Deek, Andrew

English

Digital Commons @ New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)

New Jersey Institute of Technology Digital Commons @ NJIT Humanities Syllabi NJIT Syllabi Spring 2021 PHIL 351-002: Biomedical Ethics Andrew Deek Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/hum-syllabi Recommended Citation Deek, Andrew, "PHIL 351-002: Biomedical Ethics" (2021). Humanities Syllabi. 473. https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/hum-syllabi/473 This Syllabus is brought to you for free and open access by the NJIT Syllabi at Digital Commons @ NJIT. It has been accepted for inclusion in Humanities Syllabi by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ NJIT. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@njit.edu. COURSE NUMBER Phil 351COURSE NAME Biomedical EthicsCOURSE STRUCTURE 3 creditsCOURSE DESCRIPTION An examination of the ethical problems and moral foundations of medicine.Among the issues explored are the changing nature of the doctor/patientrelationship, increased patient autonomy, advance directives, the rationing ofcare, doctor-assisted suicide, and "the right to die."PREREQUISITE(S) HUM 211, HUM 212 and Hist 213 or their equivalents, all with a grade of C orbetter.REQUIRED MATERIALS Biomedical ethics: an anthology 2nd edition. Helga Kuhse and Peter SingerISBN 1405129484Student LearningObjectivesUpon successful completion of the course, students will● have a working understanding of the main principles of biomedicalethics and be able to apply them in practical situations.● have an appreciation of moral arguments and moral theory and will beable to articulate rational justifications for ethical decisions;● understand better the complexity and multidimensionality ofbiomedical ethical concerns;● recognize what constitutes an ethical concern in healthcare;● define the main areas of ethical discourse;● demonstrate greater tolerance for ethical disagreements among peopleand ethical ambiguity in  reasoning;● analyze and respond to peer comments regarding ethical andphilosophical issues; and● Develop the ability to reason through difficult ethical issues both orallyand through written work.CLASS TOPICS Medical experimentation, end of life issues, patient control, the health caresystemCourse Outcomes ● Engage with some of the important literature and complex topics inbiomedical ethics and learn how to think critically and systematicallyabout moral problems in the doamain of biomedical research andmedical practice;● Develop skills of critical analysis and analytical reasoning required foranalyzing cases and dilemmas and forming and defending positions;● Deal with contemporary issues of biomedical ethics and aquire theknowledge and methods required to analyze, discuss and resolve suchissues, especially regarding their scientific, technological, political,cultural, and legal dimensions; and● Examine and analyze scholarly research on biomedical ethics with theobjective of training students to write their own research-based articles.ACADEMIC INTEGRITY Academic Integrity is the cornerstone of higher education and is central to the idealsof this course and the university. Cheating is strictly prohibited and devalues thedegree that you are working on. As a member of the NJIT community, it is yourresponsibility to protect your educational investment by knowing and following theacademic code of integrity policy that is found at: 1http://www5.njit.edu/policies/sites/policies/files/academic-integrity-code.pdf.   Please note that it is my professional obligation and responsibility to report anyacademic misconduct to the Dean of Students Office. Any student found in violationof the code by cheating, plagiarizing or using any online software inappropriatelywill result in disciplinary action. This may include a failing grade of F, and/orsuspension or dismissal from the university. If you have any questions about thecode of Academic Integrity, please contact the Dean of Students Officeat dos@njit.eduMethod of Instruction As this is an online class, each subject will be organized around a program ofdirected readings and introduced by a brief written description of its importanceand key theoretical and practical issues around it. Readings will includeselections on ethical theory and contemporary essays by philosophers,physicians, legal scholars, and other writers who argue for positions oncontroversial issues in biomedical ethics. The rest of the time allotted for eachspecific topic, usually a week from its introduction in Moodle, is to discussionsand posting of weekly requrements, as needed.CLASS HOURSCourse is offered onlineContact information: ajd8@njit.eduCOURSE OUTLINEWeek Date Topic Readings1 Introduction What Is Bioethics? AHistorical Introduction –Kuhse and SingerThe Hippocratic OathDr. Death Episode 1 (ThreeDays in Dallas)2 Health care system –universal rightIs There a Right to HealthCare and, If So, What DoesIt Encompass? - DanielsDr. Death Episode 2 (Chrisand Jerry)3 Health care system – publichealthManifold Restraints: Liberty,Public Health, and theLegacy of Jacobson vMassachusetts – ColgroveHuman rights and Ebola: theissue of quarantine - LanderDr. Death Episode 3(Occam’s Razor)4 Health care system -CapitalismPaying tissue donors: Thelegacy of Henrietta LacksThe case for allowingkidney sales –Radcliffe-Richards (K&S)Extreme Rise in Some DrugPrices Reaches a Tipping2Point - PianinDr. Death Episode 4(Spineless)5 Paternalism and patientcontrol – informed consentand patient autonomyOn liberty – John Mills(K&S)From Schlerendorff v NewYork Hospital – BenjaminCardozo (K&S)Abandoning informedconsent – Robert Veatch(K&S)Dr. Death Episode 5 (FreeFall)6 Paternalism and patientcontrol – confidentiality andtruth tellingConfidentiality in medicine:A Decrepit concept – MarkSiegler (K&S)On a supposed right to liefrom altruistic motives –Immanuel Kant (K&S)Should doctors tell the truth?– Joseph Collins (K&S)On telling patients the truth– Roger Higgs (K&S)Dr. Death Episode 6(Closure)7 Paternalism and patientcontrol – Capacity,competence, an advanceddirectivesMental capacity, legalcompetence and consent totreatment – BuchananLife past reason – Dworkin(K&S)Dworkin on Dementia:elegant theory, questionablepolicy – Dresser (K&S)Dr. Death Episode 7(Update)8 End of life issues -euthanasiaThe sanctity of life –Jonathan Glover (K&S)Is killing no worse thanletting die – WinstonNesblitt (K&S)Why killing is not alwaysworse – and sometimesbetter – than letting die –Helga Kuhse (K&S)Active & PassiveEuthenasia- James RachelsDr. Death Episode 8(Interview)39 End of life issues – Decidingbetween patientsRescuing lives: Can’t wecount – Paul Menzel (K&S)Should alcoholics competeequally for livertransplantation? – Moss andSiegler (K&S)How age should matter:Justice as the basis forlimiting care to the elderly –Robert Veatch (K&S)10 End of life issues – Healthcare budgetQuality of life and resourceallocation – MichaelLockwood (K&S)A lifespan approach tohealth care – NormanDaniels (K&S)Saying No Isn’t NICE —The Travails of Britain’sNational Institute for Healthand Clinical Excellence –Steinbrook NEJM11 Medical experimentation:Adult human subjectsEthics and clinical research– Beecher (K&S)The Nuremberg codeThe morality of clinicalresearch – Tannsjo (K&S)Paying tissue donors: Thelegacy of Henrietta Lacks12 Medical experimentation:Genetic engineeringQuestions about usinggenetic engineering –Glover (K&S)Ethical issues inmanipulating the humangerm line – Lappe (K&S)Should we undertake geneticresearch on intelligence –Newson (K&S)13 Medical experimentation –The developing worldTesting Drugs on theDeveloping World –KellyUnethical trials ofinterventions to reduceperinatal transmission of thehuman immunodeficiencyvirus in developingcountries – Lurie (K&S)414 Papers/ PresentationsGRADING POLICY Paper 30 %Presentation 25 %Weekly posts and response to peers 15 %3 Quizzes (10% each) 30 %There will be a 1500 word final paper required for the course. The paper will beof the students topic of choice, however the topic should be approved by me.The topic should be approved by me by the end of week 8. Failure to meetthe minimum length and not getting approval by week 8 will result in a reductionin grade. The paper should cover an biomedical ethical dilemma that isprevalent today and discuss both sides of the argument. You can chose to remainneutral and explain both sides, or if you feel strongly about one side of thedebate you can explain why you feel your opinion is correct.Paper Grading RubricRubric for Scoring Research Papers (100 points total)The paper will be graded based on the quality of writing and content using afour-scale model (Inadequate, Minimal, Adequate, and Excellent.)Writing (50 points)• Organization◦ Inadequate (5 points):  No logical organization of essay’s content.◦ Minimal (10 points):  Organization of essay is difficult to follow, withinadequate transitions and/or rambling style.◦ Adequate (15 points):  Essay is easily followed, with basic transitions and astructured style used.◦ Above Average (20 points): Essay is easily followed, with effectivetransitions and a methodical presentation of information.◦ Excellent (25 points):  Essay is easily followed, with effective transitionsand a methodical presentation of information. Students ties overarchingthemes of paper together easily.• Mechanics/ Grammar & Formatting◦ Inadequate (5 points):  Sentences and paragraphs are difficult to read andunderstand, with poor grammar or mechanics. Missing most basic portionsof paper format.◦ Minimal (10 points):  Essay contains numerous grammatical andmechanical errors. Contains some basic paper format.◦ Adequate (15 points):  Essay contains multiple minor grammatical ormechanical errors. Contains most basic paper format.◦ Above Average (20 points): Very few grammatical errors that do not takeaway from paper. Has almost all parts of paper formatting correctly.◦ Excellent (25 points):  Essay is clear and concise and contains nogrammatical or mechanical errors. Paper contains title page, page numbers,and correct header stylization. Student uses APA style citations withappropriate in-paper citation.Content (50 points)• Correctness of facts◦ Inadequate (5 points):  Most facts are wrong.◦ Minimal (10 points):  Some facts are wrong. Most sources are reputable.◦ Adequate (15 points):  Technical details are generally correct. Vastmajority of sources are reputable.5◦ Above Average (20 points): All facts are correct, with some explanation ofcontent. Appropriate, reputable sources are cited.◦ Excellent (25 points):  All facts are correct, and technical explanation isconcise and complete. Appropriate, reputable sources are cited.• Completeness◦ Inadequate (5 points):  Almost no questions are addressed. Very superficialcontent.◦ Minimal (10 points):  Most questions are addressed, but few details areprovided.◦ Adequate (15 points):  Questions are addressed, but some details are leftout.◦ Above Average (20 points): Questions are addressed and covered in detail.Does not talk about both views.◦ Excellent (25 points):  Questions are completely addressed. History ofdilemma and opposing views thoroughly discussed (and possiblydebunked).Weekly postsBy Sunday of each week students should create a post in moodle with theirreactions to the weeks readings. Each post should be 1-2 short paragraphs(should be minimum 250 words). Additionally, students must reply in shortparagraph form to another student’s response with their thoughts as part of theirgrade. Late submissions will result in deduction of points.WEEKLY POST GRADINGCriteria Unacceptable0 PointsAcceptable1 PointGood2 PointsExcellent3 PointsQuality of ContentPost is off-topic,incorrect, or irrelevantto readings.Paraphrases the readingsbut does not addsubstantive information toit.Posts is factuallycorrect; lacks fulldevelopment of conceptor thought.Posts factually correct,reflective and substantivecontribution;Demonstrates understandingof topic.Reference toReadings andSupport for IdeasDoes not specificallyreference the readingsor adequately supportscommunicated ideas.Does not specificallyreference the readings butoffers personal experiencein support of topiccovered.Incudes somereferences from thereadings and relevantpersonal experience.Includes direct references tothe readings. Also quotesfrom text, or offers relevantpersonal experience tosupport comments.Clarity &OrganizationPost is too short orunnecessarily long andunorganized; maycontain errors orinappropriate content.Adequate ideas areresented but lack in clarityor mechanics.Valuable information isgiven with minor clarityor mechanics errors.Clear and concise commentwritten in an easy to readstyle that is free ofgrammatical or spellingerrors. 3 paragraphs inlengthPRESENTATIONSStudents should give a 10 minute presentation about their paper. It will be done on PowerPoint using a voice over.The following link explains how to create the voice over:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uk4CU7uobM&app=desktopShould you have issues with creating the voice over, please reach out in a timely manner to have me help youresolve the issue. Shorter presentations, not done in PowerPoint will result in grade deduction.Presentation Rubric61 2 3 4Organization Listener cannotunderstand presentationbecause there is nosequence of information.Listener has difficultyfollowing presentationbecause student jumpsaround.Student presentsinformation in logicalsequence which listenercan follow.Student presents informationin logical, interestingsequence which listener canfollow.SubjectKnowledgeStudent does not appearto have grasp ofinformation beingconveyed.Student appearsuncomfortable withinformation beingconveyed.Student is at ease withinformation beingconveyed.Student demonstrates fullknowledge of informationbeyond the average student.Visuals Student uses excessivegraphics or no graphicsat all.Student occasionally usesgraphics that rarelysupport text andpresentation.Student's graphics relate totext and presentation withmost graphics reinforcinginformation in a new way.Student's graphics explainand reinforce text andpresentation in a new way oroffer additional information.Mechanics Student's presentationhas excessive spellingerrors and/orgrammatical errors.Presentation hassignificant misspellingsand/or grammatical errors.Presentation has somemisspellings and/orgrammatical errors.Presentation has nomisspellings or grammaticalerrors with easy to readformat.Delivery Student mumbles,incorrectly pronouncesterms, and speaks toosoftly to be heard.Student's voice is low ordifficult to understand andincorrectly pronouncesterms. Listener hasdifficulty hearingpresentation.Student's voice is clear andpronounces most wordscorrectly. Listener can hearpresentation with somewhite noise/ backgroundnoise.Student uses a clear voiceand correct, precisepronunciation of terms.Student is engaging whentalking and listener can hearpresentation withoutbackground noise.Lateness: Although late submissions will be graded, maximum grades are 50% of what student would have receivedif handed in on time.TENTATIVE GRADING SCALEA: 90 - 100B: 80 – 89.9C: 70 – 79.9D: 65 – 69.9F: 0 – 64.9Grading scale may be subject to changeWeek 4:The Case For Allowing Kidney Sales (p. 487)Week 5:On Liberty (pg. 621)From Schloendorff v New York Hospital (pg. 624)Abandoning Informed Consent (pg. 636)Week 6:Confidentiality in Medicine (pg. 597)On a Supposed Right to Lie (pg. 603)Should Doctors Tell the Truth (pg. 605)On Telling Patients the Truth (pg. 611)Week 7:Life Past Reason (pg. 357)Working on Dementia (pg. 365)Week 8:The sanctity of life (pg. 259)Is killing no worse than letting die (pg. 292)Why killing is not always worse (pg. 297)7Active & Passive Euthenasia- (pg. 288)Week 9:Rescuing Lives (pg. 407)Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Liver Transplantation? (pg. 421)How Age Should Matter (437)Week 10:Quality of Life & Resource Allocation (pg. 451)Lifespan Approach to Health Care (pg. 465)Week 11:Ethics and Clinical Research (pg. 505)Morality of Clinical Research (pg. 525)Week 12:Questions about using genetic engineering (pg. 185)Ethical issues in manipulating the human germ line (pg. 198)Should we undertake genetic research on intelligence (pg. 219)Week 13:Unethical trials of interventions (pg. 533)8

PHIL 351-002: Biomedical Ethics

https://digitalcommons.njit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1472&amp;context=hum-syllabi

PHIL 351-002: Biomedical Ethics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT)