouncing the practice altogether.

For one thing, it is important that we do not let a few bad apples spoil the barrel. There are reputable transplants performed internationally under government regulations that ensure both patient safety and the ethical procurement of organs.

Also, this is an issue of international politics.

If we are going to make a public statement, we will have two problems to consider.

One, we are a group comprised of medical professionals, so we are inherently biased, and the opposition will point that out.

And two, we must remain sensitive to the complex cultural dynamics of countries that may not share our ethical framework.

How common is transplant tourism?

An estimated 3500-7000 kidney transplants involve paid donors throughout the world every year. Thats between 5-10% of total transplants.

Would you say that overseas transplants are safe?

A recent UCLA study of 33 patients who had received transplants overseas found that they had much worse results than patients who received transplants in this country. Paid organ donors are not screened as thoroughly as they should be, and problems like hepatitis are often overlooked. Early organ rejection is twice as common in these patients, and infections are frequent.

Its our job to make a statement. Those who interpret our statements and develop policy can determine and address any issues of bias. And we can be culturally sensitive without altering our ethical compass. Stating publically that we oppose these procedures is not the same as forcing other countries to end them. It only means that we are presenting a consensus of professional opinion in the hope of reaching an ethical industry standard on a global scale.

We are pointing out problems that need solutions. Maybe we should keep in mind the words of Rudolph Virchow: Medicine as a social science, as the science of human beings, has the obligation to point out problems and to attempt their theoretical solution. The politicians must find the practical solutions.

I am not arguing what our role is to be, Michael. I am merely pointing out the complexities of an ethics issue that permeates a variety of cultures. If there are ethical outlets for international transplants, we shouldnt take away those options from patients whose lives are at stake just because we cant adequately address black-market organs.

We just need to identify and address those real problems. And by we, I mean human beings in general not just the United States. An organ transplant is not, in and of itself, unethical. Our focus should be on regulation rather than prohibition. Anytime we remove an option, we limit patient freedom and potentially limit medical progress.

What do we know about the issues facing the paid organ donors? Are they well paid and taken care of?

It varies widely, of course, but poor people who sell a kidney, sometimes do so for as little as $800 according to the World Health Organization. They will face future health problems including the worsening of their own kidney functions-provided, of course, that their surgery goes well, which is never guaranteed.

Donors in America can have kidneys removed with very small incisions. But Third World donors, can end up with wounds up to 14 inches long. These wounds take months to heal, making the patients unable to do the manual labor that most of them depend on.

Now its your turn to participate in this discussion.

Consider the following responses and select the one you believe to be the most ethical. You will need to be prepared to defend your position using the concepts and theories of ethics weve learned about in this course.

• 1
• I agree with Dr. OConnor. While some countries are beginning to implement better regulations for this growing industry, most have not done so adequately. The practical result is that the rich can literally live off of the poor through the exploitation of their vital organs. Firmly stating that it is unethical to exploit the poor for body parts will not inhibit medical progress. Exploitation and a lack of regulation are precisely the reasons this is an issue in the first place.
• 2
• We can, and should, proceed with caution in the international arena. 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. Thats a practical reality, even if its an uncomfortable one. As long as the organs come from ethical sources, it isnt a problem. Even if there is a problem, we dont want to dip our feet too far into international waters.
• 3
• 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.
• 4
• Dr. OConnor is on the right track, but we must keep in mind Dr. Reynolds 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 underway 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.

Rubric

Criteria	Meets Expectations	Approaches Expectations	Does Not Meet Expectations	Points
Identification of Main Issues	Demonstrates a sophisticated and clear understanding of the major ethical and scenario-related issues. Thoroughly identifies key concerns and explains their significance effectively.	Demonstrates an adequate understanding of some of the major issues in the scenario but may lack depth, clarity, or full development.	Demonstrates limited or inaccurate understanding of the issues in the scenario. Important concerns are missing or poorly explained.	20 pts
Links to Course Readings and Additional Research	Effectively connects scenario issues to course concepts, readings, and presentations. Integrates thoughtful outside research and supports conclusions with strong evidence and specific textbook examples. Includes at least one ethical theory to support arguments. All sources are properly documented.	Makes some connections between the scenario and course concepts, though connections may be vague or underdeveloped. Includes limited outside research with partial support for conclusions. Ethical theory or evidence may be weakly applied.	Makes minimal or inappropriate connections to course readings or concepts. Research is incomplete, unclear, or unsupported. Ethical theory is missing or incorrectly applied. Documentation of sources is incomplete or absent.	20 pts
Writing Mechanics and APA Formatting Guidelines	Consistently follows current APA formatting guidelines. Writing is clear, organized, and free of grammatical, spelling, punctuation, citation, and reference errors. All sources are correctly cited and referenced.	Generally follows current APA formatting guidelines with a few minor inconsistencies or writing errors. Most citations and references are correct.	Does not follow APA formatting guidelines consistently. Contains frequent grammatical, spelling, punctuation, citation, or reference errors. Sources may be incorrectly cited or missing.	10 pts

WRITE MY PAPER