Advance Bio/ Comp & Comm
Objectives: Examine in detail a bioethics issue- Explore opinions of those in the forum community- Participate in a class discussion
|
| | Forum | Topics | Posts | Last Posts |
|---|
 | Bioethics:
Science asks "Can we?"
Law asks "May we?"
Morality asks "Should we?"
Objectives:
Examine in detail a bioethics issue
Explore opinions of those in the forum community
Participate in a class discussion
| 67 | 145 | Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:40 pm
vannegio  |  |  | The week before the start of the new semester would be a busy one for Sandra Maxwell. As one of three biology teachers at Irving Community College in Marshall, Alabama, she would have to meet with the entire science department, get her laboratory ready, and review the new textbooks. Last year the department had gone through the long, tedious adoption procedure that involved reading and rating over fifteen different books. They had narrowed the fifteen down to three, and the community college board picked from those. Sandra really didn't care which one they had picked; no matter what, she would have to redo her lessons to fit a new book. There was even more about her new textbook that Sandra didn't know. The Alabama State Board of Education had adopted an anti-evolution insert to go in all high school and state college biology texts. The insert stated that evolution is a "controversial theory" accepted by "some scientists." When Sandra saw the insert, she was upset. Could she teach creationism? Creationism, broadly speaking, is the view that God (the Judeo-Christian God) created the universe, life, and the various kinds of life. Some creationists have sought to undermine the theory of evolution by claiming, for example, that the earth is only 10,000 years old, not 4.5 billion, and that therefore evolution hasn't had time to occur. They also have argued that DNA could not have developed on its own without the help of an "intelligent agent"-namely, God. Ever since State v Scopes, the famous Tennessee "Monkey Trial" in 1925 (dramatized in the 1960 film Inherit the Wind), the biology classroom has been the site of a battle pitting science against religion. In the era of the Scopes trial, American fundamentalists had pressed for, and achieved in some states, the passage of anti-evolution laws. More recently, as reported in Science magazine in 1996, creationists have attempted a new strategy: persuading local school boards to give "equal time" in school curricula to alternative theories such as "scientific creationism." In several states-Ohio and Georgia being two-legislatures are considering bills that will require biology teachers to present "alternative theories" to evolution. Sandra Maxwell and her fellow biology teachers were confused and unhappy about the situation. As a teacher, Sandra wasn't sure what to do. Questions What should Sandra do? Give three options. If you were a member of the legislature in any of the states considering the bills referred to, would you vote to include "creationism" in the curriculum? Give three reasons why or why not. Some biology teachers are skipping evolution altogether in order to avoid the controversy. Do you think evolution should be left out of the curriculum? Why or why not? Although many of the "anti-evolution laws" have been struck down at the state and federal level, groups have found other ways to promote "creationism." One of these is getting onto local school boards who select textbooks. What might textbook companies do to avoid problems with these school boards? Give three options. In 1982, in McLean v Arkansas Board of Education, a federal district court ruled that "creation science" is religion, and in 1987, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that in Edwards v Aguillard, ruling that "creationism" could not be taught in the public schools. Speculate on the reasoning behind these rulings.
| 5 | 14 | Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:55 pm
hjackovitz | | | The law suit was unusual, but the story wasn't. It involved high stakes sports and negligence.
Mike O'Malley had excelled in high school academically as well as athletically. He was varsity quarterback for all four years, and everyone expected him to be drafted by a professional team. After graduating from high school, he received a full scholarship to a very well known university and immediately became the starting quarterback on the football team.
The high school coach, Frank Inset, felt very close to Mike and was watching his career with interest and concern. He went to many games to see Mike play. One day, at an important game, Frank was watching a play through his binoculars. He noticed Mike was limping slightly. During another play, Mike was tackled and did not get up immediately. Frank was concerned. He continued to watch even during the time-outs to see how the coach would handle the situation. Frank thought that Mike should be taken out of the game.
That didn't happen. Mike played the rest of the game. By the end of the day, he was in severe pain. He went to the emergency room that night and was admitted into the hospital immediately. He was found to have serious damage to his knee, and was told he needed surgery. Doctors felt that he would need months of physical therapy following the surgery and might have permanent damage. His college football career was probably over, and he would almost certainly never play professional football.
Frank told Mike's parents of his concerns about the college coach's decision during the game. He felt the damage would have been much less if Mike had been taken out of the game as soon as he was injured. Mike's parents saw an attorney who said they might have a case against the university and the coach.
Questions
If you were Mike's attorney, how would you argue the case? Give three arguments.
If you were the attorney for the university or the coach, how would you argue the case? Give three arguments.
Should the university have rules that control a coach's behavior in such situations? Why or why not?
In pro football, an athlete often has a contract that requires him to be paid even if he is injured. Is this right? Why or why not?
| 23 | 30 | Fri Feb 14, 2014 9:40 pm
vannegio | | | hen Should Parental Child Abuse Or Neglect, Not Be? Parents, beyond the innate biologic or humanistic need or action to care for and provide for their offspring in addition to keeping them safe and avoiding abuse or neglect, have a socially dictated duty to do so. Those parents who fail in these duties may be subject to legal penalties up to and including imprisonment and the removal of their children from their control. The definition of parental child abuse or neglect has in recent times been subjected to some ethical and legal debate. Whereas intentional and obvious physical injury or sexual abuse by a parent is seemingly uncontestable, there remains some parental behavior which is yet uncertain. Some recent areas of discussion, where legal action against parents have already occurred include the outcomes of fetuses (fetal death or ill newborns) of addicted mothers who have used cocaine during pregnancy. If cocaine causes harm to the fetus, is this different than mothers who smoke or drink alcohol during pregnancy which is also understood to be harmful or a mother not wearing a seat restraint while driving? Another issue are parents who allow their children to become morbidly obese and thus subjecting them to associated serious medical illnesses such as hypertension or diabetes. Is overfeeding children an abuse? Still another situation brought to legal attention as neglect involved parents of a child already treated for cancer but the parents declined consent for further physician-advised therapy because to them the harms of the treatment outweighed the benefit. Consider whether these behaviors represent to you child abuse or neglect and what would be an explanation of your view
| 5 | 14 | Thu Nov 29, 2012 10:15 pm
chenke12 | | | Is It Ethical to Obtain Stem Cells from Embryos Respectfully Let to Die? Stem cells are cells within early embryos prior to implantation in the uterus that have the potential to create tissues which can be given to patients whose own tissues are missing or diseased. Currently, stem cells are being used for research to see how this can be successfully accomplished. There has been much concern by some how stem cells are obtained for this scientific research. The concern revolves around whether embryos are being killed in order to remove these special cells. Some feel that embryos even prior to implantation represent potential persons who have rights that include the right to live and not be killed even to save the life of a patient. To get around this moral dilemma, Mary and Anthony Mahowald writing in The American Journal of Bioethics (volume 2 number 1) suggest an ethical bypass. They argue that "killing: and "letting die" should have the same standard moral and legal distinction in embryos as it has with persons who have been born. In these persons, organs are not obtained for research or transplantation by killing the person but are obtained only after the person has died. The Mahowalds argue that "embryos in a petri dish are more likely to die than become indisputably persons by being born---even if they are transferred to a woman’s body for gestation. The great majority are non-viable, which means that they will die in a short time (the onset of which may be delayed though freezing) no matter what efforts are made to sustain their development. Since death is certain for thousands of in vitro embryos, shouldn't the same standard by which hospital patients are legally and morally allowed to die be acceptable for them? ... If stem cells are then retrieved from embryos that have expired, the retrieval is morally analogous to retrieval of vital organs from those who are newly deceased. ... Regardless of whether developing embryos are deemed persons, respect for human life in its earliest stages is compatible with research on stem cells obtained from human embryos so long as the cells are retrieved from embryos that have been allowed, respectfully, to die." Since stem cells can be used from recently dead embryos, the ethical bypass by the Mahowalds could be practical. How do you feel about their argument in defence of the procurement of stem cells from such embryos? Should embryos that have just died have more right to their own integrity than a patient who has just died? If not, then there should be nothing unethical or immoral to obtain their stem cells. Correct?
| 8 | 17 | Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:03 pm
victoria_best94 | | | For What Reasons Would You as a Patient Enter a Randomized Clinical Drug Trial? Pharmaceutical companies as well as other research laboratories are regularly developing new drugs for treatment of symptoms and diseases. At some later stage of the drug development it is necessary to determine in human subjects whether the new drug is effective for treatment. This requires a study called a clinical drug trial and will require patients who have the symptoms or disease to be the subjects of the trial. The goal of the trial is to determine if the new drug has some beneficial effect over no drug and if so is the new drug equal to or superior to an established drug for the condition. Patients are divided into groups in which one group will get the new drug treatment and one group will get the established drug treatment, if one is available, and the third group will get a placebo ("sugar pill"), which may represent no drug treatment. In order to provide a scientifically significant answer, it is necessary to randomize the trial so that no patient and no investigator who is doing the study is aware of who got what. This is called a "double blind randomized controlled study". A scientist who is not involved making a conclusion of the results is aware of the randomization and can stop the study for a patient who is having a reaction or for a group that may be harmed. The details of the scientific and therapeutic value of the study, potential benefits and risks should be made available to the subject as part of what is called informed consent. The ethical use of a placebo is controversial but is considered by some ethical if the risk for harm is small and potential harm to the patient by no treatment is mild. What would be of interest is whether you as a patient with a condition, which is being studied, would volunteer for a study where you would not know whether you got a new or old medicine or no medicine. And if you would enter the study, for what reasons would you do so?
| 9 | 22 | Fri Sep 28, 2012 12:41 pm
hjackovitz | | | Use the following articles and other resources to generate a response to whether organ harvesting should be legal. Should people be allowed to sell their organs for money? Clarify your position.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/which-organs-can-i-live-without-and-how-much-cash-can-i-get-them
http://www.radicalnewthoughts.com/selling-human-organs.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-01/organ-gangs-force-poor-to-sell-kidneys-for-desperate-israelis.html
| 8 | 24 | Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:17 pm
cbowley | | | Using research and citing articles, answer the following question:
Do patients who are terminally ill have the right to decide how and when they die?
| 9 | 24 | Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:23 pm
hjackovitz |
| Who is online? |  | Our users have posted a total of 468 messages
We have 36 registered users
The newest registered user is vannegio | In total there are 2 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 2 Guests
Most users ever online was 30 on Thu Dec 19, 2013 10:53 am
Registered Users: None
| No users have a birthday today
No users are having a birthday in the upcoming 7 days | | Legend : [ Moderators ] |
 | New posts | | | No new posts | |  | Forum is locked |
| |
|
