PHI 350 Paper topics Due in class on April 16
Penalty for lateness: 2% per day.
Correct spelling and grammar are important: errors could lose you points. Be very clear in expressing your ideas, because we will not give you the benefit of the doubt if we can't tell exactly what you are trying to say. Make sure you know and explain the meanings and explain of any technical terms that you use.
For each of these questions, you can do extra research if you want. Good research will make your paper better. Kastenbaum's book should have some useful information. You may also find the articles in Ethical Issues in Death and Dying (EIDD) very useful for answering some of these questions. You should include a list of references at the end of your paper. If you quote any other text without making it explicit that it is a quotation, then this counts as plagiarism and you will automatically fail the course. If you paraphrase another text, you need to make it explicit that you are doing so, otherwise this could also count as plagiarism.
You can discuss drafts of your paper with either Christian Perring or Linette Lowe Keeling. Their contact information is on the syllabus. Fundamentally we are looking for evidence in your paper that not only have you grasped most of the important facts and have seen which ethical principles are relevant, but also that you are capable of thinking for yourself about an issue and explaining your reasoning to others.
Write a 4-5 page paper on just ONE of the following questions. Use font no larger than 12 point, margins no more than 1.25". No title page necessary. Staple your pages together.
1. Explain carefully what Robert Veatch is suggesting in The Impending Collapse of the Whole-Brain Definition of Death, (EIDD, p. 37) and how he argues his view. Then assess the plausibility of his suggestion, especially focusing on where you think his argument is weak or can be expanded on. (This last part of the paper must be at least 2 pages.)
Suppose that you are being employed as an ethical consultant
to advise what to do in one of the cases described below. Your job is to
help them to make a decision, not to impose your own personal opinions
on the people involved. In your answer, you should address all the following
issues:
2. Mrs. A, 85, suffers from organic brain syndrome secondary to diabetes. She can at times recognize her son and daughter-in-law, but she is generally confused and disoriented. Three years ago she developed cancer of the colon. The tumor is now widespread, with metastases to the liver. Even with aggressive treatment, she is unlikely to live more than a month. Her son and daughter-in-law insist that everything be done for her and that she be admitted to the intensive care unit. The attending physician suggests that the ICU does not offer her appropriate treatment. What she needs, the physician argues, is treatment aimed at keeping her comfortable and allowing her to die with as little intrusion and disturbance as possible. The son and daughter-in-law disagree; they say they love their mother and cannot see themselves giving her less than all available care. The physician would like to transfer her from the ICU, not only because the treatment is unlikely to be of benefit to Mrs. A but also because the care may entail well over $20,000 in costs that will not be reimbursed through Medicare. The ICU nurses agree with the family and argue that financial considerations should not play a role in such decisions.
3. Following an industrial accident ten years ago, Mr. B was left wheelchair-bound and with intractable chronic pain of his back and lower extremities. There have been repeated surgical attempts to alleviate the pain, but they have failed. For the last three years he has attended a chronic-pain clinic, but little progress has been made in blunting the daily suffering he experiences. He is 64 and had been extremely dependent on his wife. She died a year ago from a coronary. He has spent a great deal of time discussing his plight with one of the physicians at the pain clinic. As Mr. B sees it, he has nothing and no one to live for. He is consumed by his pain and restricted by his physical disabilities. He asks the physician to give him a prescription for enough pain medication so that, should he take it all, it would bring about his death. Mr. B argues that he and not the physician will be responsible for his own death, for the physician could always argue that he had simply given Mr. B sufficient pain medication to tie him over to the next visit.
4. The patient, an 84-year-old nursing home resident, suffers from severe and irreversible physical and mental impairment requiring that she be fed and medicated through a nasogastric tube. The nephew, who is her legally appointed guardian, wants to remove the nasogastric tube, even though this would certainly result in her death from dehydration in a week or less. He feels that she is not benefiting from being kept alive and is in pain and considerable indignity from her current condition. In short, he judges that she would be better off dead. The providers caring for this patient are very reluctant to follow his request, in large measure because they feel that removing the nasogastric tube would be equivalent to killing the patient.