Friday, February 29, 2008

Monday:
  • Re-read Pence chapter on reproductive cloning. There is much more to discuss there.
Wed.
  • Start abortion. OPS Writing assignment on Singer pp. 146-164 ("Taking Life: The Embryo and the Fetus") and pp. 125-144 ("What's wrong with killing?")

Monday, February 25, 2008

Reminder: Wed. Aden leads discussion of Pence Ch. 6 on Embryos and Stem Cells.

An OPS writing assignment on the chapters 'ethical issues' section is due, so that ya'll are well prepared to discuss the issues with him.

Friday Eric is supposed to be doing Ch. 7 on cloning. An OPS writing assignment on that chapter will also be due, so that ya'll are well prepared to discuss the issues with him.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Gregory Pence's Ethics Program Lecture, "Why Not Enhance Humans?" has been rescheduled for Monday, March 10, at 7:30 p.m. on the Agnes Scott College campus in Evans Hall, rooms ABC. The talk is free and open to the public. See below for more information about this event, as well as the Roberta Berry talk on April 7. Thanks.


March 10, 2008 7:30 p.m., Evans Hall, ABC
"Why Not Enhance Humans?" Evolution has selected parents who want the best for their children. Liberal democracies also allow parents to make choices for and about their children that shape future traits of children. Despite fears of alarmists and concerns based on religion, biological choices that enhance exist on the present continuum of choice and already operate in medicine. The challenge for ethics is not to ban choices about enhancement but to insure they are made in the best interest of the child. Gregory Pence is Course Director for Medical Ethics at the University of Alabama medical school for 30 years. His research focuses on emerging ethical issues in medicine, including cloning, genetics, and issues at both ends of life. He has written Re-Creating Medicine: Ethical Issues at the Frontiers of Medicine (2000) and Classic Cases in Medical Ethics (fifth edition, 2007), and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and Journal of Medical Ethics.


Monday, April 7, 2008 7:30 p.m., Evans Hall, ABC
"Should We Engineer the Genomes of Our Children? Navigational Policymaking in the New Genetic Era"
Would it be right to engineer the genomes of our future children-to influence the development of their temperament, their physical features, and their abilities-if advances in bioscience and biotechnology make this possible? Roberta Berry explains why this question poses a difficult challenge for policymaking in modern, pluralistic, democratic societies and proposes how we might best respond to the challenge: by what she calls a "navigational approach" to policymaking.
Roberta M. Berry is Associate Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Law, Science & Technology Program at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has published a number of essays on bioethics, health care, and the legal, ethical, and policy implications of bioscience research and biotechnologies. Her forthcoming book, The Ethics of Genetic Engineering, compares the adequacy of utilitarian, deontological, and virtue-based ethical and political theories in addressing the issues posed by the possible advent of genetic engineering of human beings.

Monday, February 18, 2008

This week through next week

Current tentative schedule:

Today and Wed.


"Whose Life is it anyway?" Film

Friday:

Pence, Ch. 6 on Embryos and Stem Cells
Aden Rage, leading discussion
OPS Writing Assignment on the Ethical Issues Sections from this chapter

Monday:

Paper 1 due. Assignment below on blog.

Continue discussing Pence, Ch. 6 on Embryos and Stem cells

Next Wednesday:

Pence Ch. 7 on Reproductive Cloning.
Eric Baylor leading discussion.
An argument worksheet (about another article of Pence's on cloning) that might be of interest: http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/gregorypenceoncloning

Bioethics Paper 1: Topics: Death and Dying

Final draft: Due Monday February 25 in class.

You must get a rigorous peer review from at least one of your classmates, submitted with your paper using this form here http://aphilosopher.googlepages.com/peerreview.rtf and http://philosophy302.blogspot.com/2007/11/peer-paren-t-rela-t-ive-review-shee-t.html

Length: approx. 5 pages; 12 point font, double spaced, 1” margins.

Prerequisite: have read and summarized Vaughn Chapters 3 and 4 on how to write a philosophy paper. This was an OPS writing assignment already; if you haven’t turned it in, you can turn it in with your paper.

Thus far we have discussed many arguments for and against:

  • active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide,
  • assisted suicide and disability, and
  • when, if ever, coma / PVS patients' lives should be ended.

For your first argumentative essay you should:

(1) Pick one of these issues above;

(2) Pick one of the cases discussed about these issues (from Pence, Singer or any of the other sources we have used); you should not explain the facts of the case in much detail beyond what is absolutely necessary: the point of this paper is not to retell the history of the case:

(3) You should then argue for a view about what, morally, should have been done in this case, or what should have happened. That is, you should explain what the ideal outcome would have been in this case and why. (In some cases, you might think that the ideal outcome, what should have happened, was what actually happened).

a. To do this, you must present at least three of what you think are the strongest arguments in favor of your view about what should have been done, and explain and defend your view on why these are sound arguments;

b. You must defend your argument from three of what you think are the strongest objections against your view: explain why these objections or contrary perspectives are mistaken and why.

(4) Finally, you should explain what, if any, implications your arguments about this one issue concerning death and dying have for another issue (above) about death in dying. So, for example, if you discussed active euthanasia, you should explain what your arguments imply (or might imply) for assisted suicide or ending the lives of coma patients; if you discussed coma patients, what implications (might) your view have for active euthanasia? These issues are all related in various important ways, so this section of the paper allows you to explore these relations.

Your paper should have a paragraph long introduction that explains what you will do in the paper; the introduction should end with a thesis statement; your paper should be well-organized (make an outline), carefully argued, clearly written so that anyone could read it and understand (if they knew the details of the cases), and have a conclusion. Follow Vaughn’s guidance on writing.

You must reference at least three of the sources we have used (Pence, Singer, Rachels, Callahan, Brock, “One Nurses Story,” the page on the sanctity of life ethic, etc.).

Monday & Wednesday

Whose Life Is It Anyway?

See larger image






4.5 out of 5 stars 26 customer reviews (26 customer reviews)





List Price: $19.98
Price: $17.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details
You Save: $1.99 (10%)
Availability: In Stock. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.


Want it delivered Tuesday, February 19?
Order it in the next 10 hours and 1 minute, and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout.
See details


37 used & new available from $12.92


Format: DVD

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Who would like to do pence ch. 6 on human embryos and stem cells ? Who would like to do ch 7 on human cloning?
Let Dr. Nobis know. First come, first served!

Southeast Philosophy Conference at Clayton State University

Schedule

MAPS AND DIRECTIONS

Saturday, February 16, 2008

8.30 am to 9.30am

Registration/Coffee

University Center 2nd Floor

9.30 am-10.45 am

UC 420

Robert Case (Clayton State University, GA) On the Nature of God

Ryan Larosa (Clayton State University, GA) On American Foreign Policy: Non-Intervention, an American Tradition

UC 424

Charles Bauch (University of West Georgia) Virtue Ethics and Capitalist Power

Ben Hole (Lewis and Clark College, OR) Aristotle on MEGALOPSUCHIA

10.50 am to 12.05 pm

UC 420

George Allen (Clark University, MA) In Defense of the Circular and Contradictory Nature of Descartes’ Meditations

Timothy James Wright (University of West Georgia) The Sacred Whore

UC 424

Michael Uhall (University of Georgia) 'Talking Wolves' in Sheep's Clothing: Biletzki, Hobbes, and the Primacy of Rhetoric

Jay Mikelman (Tulane University, LA) Thomas Hobbes and the Problem of Suicide Bombers

12.10pm to 1.25 pm Lunch University Center Foyer

1.30 pm to 2.45 pm

UC 420

Jason Shepard (University of South Alabama) Qualia – or Something More Relevant – Regained

Chelsea Ruxer (University of Evansville, IN) Falsity in Physicalism

UC 424

Laura Delgado (University of St. Andrews, UK) Two Problems with Spinoza's Argument for Substance Monism

Geoffrey James (Morehouse College, GA) Why Utilitarianism Does Not Justify Vegetarianism

2.50 pm to 4.15 pm

UC 420

Taurean Webb (Morehouse College, GA) The Importance of Deliberation

Jacob Britten (Grand Valley State University, MI) Implications of Evolution in Epistemology

UC 424

Richard Marrero (University of Alabama Huntsville) Rawls’ Original Position

Michael Hobgood (Clayton State University, GA) Boots on the (Philosophical) Ground: Human Nature According to a Soldier

4.20pm to 5.00pm

UC 420

Jonathan Langlinais (Loyola University, LA) Hegel’s Concept of Virtue as Ethical Phronesis

UC 424

Anna King (Clayton State University, GA) Problems with Secured Boundaries for Women in Book V of Plato’s Republic

Paper 1

Bioethics Paper 1: Topics: Death and Dying

Rough draft / peer review day (planned, but this might change): Monday, Feb. 18

Final draft: Due Monday February 25 in class.

Length: approx. 5 pages; 12 point font, double spaced, 1” margins.

Prerequisite: have read and summarized Vaughn Chapters 3 and 4 on how to write a philosophy paper. This was an OPS writing assignment already; if you haven’t turned it in, you can turn it in with your paper.

Thus far we have discussed many arguments for and against:

  • active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide,
  • assisted suicide and disability, and
  • when, if ever, coma / PVS patients' lives should be ended.

For your first argumentative essay you should:

(1) Pick one of these issues above;

(2) Pick one of the cases discussed about these issues (from Pence, Singer or any of the other sources we have used); you should not explain the facts of the case in much detail beyond what is absolutely necessary: the point of this paper is not to retell the history of the case:

(3) You should then argue for a view about what, morally, should have been done in this case, or what should have happened. That is, you should explain what the ideal outcome would have been in this case and why. (In some cases, you might think that the ideal outcome, what should have happened, was what actually happened).

a. To do this, you must present at least three of what you think are the strongest arguments in favor of your view about what should have been done, and explain and defend your view on why these are sound arguments;

b. You must defend your argument from three of what you think are the strongest objections against your view: explain why these objections or contrary perspectives are mistaken and why.

(4) Finally, you should explain what, if any, implications your arguments about this one issue concerning death and dying have for another issue (above) about death in dying. So, for example, if you discussed active euthanasia, you should explain what your arguments imply (or might imply) for assisted suicide or ending the lives of coma patients; if you discussed coma patients, what implications (might) your view have for active euthanasia? These issues are all related in various important ways, so this section of the paper allows you to explore these relations.

Your paper should have a paragraph long introduction that explains what you will do in the paper; the introduction should end with a thesis statement; your paper should be well-organized (make an outline), carefully argued, clearly written so that anyone could read it and understand (if they knew the details of the cases), and have a conclusion. Follow Vaugn’s guidance on writing.

You must reference at least three of the sources we have used (Pence, Singer, Rachels, Callahan, Brock, “One Nurses Story,” the page on the sanctity of life ethic, etc.).

Monday, February 11, 2008

Dax's Case

Who Should Decide?

Produced by Unicorn Media, Inc. for Concern for Dying

  • "This video tape does a superb job of raising questions about individual rights and responsibilities in terminating care." - Death Studies

This gripping documentary poses the ultimate bioethical problem. Does a patient have the right to refuse treatment? Taking the painful case of Dax Cowart, who in his twenties was critically burned in a propane gas explosion, the film examines the issue from all perspectives.

The accident left Dax sightless, helpless, disfigured, and in constant pain. He insisted that he did not want to live, for it was clear that he would always be severely handicapped. During his long hospitalization he was subjected to painful treatments, which he demanded to have terminated. But he was denied the right to make the decision.

The film spans a ten-year period, allowing one the perspective of time. Dax made a great deal of progress over the years. He moved into his own house, started a business and married. Yet he has never changed his mind that he should have been allowed to die, and in fact made several suicide attempts after he was first released from the hospital.

We hear the positions of doctors, nurses, family and friends both at the time of the crisis, and again ten years later. Their conflicting views leave one to wrestle with how "Dax's Case" should have been decided.

This organization below is mentioned in the Pence chapters as advocates of a "sanctity of life" view. Take a look:

Wed.

There was a bit of confusion for today (Monday) since we changed gears a bit due to the cancellation of the Pence talk.

If you haven't done so yet, an OPS writing assignment on the Ethical Issues section of chapter 2 will be due Wednesday. THanks to those who already turned it in!

Please also read Singer, "Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?" Extra credit OPS writing assignment on that.

See you Wed.!

Here was that article that Dr. Jenkins brought in, pasted below:

Life support: Courts left to decide who holds patient's fate
Families chafe at physicians' power to give up

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/stories/2008/02/10/lifesupport0210.html

Life support: Courts left to decide who holds patient's fate
Families chafe at physicians' power to give up



The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 02/10/08

Nonnie Hawkins remembers standing beside her daughter's hospital bed, steeling herself for a final goodbye.

She turned to physicians at DeKalb Medical Center, who minutes earlier had disconnected a machine that was breathing for 18-year-old Tara Bottoms-Hawkins. Hawkins thought her daughter was in a coma, as she had been for four months. But doctors said the young woman was brain-dead.

It was March 18, 2004, two days after Tara gave birth to a premature son, bucking the predictions of some doctors who said the fetus wouldn't survive.

Hawkins said she looked at the four doctors, the hospital administrator and the respiratory therapist. She called each of them by name. She thanked them individually for everything they had done to bring her grandson, Emmanuel, into the world.

Then she told them, "Tara's blood is on your hands, because you just killed my child."

Hundreds of people die daily in Georgia, almost all before they're declared brain-dead. That designation usually comes into play when a person suffers a traumatic injury or stroke and is attached to devices that maintain organ function.

When doctors determine the brain is not working anymore, families and hospitals usually agree that life support should then be removed, said Dr. Richard W. Cohen, chairman of the ethics committee for Wellstar Health System for more than 20 years.

Sometimes, however, the family disagrees with the diagnosis.

That was the case with Nonnie Hawkins. Hawkins says her daughter was alive and responding —- albeit minimally —- to people in the hospital room. On one occasion a doctor had noticed Tara was breathing over the ventilator on her own.

The hospital kept Tara on the ventilator for four months —- as long as her unborn baby was alive. They couldn't perform certain tests to determine the extent of Tara's brain damage without damaging the fetus, said Hawkins' attorney, John Crongeyer.

After Emmanuel was born, however, doctors evaluated Tara several times over the next two days. They determined that she was brain-dead, but Hawkins was not convinced.

About 10 minutes before her daughter was taken off the ventilator, Hawkins says people were gathered around the bed praying and pleading aloud "Please wake up, the baby needs you," when Tara moved her hand. When Hawkins went to get the neurologist, he said it was just a reaction from the spine, she said.

"It was like their mind was already made up," Hawkins said. "There was nothing besides Tara opening her eyes and sitting up that she could've done to stop them from taking her off life support."

Hawkins filed a lawsuit against DeKalb Medical Center, the doctor and DeKalb Neurology Associates on May 15, 2006, on behalf of her grandson. The lawsuit alleges medical malpractice, wrongful death and negligence. Hawkins said she never consented for the hospital to take her daughter off the ventilator.

At the crux of the case is whether Tara was brain-dead or just brain-damaged.

Georgia law leaves the final decision on discontinuing treatment for brain-dead patients to doctors, not family members.

DeKalb Medical Center tried to have the case dismissed, but the Georgia Court of Appeals said no, noting that for "incompetent adult patients" who may have some brain function remaining, the decision to terminate life support rests with the family.

The court has not yet ruled whether Tara's brain had ceased functioning, or whether a glimmer of life remained.

DeKalb Medical Center maintains she was brain-dead, and that the decision to stop treating her was appropriate.

The medical center appealed to the state Supreme Court.

"While we grieved with the family, the patient's death was determined by powers far greater than we possess prior to the discontinuance of treatment," the hospital's statement says. "In this case of a brain-dead patient, where there was no life present, we followed the guidance of Georgia law."

Beyond that, the hospital declined to comment for this story.

Letting go

From a legal standpoint, being brain-dead is the same as being dead.

Before a patient can be declared brain-dead, two doctors must evaluate the patient on two occasions.

Dr. Michael Hartman, a neurologist at Emory Eastside Medical Center, routinely removes patients from machines that support organ function after he declares brain death.

Hartman said the physicians have to make the tough decisions when families can't.

"If you let them take control, they will never let go," Hartman said. "I realize this lack of control families must feel when we go in, but it's part of the job."

Hawkins' lawyer, Crongeyer, says that stance is "kind of a scary [thing]."

"There seems to be a misconception by some health providers that once they make a brain death determination, there is no power left that the family holds," Crongeyer said. "You can imagine the abuse that could occur with an ill-intentioned doctor or even if they just make a mistake."

Medical experts say that continuing to treat a brain-dead person is irresponsible and unethical. Nurses and doctors are already in short supply, as is hospital bed space.

It comes down to money, too. Insurance companies won't pay for treatments to a brain-dead person, Hartman said, so hospitals have to eat those expenses.

"Hospitals don't send bills for care given after death," Hartman said.

Seeds of discord

Bottoms-Hawkins was injured by a homeless boy she had befriended as an outgrowth of a ministry she and her mother organized in 1999 to provide services for the poor and homeless.

The boy either pushed or threw her down while they were hanging out at a mutual friend's apartment.

Bottoms-Hawkins suffered severe head trauma. The boy later pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to three years in prison.

Hawkins says she began to distrust DeKalb Medical Center doctors almost immediately after her daughter was hospitalized.

Her response is not uncommon, says John Banja, a medical ethicist with the John and Susan Wieland Center for Ethics at Emory University.

"Maybe they've had a bad communication experience, but oftentimes families are not in a very good psychological situation to objectively weigh what is going on with their loved one," Banja said. "Especially if they've already felt as though they were being dismissed and not being communicated with."

A similar problem arose in December between the family of a Florida man and Emory Eastside Medical Center in Gwinnett County.

Donald Fennell was visiting his daughter in Snellville after Thanksgiving when he suffered a massive stroke. Doctors at Emory Eastside declared him brain-dead, but Fennell's wife and other family members held out hope he would recover.

The Fennell family went to court to bar the hospital from taking him off a ventilator. Gwinnett County Superior Court Judge Tom Davis authorized the hospital to discontinue treatment Dec. 6 after traveling to Donald Fennell's bedside and hearing testimony from the hospital's chief medical officer.

Alicia Fennell still harbors resentment against the hospital.

She said doctors never clearly explained her husband's condition or showed her CAT scans until they were hauled into court.

People avoid discussing their end-of-life wishes until it's too late, says Beverly Tyler, executive director of Georgia Health Decisions.

The nonprofit organization educates Georgians about health care options and helps people prepare advanced directives.

"They always say it's important, but getting them to take action is really difficult until something dramatic happens in their own families," Tyler said.

Disputes between families and hospitals crop up because both sides think they know what's best.

An advanced directive clarifies the patient's wishes. It tells caregivers whether to withhold or maintain life-sustaining treatment if a person is terminally ill, in a coma or in a persistent vegetative state.

Tara Bottoms-Hawkins and Donald Fennell did not have advanced directives. Advanced directives probably wouldn't have affected doctors' decisions —- they considered the patients brain-dead —- but they might have given the families solace.

GLOSSARY

Advance directive: A legal form or statement made by an individual to express preferences about life-sustaining treatment in the event they become unable to make such decisions or communicate them in the future.

Brain death: Irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem. The brain stem controls involuntary bodily functions such as breathing, blood pressure and heart rate. The other, far more common type of death as defined by Georgia law is cardiopulmonary death, in which a person's heart stops beating and the person stops breathing.

Coma: A state of profound unconsciousness (may be reversible).

Life support: Medical techniques and associated devices used to sustain the body's biological functions, such as a ventilator, intravenous fluids and medications to maintain blood pressure.

Persistent vegetative state: When brain stem functions are intact and involuntary bodily functions such as breathing are sustained, but the patient shows severe mental impairment and no awareness of self or environment.

Sources: "The Last Dance: Encountering Death and Dying," a best-selling textbook in the field of death studies, and Dr. Richard Cohen, chairman of the ethics committee for Wellstar Health System.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Due to a death in the family, the Pence talk Monday will be postponed.

MONDAY & WED.
Can we get back on track with Pence Ch. 2 with Britt? Ideally, the OPS writing assignment on the Ethical Issues section of chapter 2 should be due Monday.
Please also read Singer, "Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?"

See the blog below for Terry Schiavo videos. There are lots on Youtube.

We'll do Ch. 2 both Monday and Wed.

I don't believe we will have class Friday due to Dr. Franklin's inauguration.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Friday:

PENCE CH. 1
OPS writing assignment on the "Ethical Issues" section. Also, are the arguments sound, unsound and why?

Webpages about Elizabeth Bouvia. And Larry McAfee.

EMERSON leads class that day.

Monday:
PENCE Ch. 2 on comas.
Singer: pp. 170-86. "Is the Sanctity of Life Ethic Terminally Ill?" (This discusses some of the cases that Pence discusses in Ch. 1, e.g., the Cruzan case).

Note: there are lots of videos online about Terry Schiavo.

Britt leads class that day.

Monday, February 4, 2008

The Arguments from Rachels’ “Active and Passive Euthanasia”

Although terms (AE, PE) need to be defined – and they are defined in the first paragraph – these definitions are not part of the arguments, strictly speaking.

PE = __________________________________________________________________

AE = __________________________________________________________________

The “doctrine” =

PE can be morally permissible;

AE cannot be morally permissible (and is contrary to the role of physicians)

The main argument, super-simplified:

(1) PE is morally permissible in certain circumstances.

(2) If (1), then AE is morally permissible in those circumstances.

(3) Therefore, AE is morally permissible in those circumstances also.

As stated, this argument doesn’t provide the reasons for (1) or, more importantly, (2).

Why accept (1)?

Perhaps something like this:

(4) If someone is suffering greatly, this cannot be relieved, is doing to die soon anyway, wishes to die, etc. (see Singer p. 197, Pence p. 52), then it is permissible that their life be ended.

Or

(5) People should always act in ways that result in the least harm.

Or some other moral principle that would imply that (1) is true (e.g., variants on utilitarianism, autonomy-respecting Kantianisms, for two possibilities).

Why accept (2)?

The basic reasoning is that if you look at (better) justifications or reasons given in favor of (1), they will support AE as well

The second argument, on decisions being made from irrelevant grounds:

Note: presumably this argument could be made using other cases.

a. If the doctrine is correct, then PE can be morally permissible but AE is not.

b. If PE can be morally permissible but AE is not, then, e.g, it is morally permissible to let an intestine-blocked Downs baby die, but not morally permissible to actively euthanize a Downs baby.

c. If it is morally permissible to let an intestine-blocked Downs baby die, but not morally permissible to actively euthanize a Downs baby, then whether one’s intestines are blocked is a morally relevant difference.

d. But whether one’s intestines are blocked is not a morally relevant difference (since this is easily fixable).

e. Therefore, is it not the case that it is morally permissible to let an intestine-blocked Downs baby die, but not morally permissible to actively euthanize a Downs baby. (c, d, modus tollens)

f. Therefore, it is not the case that: PE can be morally permissible but AE is not. (b, e, modus tollens)

g. Therefore, the doctrine is not correct. (a, f modus tollens).

Objection 1:

(6) Killing is always worse than letting die.

(7) If (6), then the doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong.

(8) Therefore the doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong

Rachels’ response:

(9) If Killing is always worse than letting die, then Jones behaved worse than Smith.

(10) But Jones did not behave worse than Smith: they are equally bad, acted equally wrongly.

(11) Therefore, killing is not always worse than letting die.

Objection 2:

(12) “Doing something” is always worse than “letting something happen.”

(13) If (12), then the doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong.

(14) Therefore the doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong

Rachels’ reply:

Objection 3:

(15) There is a difference between causing someone’s death and allowing it to happen.

(16) If (15), then he doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong.

(17) Therefore the doctrine is true and Rachels is wrong

Objections from Callahan, either for the conclusion that AE is wrong and/or the arguments in favor of AE are unsound/weak/bad:

Objections discussed in Pence either for the conclusion that AE is wrong and/or the arguments in favor of AE are unsound/weak/bad:

Objections discussed in Singer either for the conclusion that AE is wrong and/or the arguments in favor of AE are unsound/weak/bad:

For Wed.:

Objections to active euthanasia and the arguments in its favor, since we really haven't discussed these in great detail.

Objections discussed in:
- Rachels
- Callahan
- Brock
- Pence text
- Singer selections
You bring the objections!


For Friday-
Read Pence Ch.1. OPS Writing Assignment on the Ethical Issues section.
Emerson is in charge of leading discussion of the arguments.

Monday: TBA; perhaps Pence Ch. 2? It depends on how discussion goes Friday.
Two events at Agnes Scott college http://www.agnesscott.edu/ for extra credit. The first is next Monday:

February 11, "Why Not Enhance Humans?" Gregory Pence, University of Alabama Medical School

April 7, "Should We Engineer the Genomes of Our Children? Navigational Policymaking in the New Genetic Era," Roberta Berry, Georgia Tech. Both talks are free and open to the public in Agnes Scott College's Evans Hall rooms ABC at 7:30 p.m. Please come . . . and spread the word!

ole0.bmp