Topic 1: Mr. Simpson

1) A brief introduction that summarizes the case.

2) Pick 1-2 components of the case to focus on from an ethical point of view and explain what about them strikes you as interesting, important, problematic, or relevant for a possible argument that answers the questions raised in the prompt. For instance, possible elements include, but are not limited to: patient autonomy, paternalism, beneficence, informed consent, patient competence, truth-telling, and lying.

3) Pick one of the dominant normative theories described in the Unit II lectures and readings (e.g. utilitarianism or Kantianism) that you find most persuasive/interesting/important. This theory will be the one you should plan on using to help support your argument. Define the theory and include 1-2 quotes from the text or powerpoints that can be used to either explain the theory or relate to the case components you picked in response to the previous question. Say a few words to explain what those quotes mean, along with related information necessary to understand the theory.

4) Sketch a possible argument-counterargument-reply that rests on the components and theory you decided to use from above. [Please note that you will not necessarily be expected to use the same argument in the final paper. Doing so for the final paper would be acceptable, pending responsiveness to feedback, but the main purpose is to help write a paper that focuses on this format. For more information on the expected format of an argument-counterargument-reply, see the Paper Overview Presentation]

Topic 1: Mr. Simpson

1) A brief introduction that summarizes the case.

2) Pick 1-2 components of the case to focus on from an ethical point of view and explain what about them strikes you as interesting, important, problematic, or relevant for a possible argument that answers the questions raised in the prompt. For instance, possible elements include, but are not limited to: patient autonomy, paternalism, beneficence, informed consent, patient competence, truth-telling, and lying.

3) Pick one of the dominant normative theories described in the Unit II lectures and readings (e.g. utilitarianism or Kantianism) that you find most persuasive/interesting/important. This theory will be the one you should plan on using to help support your argument. Define the theory and include 1-2 quotes from the text or powerpoints that can be used to either explain the theory or relate to the case components you picked in response to the previous question. Say a few words to explain what those quotes mean, along with related information necessary to understand the theory.

4) Sketch a possible argument-counterargument-reply that rests on the components and theory you decided to use from above. [Please note that you will not necessarily be expected to use the same argument in the final paper. Doing so for the final paper would be acceptable, pending responsiveness to feedback, but the main purpose is to help write a paper that focuses on this format. For more information on the expected format of an argument-counterargument-reply, see the Paper Overview Presentation]