bioethics cases

Analyze ONE of the followin" rel="nofollow">ing two bioethics cases below usin" rel="nofollow">ing the steps outlin" rel="nofollow">ined in" rel="nofollow">in the Bioethics packet. Instructions: Part 1: Outlin" rel="nofollow">ine (6 pts): Usin" rel="nofollow">ing the rubric below, create an outlin" rel="nofollow">ine that highlights the main" rel="nofollow">in poin" rel="nofollow">ints of the case you chose. Be sure to in" rel="nofollow">include as many thin" rel="nofollow">ings as you can thin" rel="nofollow">ink of in" rel="nofollow">in the followin" rel="nofollow">ing categories: ethical question or poin" rel="nofollow">ints of conflict, facts assessment, viewpoin" rel="nofollow">ints and obligations of in" rel="nofollow">interested parties, and possible consequences or outcomes. Make sure to be as thorough as possible in" rel="nofollow">in this outlin" rel="nofollow">ine. Facts should only in" rel="nofollow">include in" rel="nofollow">information described in" rel="nofollow">in the case. You do not need to do additional research. However, for the other categories you will want to thin" rel="nofollow">ink outside of what is mentioned directly and in" rel="nofollow">include additional factors. You may refer to your Recitation 6: Bioethics packet for guidance. Abstract (4 pts): After performin" rel="nofollow">ing the steps above, you should now write a short (1-paragraph) abstract detailin" rel="nofollow">ing the most important poin" rel="nofollow">ints on both sides of the issue. The purpose of this abstract is to give the reader an unbiased summary of the issue and thus should not in" rel="nofollow">include what you thin" rel="nofollow">ink is the correct course of action. Your abstract should in" rel="nofollow">include evidence that you considered multiple viewpoin" rel="nofollow">ints and possible outcomes. Note that this abstract needs only contain" rel="nofollow">in the most relevant in" rel="nofollow">information and does not have to in" rel="nofollow">include everythin" rel="nofollow">ing you have in" rel="nofollow">in your outlin" rel="nofollow">ine. You should write this abstract clearly and with proper spellin" rel="nofollow">ing and grammar. The followin" rel="nofollow">ing are a list of areas on which this assignment will be graded. We encourage you to review these criteria and use them as a guide. 1 OUTLINE RUBRIC Not Acceptable Or Not Present: Required in" rel="nofollow">information not present (0-25%) Needs Major Improvement: Only some of the required in" rel="nofollow">information is present (50%) Needs Min" rel="nofollow">inor Improvement: Most of the required in" rel="nofollow">information is present (75%) Excellent: Includes all required in" rel="nofollow">information (100%). Ethical question or poin" rel="nofollow">ints of conflict (1pt) None to a few of the issues are listed and/or not completely described (<0.25pts) Only some of the poin" rel="nofollow">ints of conflicts are listed and they may or may not be described. (0.25- 0.5) Most to all of the poin" rel="nofollow">ints of conflict are listed, but only some described. (0.5-0.75) Most to all of the poin" rel="nofollow">ints of conflict are listed and described. (0.75-1) Statement of facts (1pt) None to a few of the facts are listed and/or not completely described (<0.25pts) Only some of the facts are listed and they may or may not be described. (0.25-0.5) Most to all of the facts are listed, but only some described. (0.5-0.75) Most to all of the facts are listed and described. (0.75-1) Viewpoin" rel="nofollow">ints & Obligations of in" rel="nofollow">interested parties or stakeholders (2pts) Only a sin" rel="nofollow">ingle party is identified and their perspectives/expectations explain" rel="nofollow">ined or multiple parties merely listed but not explain" rel="nofollow">ined. (<0.5pts) A few parties are identified and their perspectives/expectations explain" rel="nofollow">ined, some parties merely listed but not explain" rel="nofollow">ined or not listed at all. (0.5-1) Most of the important parties are identified and their perspectives/ expectations explain" rel="nofollow">ined. Some are not listed/not explain" rel="nofollow">ined. (1-1.5) All of the important parties are identified and their perspectives/ expectations explain" rel="nofollow">ined. (1.5-2) Consequences or Outcomes (2pts) Consequences of possible actions are not considered. (<0.5pts) A potential consequence is considered in" rel="nofollow">in part, but some outcomes are ignored. (0.5-1) Multiple consequences are considered at least in" rel="nofollow">in part. (1-1.5) Consequences are completely and thoroughly considered in" rel="nofollow">in the paper. (1.5-2) ABSTRACT RUBRIC Not Acceptable Or Not Present: Required in" rel="nofollow">information not present (0-25%) Needs Major Improvement: Only some of the required in" rel="nofollow">information is present (50%) Needs Min" rel="nofollow">inor Improvement: Most of the required in" rel="nofollow">information is present (75%) Excellent: Includes all required in" rel="nofollow">information (100%). Overall argument (4pts) Writin" rel="nofollow">ing has numerous errors and is unclear. A logical argument is not apparent. (<1pts) Moderate writin" rel="nofollow">ing errors, which may distract from the essays readability. Discussion of the topic is in" rel="nofollow">incomplete. (1-2) Min" rel="nofollow">inor writin" rel="nofollow">ing errors that do not distract from the essay’s readability. A solid discussion of the chosen topic, some min" rel="nofollow">inor poin" rel="nofollow">ints omitted (2-3) Essay shows logic, and understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of the situation. A thorough discussion of the chosen topic. Writin" rel="nofollow">ing is clear and error- free. (3-4) BIOL 200: Concepts in" rel="nofollow">in Biology Valley of Sorrow BIOETHICS CASE STUDIES (CHOOSE ONLY ONE) by Stephanie Curtis (North Carolin" rel="nofollow">ina State), Paul Dawson (Clemson), James Moyer (North Carolin" rel="nofollow">ina State), and Robert Zall (Cornell) Dr. Howard Johnson is a tenured Associate Professor in" rel="nofollow">in the biochemistry department at a public university. He has been collaboratin" rel="nofollow">ing with a large, multin" rel="nofollow">inational pharmaceutical firm for the past six years. Durin" rel="nofollow">ing this time the company has supported his research to the extent that they are the sole source of his fundin" rel="nofollow">ing. The research is widely respected and he receives multiple requests each year for semin" rel="nofollow">inars, review articles, etc. He anticipates that his promotion credentials for Full Professor will be forwarded to the University Committee in" rel="nofollow">in two to three years. As part of his research program with the company, he serves as an "external reviewer" in" rel="nofollow">in the annual evaluation of the Research and Development section of the corporation. In doin" rel="nofollow">ing so, he signs a confidentiality agreement which covers the research activities discussed durin" rel="nofollow">ing the review. This year Dr. Johnson was in" rel="nofollow">inadvertently in" rel="nofollow">included in" rel="nofollow">in a discussion at the social gatherin" rel="nofollow">ing followin" rel="nofollow">ing the review where one of the corporate scientists revealed that they had been utilizin" rel="nofollow">ing a widely recognized chemical synthesis to generate new compounds which could be used as antidotes to certain" rel="nofollow">in viral in" rel="nofollow">infections. Because of prior use and the obvious nature of the synthesis as presented in" rel="nofollow">in the literature, neither the process nor the compounds could be patented. Thus, as soon as word of this process leaks out, it would be available to any of their competitors. Durin" rel="nofollow">ing the course of this conversation he learned that in" rel="nofollow">in secret trials one of the compounds reduced the mortality of Rift Valley Fever by 90%. About 5000 lives are lost annually to this and similar viruses in" rel="nofollow">in East African countries. The strategic plan adopted by the company was to withhold the distribution of those compounds. Management decided that they could not afford to release this compound to a developin" rel="nofollow">ing country which would amount to a purely philanthropic gesture until after they had time to develop the compounds for in" rel="nofollow">influenza and the common cold. This would require about five years to obtain" rel="nofollow">in all of the permits needed to market such an antidote in" rel="nofollow">in developed countries. Unless the market in" rel="nofollow">in developed countries could be reached the antidotes would not be economically feasible to develop. However, if developed tens of thousands of additional lives lost to in" rel="nofollow">influenza would be saved. 2 BIOL 200: Concepts in" rel="nofollow">in Biology The Jenny Ito Case (Bebeau et al. 1995, Copyright © 1995 by Indiana University) Jenny Ito is a second-year graduate student workin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the biology lab of Chris Holzer. Ito has been overseein" rel="nofollow">ing an experiment that Holzer designed to determin" rel="nofollow">ine whether a special anti- bacterial coatin" rel="nofollow">ing can reduce the in" rel="nofollow">incidence of in" rel="nofollow">infection associated with the use of steel surgical pin" rel="nofollow">ins. With Holzer’s help, Ito has in" rel="nofollow">inserted a two-in" rel="nofollow">inch pin" rel="nofollow">in in" rel="nofollow">into the right tibia of thirty rabbits; fifteen of the pin" rel="nofollow">ins are standard surgical pin" rel="nofollow">ins, and fifteen have the anti-bacterial coatin" rel="nofollow">ing. About one- quarter in" rel="nofollow">inch of each pin" rel="nofollow">in protrudes through the skin" rel="nofollow">in. Ito also in" rel="nofollow">inocculated all of the rabbits at the in" rel="nofollow">insertion poin" rel="nofollow">int with 1 x 108 Staphylococcus aureus and routin" rel="nofollow">inely admin" rel="nofollow">inisters morphin" rel="nofollow">ine at 5 mg/kg to alleviate any discomfort the rabbits may be experiencin" rel="nofollow">ing because of the procedure. For almost a month, Ito has cared for the rabbits and recorded her observations, watchin" rel="nofollow">ing for any sign of distress or in" rel="nofollow">infection. In her weekly meetin" rel="nofollow">ing with Holzer, Ito reports that none of the rabbits seems to be particularly uncomfortable, and none of them shows any signs of in" rel="nofollow">infection. Holzer seems impatient. “If we don’t get an in" rel="nofollow">infection, we won’t learn anythin" rel="nofollow">ing. Here’s what we’ll do. Sin" rel="nofollow">ince it would be a shame to have put these rabbits through this, not to mention wastin" rel="nofollow">ing all your time, without gettin" rel="nofollow">ing some results, I want you to help thin" rel="nofollow">ings along a bit. I want you to in" rel="nofollow">innoculate all of the rabbits with 1 x 109 Pseudomonas aerugin" rel="nofollow">inosa. We’ll see what happens then.” Ito hesitates. “The protocol specifies Staphylococcus, Dr. Holzer.” Holzer brushes this off. “It’s only a small change. We’ve been approved to run the risk of in" rel="nofollow">infectin" rel="nofollow">ing these rabbits; all we’re goin" rel="nofollow">ing to do is give the process a little boost.” And with that Holzer walks away. Ito knows how to do what she’s been asked, but she is not sure whether she should. When she goes home that night, she mentions her dilemma to her roommate, Ruth Thompson, an English major. Thompson snorts. “Why are you so squeamish now? Go ahead and do it. In fact, if you really want to make him happy, you should put the new bacteria on just the untreated pin" rel="nofollow">ins. That’ll prove his poin" rel="nofollow">int!” Ito responds, “Thanks for the sarcasm. You know I can’t do that; it would be bad science.” “The whole thin" rel="nofollow">ing is bad science,” Thompson retorts. “Torturin" rel="nofollow">ing bunnies like that.” Ito throws up her hands in" rel="nofollow">in exasperation. “You’re not helpin" rel="nofollow">ing me at all, Ruth! I know you don’t approve of animal experimentation, but sometimes it’s necessary, and I’m convin" rel="nofollow">inced this is one of those times. Still, Pseudomonas can cause a really nasty in" rel="nofollow">infection, and I hate to subject the rabbits to it, especially sin" rel="nofollow">ince it’s so hard to treat. You know, they’re sort of cute and I’ve gotten kin" rel="nofollow">ind of fond of them over the last month. And then there’s the whole question of the protocol. . . ” Ito moans as she throws herself down on the couch. Thompson takes a deep breath. “Well, your boss has already told you that it falls within" rel="nofollow">in the realm of reasonable in" rel="nofollow">interpretation of the protocol. You’ve always got to in" rel="nofollow">interpret everythin" rel="nofollow">ing, you know. Besides, you always planned on some of these rabbits developin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">infections. What does it matter if they’re in" rel="nofollow">infected by one bacterium or another? Hey, if it makes you feel better, look at it this way: If you don’t get results, you’ll just have to yank the pin" rel="nofollow">ins from this batch and operate on a new bunch of bunnies. In the end, it would reduce the sufferin" rel="nofollow">ing if you just brewed up the new bugs and poured them on.” With that, Thompson walks away, clearly disgusted by the whole procedure.