New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Wilma Greenholt

Bioethics PHIL 309

Wilma Greenholt
GPA 3.76

Derek Boyd

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Derek Boyd
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in PHIL-Philosophy

This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Wilma Greenholt on Monday September 28, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to PHIL 309 at George Mason University taught by Derek Boyd in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 104 views. For similar materials see /class/215231/phil-309-george-mason-university in PHIL-Philosophy at George Mason University.


Reviews for Bioethics


Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/28/15
Abortion 1 Describe Thomson s violinist thoughtexperiment To which types of abortions is this thoughtexperiment supposed to be analogous What is an objection to the violinist thoughtexperiment Thom son39s violinist thoughtexperiment involved a supposition that one would be kidnapped by the Society of Musicians and connected to a famous unconscious violinist on dialysis and that the violinist will use that person39s kidneys to filter his own system as well Thom son then discusses the variables of your decisions and the implications of thirdparty involvement The possibility of the person connected to the violinist dying is also discussed Rape is implied in this type of abortion An objection to the violinist thought experiment is that the violinist is not an innocent human being while the fetus is and it is always wrong to kill an innocent human being 2 What is the extreme position and what does Thomson say about it The 39extreme position39 is when people think that the fetus39s rights outweigh those of its mother even when the mother39s life is 39 n er Thomson says that all four theses that support the 39extreme position are false For example a mother who performs an abortion on herself to save her life is not quot committing murder How might Thomson say that there are times when a woman ought not to have an abortion even if that ought is not founded on considerations of justice ie that it is a case let us suppose where we agree with Thomson that an abortion in this particular case would not be unjust Thom son may suggest that a woman ought not to have an abortion when the pregnancy results from a voluntary act when the woman is fully aware of the possibility of pregnancy therefore taking responsibility for it In simpler terms Thomson may not be giving quotmoral permissionquot to a woman who simply does not want to partake in the responsibility of having a child even though she knew what she was quotsigning up forquot when the committed the voluntary act that resulted in conception of the fetus 4 According to Marquis what in general is wrong with killing Explain how he applies his answer to the abortion issue What are the implications on his view for euthanasia What is an objection to his view Marquis argues that the concept of quotwrongness of killing in prolife advocates is too broad and would include irrational suppositions such as that a culture of human cancer cells qualifies as a quothumanquot and therefore it is wrong to kill it However he also states that the more narrow approach may not take enough factors into consideration James Rachels The End ofLife 5 What are the three components of the traditional view Explain each of them being careful to distinguish the technical sense of the term from our ordinary sense where relevant One component of the traditional view is that life all human life is immensely important even if not justified by theological ideas it is accepted by its cultural equivalence Another component of the traditional view is that intentional killing of innocent human beings is forbidden There is a catch to this statem ent killing of noninnocent people such as during a war or in selfdefense and unintentional killing are usually morally absolved A third component of the traditional view is the distinction between killing and letting die while killing is usually strictly forbidden letting a person die is less consequentially grim For example ordinary medical treatments are morally obligatory while extraordinary medical treatments are optional 6 What is the immediate problem for the humanity component and what has been suggested How does Rachels try to show that humanity isn t relevant to the euthanasia debate The immediate problem for the humanity component of the traditional view is that it fails to differentiate between quotbeing alive biologically and quothaving a life biographically quotHaving a biographical life is summarized by Rachels as quotthe sum of one39s aspirations decisions activities projects and human relationships Rachels suggests that the moral question of killing is approached alternatively with the question quotIs a life in the biographical sense being destroyed or otherwise adversely affected Rachels states that humanity isn39t relevant to the euthanasia debate because although a human being may be quotbiologicallyquot alive they may not be quotbiographicallyquot alive as in the case of Mrs Florian the example given where Alzheimer39s has already destroyed her quotbiographicalquot life and she is in a nearvegetative state 7 What is the doctrine of double effect You might explain this using the bombing example How is it related to the third component of the Western Tradition intention The doctrine of double effect is a series of justifications for an action seen from two different perspectives a nonpermissable one where Rachels uses the example of the commanding officer dropping the bomb on civilian houses and an ammunition factory as part of the plan to kill the civilians and punish the enemy and a permissable one where Rachels uses the example of the commanding officer dropping the bomb on the ammunition factory and all the while foreseeing the civilian deaths The second example is considered permissable in the traditional view because it was not the officer39s intention to kill the civilians although it was a foreseen consequence of his plan This is related to quotintentionquot because killing is more permissable when there was no direct intention of doing so and it occurs as a consequence rather than when it is nonpermissable if there was direct intention to kill 8 Do you agree with the doctrine of double effect or can you think of an action that meets all of the doctrine s conditions for being permissible yet still seems morally wrong Such a case would be considered a counterexample I agree with the doctrine of double effect however I can see how there would be certain actions that would meet the doctrine39s conditions of being permissable yet would also be morally wrong If one amended the counterexample that Rachels used by substituting quotmany innocent deathsquot for quotonly a few innocent deathsquot all the conditions are met yet the result is still morally wrong Thus if it is an insigm canl armaments factory being bombed and only a few innocent deaths will be caused the bombing will not be permitted even though the other conditions are satisfied 9 What is the Eastern view of life that Rachels considers and what is his objection to it What is his objection to the Western view The Eastern view of life includes ideas of Buddhism and Jainism which hold all life forms sacred The Western view of life emphasizes the difference between human and nonhuman life and the innocence thereof and the difference in preserving it An objection of Rachels to the Eastern view of life is that they pay far too much respect to all forms of life An objection of Rachels39 to the Western view of life is that they don39t pay enough respect to other forms of life besides human life as seen in the quoted example of St Augustine who essentially called the respect for animal life quotthe height of superstition quot 10 What does Rachels mean by biographical life What does he mean by biological life Biological life is the state of being quotalivequot as defined by certain standards ie respiration digestion etc Biographical life is quotthe sum of one s aspirations decisions activities projects and human relationships as Rachels explains it 11 Do you think Rachels has correctly characterized the Western Tradition Why or why not I do not think Rachels has correctly characterized the Western view because not everyone is so open to the idea of nonhum an life being insignificant In our society there are many people who advocate animal rights vegetarians vegans and other groups that place a greater emphasis on nonhuman life 12 Is biological life ever valuable on Rachels view In your own words explain his simple argument for this view Rachels states that biological life is valuable when the organism has a life For example he simply states that it is more wrong to kill a monkey than swat a y because of the difference in the quotlivesquot of those two organisms and the value thereof 13 Rachels considers several objections to Epicurus argument but concludes that most of them fail What does he finally say is wrong with the argument Rachels argues that because it is such a controversial idea that something like death is not 39bad39 for you the question at hand should be not what is wrong with it but why it is wrong Also it is the hedonistic concept of good and evil that leads to the inability to account for the evil of death or wrongness of killing 14 What are the logical and metaphysical mistakes that Rachels thinks the hedonist makes Is there really a difference between the two or could both be expressed as the same problem If so how Logical mistake getting order reversed should be ipped something gives me pleasure because I recognize it as good Wonmug s life is a joke but according to him as far as he knows his life is great Metaphysical mistake to reject that only pleasure is valuable you re wrong if you think pleasure is intrinsically valuable same i ea 15 How might a hedonist reply to Rachels objections 16 According to Rachels what is the main thing that is bad about death 17 What are the two unsettling implications that Rachels discusses and how are they implied by what he says in the section The Concept of a Life Do you accept either or both of these implications If so why is Rachels right If not how might you try to convince Rachels that he s wrong 18 Why does Rachels say that those who believe innocence is relevant to the euthanasia debate need to present a non theological argument of it We are only considered Innocent because we are from God according to the theological view From the secular view there really is no definition of innocence because God is not involved in it Therefore if you want to say that euthanasia is wrong because it takes an innocent life this does not work because there is really no such thing as an innocent from the secular viewpoint 19 What is the essential difference between the case of Baby Doe and that of Barney Clark Could the concept of nonvoluntary euthanasia apply to both cases Barney had the choice to end it then whereas Baby Doe s parents ended to end her life of suffering The first would have essentially been a suicide but the second one was passive euthanasia 20 Explain the link that Rachels sees between suicide and voluntary euthanasia They are the same thing essentially 21 If Rachels is right in saying that euthanasia is sometimes morally permissible would it follow that anyone is obligated to perform euthanasia or assist in suicide 22 What point is Rachels trying to make with the case of Jack and Jill 23 What is the cruelty lurking in the distinction between killing and letting die 24 What is the Equivalence Thesis 7 what does it say and what doesn t it say 25 Many people have defended the passiveactive distinction by arguing that in active euthanasia a person would be the cause of death but in passive euthanasia the disease is the cause How does Rachels respond to this argument 26 What is Thomson s objection What is the point of the argument she constructs about Alfrieda and Bertha Why does Rachels say that Thomson s argument is sound A Alfrieda intentionally cuts off Alfred s head knowing that it will kill him Bertha intentionally punches Bert in the nose knowing that it will kill him Thompson gives this example to prove that Rachel s example of Smith and Jones is false because otherwise cutting off someone s head and punching someone in the nose would be equal The reason for cutting off someone s head is to kill him therefore doing something else with the same consequences is equally objectionable So because Bertha and Alfreida both did things in order to kill their actions are equally offensive Thomson argues that the Bare Difference Argument which states that there is no moral difference between killing and letting die because the bare difference between the two one is an act of killing and one is of letting die is not enough to render the difference morally significant is not sound because it it leads to quotabsurd conclusionsquot The point she constructs about Alfrieda and Bertha is that its an absurd argument which makes no morally significant difference between cutting off a person39s head and punching them in the nose with the final end result of killing in both situations Rachels argues that the bare fact that one act is an act of headchopping while another act is an act of nosepunching is not a reason for judging the former to be worse than the latter such as with the Smith and Jones case where one act is an act of letting die while the other is an act of killing This shows the parallel structure of the argument rendering the argument sound Rachels shows that the Bare Difference Argument can be applied in this situation as well 28 What is the radical implication of the Equivalence Thesis that Rachels discusses Killing is no worse than letting die so you should do whatever you can in order to save lives You cannot buy selfish things for yourself instead you must give that money to the poor We don t want to believe this because it makes our lives uncomfortab e The radical implication of the Equivalence Thesis that Rachels discusses is that because we let starving individuals die by not helping them we are essentially all murderers The ET operates on the notion that killing and letting die are equal on moral grounds This leads to the conclusion that while we are not killing anyone we are letting numerous people die which makes us all murderers Rachels argues that many philosophers either agree with the radical ideas as opposed to intuitions depending upon the strength of the argument or quot assume there is something wrong with the argument that one cannot detect Rachels Ch 8 if it con icts with intuitions he says that because killing and letting die are the same thing when we spend money on extra things luxury items like cds fancy clothes etc and we could have used that money to give to a starving person we are essentially letting them die because are not doing anything about it So rachels says that we should give away whatever money we have because when we have the means to save someone and we don t that is essentially according to the equivalence thesis letting them die which carries the same moral weight as killing He says that although we often feel more of an obligation to not kill someone as opposed to not letting them die 29 In your own words explain Rachels conclusion and reasoning in the Jack Palance argument James Rachels uses the Jack Palance argument to reinforce the credibility of his support of the Equivalence Thesis He presented a scenario where a child is starving in a room with an individual Jack Palance had a sandwich but did not give it to the child Rachels argues that Jack Palance would be seen as a moral monster Rachels also points out that this is an irrational consideration because people who do not attempt to save starving children in other countries are not considered moral monsters although the implications of their actions or lack thereof are the same Additionally Rachels presented three arguments for peoples unwillingness to comparatively evaluate the two situations on moral grounds First in Jack Palance s situation the child was in the same room as opposed to quotfar awayquot distance causes concepts to become less quotrealquot and more quotabstractquot Second there was only one child in Palance39s situation while there are many starving abroad Lastly the scattered rather than concentrated numbers of starving children cause people to be less aware of the crisis We overestimate how bad it is to kill and underestimate how bad it is to let die Jack Palence watches a starving child die even though he has a sandwich that he doesn t need and is in the same room with the child but he cannot be bothered to give him the sandwich He therefore shows himself to be a moral monster The same as a murderer He could easily save the child he does not the child dies We could easily save some of these starving people we do not and they die If he is a moral monster then aren t we also from a moral point of view the location doesn t matter but matters to our feelings when the crisis is scattered we don t respond jack s situation was more simple because it was just him and the starving child It is more complicated when you are surrounded by starving and wealthy people There are other people that could just as easily help the starving people wealthy people can help more easily fair share you feed one child and your friend feeds one child but friend does nothing You could feed both but you feed one and watch the other die announcing that you have done your fair share we judge people according to whether they can be expected to realize how well or how badly they behave We judge palence harshly because the consequences of his indifference are so apparent This does not prove that letting die is as bad as killing but that letting die is morally much closer to killing than we normally assume 30 Some people have claimed that there is a moral difference between killing and letting die because there s a difference in the dischargeability of duties What does that mean and how does Rachels reply Others have claimed that actions are simply morally weightier than inactions How does Rachels reply to this The difference in dischargeability of duties lies in the fact that while each of us can discharge completely a duty not to kill anyone no one among us can discharge completely a duty to save everyone who needs it Rachels argues that this is not a valid excuse using the supposition that Jack Palace refuses to offer the starving child a sandwich because he can39t save every starving child in the world He also mentions that we are bound to save only those we can the group of we have an obligation to save is smaller than the group we have an obligation not to kill Dischargeability while each of us can discharge completely a duty not to kill anyone no one among us can discharge completely a duty to save everyone who needs it Since we are bound to save only those we can the group of people we have an obligation to save is smaller than the group we have an obligation not to kill It does not follow that our duty with respect to those we can save is any less stringent Suppose Jack Palence were to say I needn t give this starving child the sandwich because after all I can t save everyone in the world who needs it If this excuse will not work for him it will not work for us Utilitarianism 31 Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity The name derives from the Greek word for quotdelightquot This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain ie suffering they produce In very simple terms a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure pleasure minus pain Quantitative Bentham Qualitative John Stuart Mill Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility It is thus a form of consequentialism meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome put simply the ends justify the means Utilitarianism can thus be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism which states that moral actions are those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good or that quotthe rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the rule of which it is an instancequot For rule utilitarians the correctness of a rule is determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed In contrast act utilitarians judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without reference to rules of action 32 Explain the following objections to utilitarianism Doctrine of Swine this is essentially Rachels Wonmug story 1 According to utilitarianism the only morally relevant considerations would be how much pleasure and pain an act and its alternatives would produce 2 It is not the case that the only morally relevant considerations are how much pleasure and pain an act and its alternatives would produce Pleasures and pains are not the only morally relevant considerations Too High for Humanity 1 If utilitarianism is true then an act is morally right only if it is motivated by a desire to promote the general interests of society 2 Some acts are morally right even though they are not motivated by a desire to promote the general interest of society Therefore utilitarianism is not right Lack of Time 1 If utilitarianism is true then it would always be right for us to calculate the utilities of all our alternatives before acting 2 Sometimes it is not right to calculate the utilities of all our alternatives before acting because not enough time Therefore utilitarianism is not true 33 Explain the following objections to utilitarianism Supererogatory actions actions that are above and beyond the call of duty E g mailman saving baby from burning building Either I maximizes utility and so is required or 2 does not maximize utility and so is morally forbidden Trivial actions Example Girl in the morning eat Rice Toasties l2 eat Wheat Toasties l2 eat Oat Toasties 34 skip breakfast l2 Upshot She is morally obligated to eat Oat Toasties and morally forbidden to do any of the other three Promises to Dead Men He says Before I die promise me that you will give my fortune to the Society of Music Lovers Agreed What is the right thing for an Act Utilitarian to do in this case How could he justify keeping the promise Problem of Interpersonal Comparisons Need to compare utility pleasure of individuals in different possible states of affairs in order to evaluate actions policies and institutions We cannot see into peoples heads to determine how much pleasure they are experiencing or expected to experience Kantian deontology 34 There are things we ought to do because we desire various ends Some ought to take the LSAT because they want to become law students some persons ought to skip desert because they want to avoid tooth decay Kant however thinks that there are oughts we must acknowledge that are not connected to any present desire What are these other oughts Give an example one from class or your own Explain how both Kant s Universal Law Formulation and his Humanitarian Formulation each provide a justification to your example Kant says that the rightness of an action is not defined in terms of the consequences An ought that Kant says we should do is we ought not to lie even if it is something that we did not want to do Regardless of the consequences he says that we should not lie According to the universal law formulation we should do things that we take to be a universal law asking ourselves how we would feel if everyone did the same thing Thus by not lying we have satisfied the universal law formulation According to the humanitarian formulation we must act so that we treat humanity always as an end and never as a means By not lying we can also satisfy this principle39 by not lying to them or twisting the truth in our favor we are not using the person as a means only One must act not in accordance with but for the sake of obligation If an employer tells you something because he fears that he will be fired otherwise then the employer has performed the right action but deserves no moral credit Hypothetical imperative something one ought to do because one has some desire Categorical imperative duties or demands that hold for all rational beings I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim becomes a universal law Universal Law Formula act only on the maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law when you do something you should ask what if everyone did this and what if everyone acted with the same intention if everyone wanted to catch as much fish as possible then you wouldn t be able to do what you originally wanted to do lie promise to get money what if everyone did Humanitarian Formulation act so that you treat humanity whether in your own person or that of another person as an ends and never as a means only you shouldn t use people lying promise use people underm ines their dignity Commercial Surrogacy 35 According to Elizabeth Anderson why is commercial surrogacy wrong there are two reasons In what sense is the wrongness of commodification seen to be grounded in Kantian moral principles Commercial Surrogacy is wrong because 1 commodifies the child This works because it degrades parental rights trust to mere property rights her labor 2 commodifies her labor Slaves treated in accordance with the norm that owners may use as commodities to satisfy their own needs without regard for the interest of the commodities themselves To treat a person without regard for her interests is to fail to respect her treats beings worthy of respect as if they were worth merely of use Slaves treated in accordance with the norm that owners may use as commodities to satisfy their own needs without regard for the interest of the commodities themselves To treat a person without regard for her interests is to fail to respect her treats beings worthy of respect as if they were worth merely of use a It commodifies the baby the baby is not being treated with the upmost respect it is being treated as a means only because rather than being treated as a person it is being used for money labor etc She says that it substitutes market norms for true parental love and turns the child into something for commercial profitmaking b commodifies a woman s labor the surrogate mother does not get to keep her baby even though she has spent 9 months protecting it and has to make a promise to not make emotional ties to the baby essentially denying her the ability to give parental love With that there is not protection for her when she has to give the baby away It violates her emotional ties to her child and requires her to suppress all emotion and corrupts the legitimacy of the surrogate mother s perspective on her own pregnancy It turns her labor into a commercial endeavor instead of a precious life changing experience that should be full of love This violates Kantian principles because according to Anderson both the child and the mother are being used as a means only 36 What is the repugnance that Kass thinks we experience at the prospect of cloning human beings Repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom beyond reason s power fully to articulate it We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking but because we intuit and feel immediately and without argument the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear Repugnance revolts against the excess of human willingness warning us not to transgress what is unspeakably profound Repugnance may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of humanity Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder 37 Kass says that the practice of cloning human beings would threaten individual identity and individuality What more re ned rightsclaim does Tooley think this charge comes to What is one of his responses to this supposed rightsclaim What is the open future argument What is Tooley s response to the open future argument According to Tooley we do not have right to a genetically unique nature According to Kass cloning human beings in order to make full human beings is morally wrong because it is a threat to a clotant s identity and individuality It undermines the profundity of sex the deep union between men and women Cloning threatens identity and individuality because that person is an exact duplicate of the cloner Cloning distorts kinship ties and the clonant might end up seeking a relationship with the cloner It may create superiority of maker over made and may be used in a eugenical way Meaning we may be able to essentially breed ourselves in such a way to create a superior race and we should not give parents control over the genetic makeup of their children 38 According to Wachbroit what is medical paternalism What does he say about the right to be genetically tested Should physicians limit patients access to genetic test results according to Wachbroit Are there times when limiting such access is morally permissible Are there times when limiting such access is morally impermissible Medical paternalism is physicians making nonmedical judgments out of concern that genetic information might cause social or psychological or emotional harm to patients Such as causing a state of depression severe enough for that person to want to commit suicide Patients do not have rights to be genetically tested because having a right to healthcare does not mean having a right to have every diagnostic tests performed on yourself A physician does not have a right to limit patient39s access to their genetic test results because it is paternalistic to assume that the results will cause social psychological and emotional harm to patients Limiting access to genetic testing should be based on good public reasons as opposed to using public funds toward private economic means For example for a woman who has no family history of a mutation that causes breast cancer who gets genetic testing done for breast cancer is meaningless because it would draw upon society39s limited resources of expertise and technology when that test has virtually no value unless there is already a known genetic predisposition to breast cancer In the case of a 50year old male who has a minor child it is impermissible to not have genetic testing done because the father has a moral responsibility to plan the future for his child By not performing the test and not knowing the risk of Alzheimer39s the father is being irresponsible to his child and is setting his child up for hardships that could ve been prevented by fulfilling the moral duty to his son 39 Describe the three different cases that Brock considers P1 P2 and P3 Does Brock think that a mother harms her child in a case such as P1 Why or why not Does a mother harm her child in cases like P2 and P3 Why or why not For what reason and from what principle does the mother in P1 act wrongly Pl the woman is told by her physician that by having the kid now there is a high likelihood that the child will be mentally retarded and if she waits 2 months and takes meds she can have the baby and he will be normal She doesn t wait and instead has a child who is mildly retarded P2 She does take the medication but the baby is still impaired P3 She does not have the baby and so therefore the retardation is prevented and there is no baby The first one Pl is the only one that actually affects the child in P2 she has a different child and in P3 he doesn t exist at all So we can t say that she harmed her child but common sense morality speaks against what she did in P1 not the other ones All are equally wrong but Pl is different 40 Harris claims t here is in short no moral difference between attempts to cure dysfunction and attempts to enhance function where the enhancement protects life or health What does he mean be this statement and how does he justify it Why cure dysfunction to prevent harm Why prevent dysfunction to prevent harm If an airplane manufacturer neglects to add certain safety features to his aircraft we would hold him responsible for not doing so If we can prevent problems we should whether or not we call it eugenics It is analogous to any other form of treatment as long as it is preventing harm there is in short no moral difference between attempts to cure dysfunction and attempts to enhance function where the enhancement protects life or health 0 Harris makes his argument based on the following consensus I We believe that medical science should try to cure disability where ever possible We agree that parents would be wrong to withhold their disabled children cures as they become available So what would we think of a parent who wishes that their child be born with a disability versus a parent who wishes for a healthy child 0 We would consider the first to be wrong in their desire How about if preimplantation screening revealed that some embryos will develop disability and some will not would we applaud the mother for allowing the implantation of the disabled embryos 0 Harris says that that depends on our acceptance that quotdisability is disabling and therefore undesireable 0 Why Gene Therapy should be allowed I To fail to use would be to deliberately harm individuals who it could protect o It is analogous to any other therapy I By not enhancing and improving normal function you are essentially causing harm to that individual 0 Example By using gene therapy you could protect humans against AIDS hepatitis B malaria or repair enzymes damaged from radiation 0 Harris believe we should favor gene therapy even if it is a form of eugenics I As long as it improves human life expectancy and provides protection from harm 0 Disability 0 Disability is a quotphysical or mental condition that we have a strong rational preference not to be in in a sense it is a harmed condition o It can be a condition that sets premature limits on lifespan or makes a person vulnerable to infection for example 0 People at or before birth are protected against pollution hazards and infections and have their healthy life expectancy extended o It may be plausible to say that failing to protect them increases their vulnerability to infection and environment pollutants leading to injury and disability 0 Normal Life 0 We believe that there is an obligation to cure disease to restore normal functioning however we do not have an obligation to enhance a normal healthy life I What constitutes a normal healthy life depends on technological and medical advances For example Tetanus protection is now normal If AIDS pandemic continues our technology will also progress and using gene therapy to insert gene codes for antibodies will be an advantage 0 Arguments against enhancing normal healthy lives 0 Those with disability and their advocates I Because it would devalue them as persons Say its comparable to aborting disabled fetus allowing a disabled neonate to die or infanticide I Harris says that all person share the same moral status to prefer to remove a disability where possible is not to prefer nondisabled individuals 0 Measures to create fine healthy individuals are attempts at Eugenic control I Based on the assumptions that quotthose who are genetically weak should be discouraged from reproducing or are less morally important I Harris however has a different view on Eugenics o it is not that the genetically weak should be discouraged from reproducing but that everyone should be discouraged from reproducing children who will be significantly harmed by their genetic constitute 41 Does Glannon think that there is a moral distinction between gene therapy and gene enhancement What arguments does he give in support of his position Gene therapy is aimed at treating disease and restoring physical and mental function Enhancement improves functions that are already adequate and puts people at an unfair advantage Enhancement is unnecessary and not everyone can afford Bringing someone up to the baseline is what is important and improving them more than that is considered unfair 4 reasons why genetic enhancement would be morally objectionable 1 It would give an unfair advantage to some people over others because some would be able to pay for expensive enhancement procedures while others would not 2 If we tried to remedy the first problem by making genetic enhancement universally accessible then it would be collectively selfdefeating although much competitive unfairness at the individual level would be canceled out at the collective level there would be the unacceptable social cost of some people suffering from adverse cognitive or emotional effects of the enhancement 3 Inequalities resulting from enhancement above the baseline of normal physical and mental functioning could threaten to undermine the conviction in the f importance of equality as one of the bases of selfrespect and in turn social solidarity and stability 4 Enhancement of noncompetitive dispositions would threaten to undermine the autonomy and moral agency essentials to us as a person 42 What are the four arguments in favor of germline gene therapy that Walters and Palmers give What are the eight arguments against germline gene therapy that they consider and what is there response to each of them Four arguments in favor of germline gene therapy 1 May be the only way to prevent damage to particular biological individuals when that damage is caused by certain kinds of genetic defects 2 lLight be advanced by parents It is that they wish to spare their children and grandchildren from either 1 having to undergo somatic cell gene therapy if they are born affected with a genetic defect or 2 having to face difficult decisions regarding possibly transmitting a diseaserelated gene to their own children and grandchildren 3 Health professionals casting a wary eye toward the expenditures for health care From a social and economic point of view germ line intervention is more efficient than repeating somatic cell gene therapy generation after generation From a medical point of view germline intervention fits better with the increasingly preferred model of disease prevention and health promotion 4 Roles of researchers and health professionals researchers deserve to have the freedom to explore new modes of treating andor preventing human disease eight arguments against germline gene therapy that they consider 1 If the technique has unanticipated negative effects those effects will be visited not only on the recipient of the intervention him self but also on all of the descendants of that recipient 2 Will never be necessary because of available alternative strategies for preventing the transmission of diagnosable genetic disorder 3 Will always be expensive option that cannot be made available to most couples attempting to overcome the problem of infertility it will only be available to wealthy people who can afford to pay its considerable expense on their own 4 Germline intervention will be of such limited utility in preventing disease there will be strong pressures to use this technique for genetic enhancement at the embryonic stage when it could reasonably be expected to make a difference in the future life prospects of the embryo 5 Even though germ line genetic intervention aims in the long run to treat rather than to abort or discard the issue of appropriate respect for preimplantation embryos and implanted fetuses will nonetheless arise in several ways 6 Potential perils of concentrating great power in the hands of human beings Would give a small group of people too much control over the future evolution of the human race 7 Malevolent use could be used by unscrupulous dictators to produce a class of superior human beings or it could be used in the opposite way to produce humanlike creatures who would willingly perform the leastattractive and the most dangerous work for a society 8 European authors human beings have a moral right to receive from their parents a genetic patrimony that has not been subjected to artificial tampering any intentional effort to introduce genetic changes into the germ line even if they goal is to reduce the likelihood that a genetic disease will be passed on to the children and grandchildren Responses to eight arguments Irreversible mistakes we acknowledge that mistakes may be made in germline gene therapy we think that the same sophisticated techniques that were employed to introduce the new genes will be able to be used to remove those genes or to compensate for their presence in some other way 2 Alternative strategies some couples even most couples will chose the alternative strategies of selective abortion or selective discard A strategy of attempting to prevent or treat potential disease or disability in the particular biological individual accords more closely with the mission of the health sciences and shows greater respect for children and adults who are afflicted with disease or disability 3 High cost limited availability Too early to know what the relative cost of germline intervention will be when the technique is fully developed The financial costs and other personal and social harms or preventable diseases will need to be compared with the financial costs and other personal and social harms of preventable disease will need to be compared with the financial cost of germline gene therapy 4 Use for enhancement Prudent social policy should be able to set limits on the use of germline genetic intervention Further some enhancements of human capabilities may be morally justifiable especially when those enhancements are health related 5 Human embryos In our view research with early human embryos that is directed toward the development of germ line gene therapy is morally justifiable in principle 6 Concentration of power Those who are unable to use germline intervention will have unprecedented ability to introduce precise changes into the germ lines of particular individuals However in our view it is better for human beings to possess this ability and to use it for constructive purposes like preventing disease in families than not to possess the ability 7 Misuse by dictators This objection focuses too much attention on technology and too little on politics The best approach to prevent the use of genetic technologies may not be to discourage the development of these technologies but rather to preserve and encourage democratic institutions that can serve as an antidote to tyranny Also germline intervention requires a long time to allow the offspring to grow to adulthood and tyrants are impatient people 8 Human rights and tampering It is a daunting task to imagine what the unborn and unconceived generations of people coming after us will want Even more difficult is the effort to ascribe rights to future human beingswe think that any realistic person would rather be free from disease than not 43 What are the first four recommendations of the 1999 NBAC report on stem cell research 1 ES cells that left over from IVF treatments are eligible for federal funding 2 EG cells from aborted fetuses are eligible for federal funding 3 Somatic cell nuclear transfers are not eligible but are not illegal in the private sector and should be allowed to be researched 4ES cells solely for research purposes are not eligible for federal funding 44 What is Meilaender s position on stem cell research Is his position consequentialist 0r deontological or which is he closer to What is the point of that analogy with just war theory Meilander is against embryonic stem cell research He believes that in cases of extreme emergency everyone dying of cancer and no other options available it could be okay He believes that the means destroying an embryo is an unjust way of achieving an otherwise desireable end less diseases cures etc Similarily in many instances an atomic bomb is an unjust means of achieving an otherwise desirable ends minimizing loss of life or victory His position is deontological He wants to show that the atomic bomb and embroyonic stem cell research are similar He wants to show that they are both an unjust means of achieving an otherwise desireable ends He uses the analogy of the atomic bomb to show that there are some things you just don t do even if they may minimize loss of life or lead to victory for example in WWII the atomic bomb may have minimized loss of life but many people viewed the decision to use the atomic bomb as wrong So if this is true then that must mean that even though stem cell research may minimize loss of life and lead to victory this could be wrong as well Just because something may minimize loss of life or lead to other desireable things does not mean that it is right Just because embryonic stem cell research may lead to victory less loss of life more cures doesn t mean its okay The just war theory suggests that in war you cannot do whatevers necessary to win ie often you cannot drop an atomic bomb or do other immoral things in order to win Sometimes you just have to accept defeat because there are no more moral options available McGee and Caplan 45 What is their position on stem cell research What do they mean by a negative right Negative rights permit or oblige inaction Adults and child human beings right to life is considered constitutionally and as a moral problem at best a negative right against unwarranted violence by the state or individuals If a frozen embryo is a full human person it still has no rights to life per se but rather a negative right against unwarranted violence and a weak and a weak positive right to a set of basic social services police protection fire protection etc The sacrifice of an early embryo whether it involves a human person or not is not the same as the sacrifice of an adult because the life of a lOOcell embryo is contained it its cell nuclear material An embryo cannot reason and it cannot reject a sacrifice or get up and leave the community For those who feel special responsibility to embryos the vulnerability of the frozen embryo may suggest special consideration of the kind given to all moral actors in society for are for one reason or another without voice The question remains though what need is so great that it rises to the level where every member of the human family even the smallest might sacrifice Already it is clear that we believe that no need is more obvious or compelling than the suffering of half the world at the hand of miserable disease Not even the most insidious dictator could dream up a chemical war campaign as horrific as the devastation wrought by Parkinson s disease Assuming that a developing embryo can be salvaged by transplanting its DNA as we have described it seems unreasonable to oppose the destruction of the embryo s external cellular material or to fear that the 100 cell McGee and Caplan go back and argue that when destroying the embryo the most important part of it does not get destroyed Which is the DNA they argue that is doesn t even get injured so rather than the imminent destruction of an embryo discarded by a clinic the embryo can be used to save lives It is the moral imperative of compassion that compels stem cell research it is a pursuit of known and important moral goods They say that stem cell research is an important tool for the future of medicine and there are many opposing views and we will have to figure out to proceed as research grows Without the means to continue stem cell research medical and scientific progress will be greatly delayed Most of the people who opposed stem cell research are Christians because they believe that life begins at conception and therefore using an embryo is essentially killing Daniels 46 What does Daniels mean by a decent minimum of health care Does he think that we have a right to a decent minimum of health care Why or why not What types of scarce medical resources should be included in the decent minimum A right to health care is a positive right A positive right requires others to do something beneficial or enabling for right bearers a negative right requires others to refrain from doing something usually harmful or restrictive All people have a right to a decent minimum of health care By focusing a right to health care on the maintenance of normal functioning a line is drawn between uses of medical technologies that count as legitimate treatments and those that we may want but which do not meet our health care needs Although we may want medical services that can enhance our appearance or that can optimize our otherwise normal functioning like Prozac we do not truly need these services to maintain normal functioning We are obliged to help other achieve normal functioning but we do not owe each other whatever it takes to make us more beautiful or strong or completely happy Basic and Supplementary Rights I Basic Rights Protect and promote normal function I Suppl Rights Anything above and beyond McMahan 47 Does McMahan think that genetic screening for disabilities is morally impermissible What are the arguments against the morally permissibility of genetic screening that he considers What is the point and implication of his aphrodisiac thoughtexperiment Arguments Against Testing Four basic categories 1 Screening and Selection are discriminatory in that their aim is to rid the world of people of a certain type people who have increasingly come to share a sense of collective identity and solidarity 2 Screening may be harmful to individual disable people due to it may being used to reinforce forms of discrimination against existing disabled people as well as reducing the number of disabled people and therefore reducing their visibility and political power 3 The reduction in the number of disabled people would have an adverse effect on human diversity They make a unique contribution to the world as well as teach lessons of tolerance achievement and life 4 The practices of screening and selection express a view of disabled people that is hurtful to existing disable people Expressing views that they ought not to exist bad if they do worse than if normal people exist and that they are not worth the burdens they impose on their families and society Thought experim ent There is a drug women can take as an aphrodisiac to enhance their pleasure The side effect of this drug is that it causes ovulation and if ovulation has already occurred the dru induced new egg would destroy the naturally ovulated egg Also the drug induced released egg has a very high chance of being damaged due the effects of the drug So any child conceived with that damaged egg would be disabled A women takes the drug knowing the side effects she had happened to have already ovulated so the naturally ovulated egg gets replaced by a damaged egg ending up in a disabled child So the child she had is different from the one she could have had had she not taken the drug Point Many people believe what the woman did was morally wrong saying it is wrong to cause the existence of a disabled child over a child without disability just for her own pleasure Others think the right to reproductive freedom makes it permissible Refer to paper It should be wrong to cause a disabled child to exist rather than a child without disability


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.