Biomedical ethics final

Valid Argument

If the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. Refers to the logical structure of the argument rather than the actual truth of the premises.

Deductive

1) If all premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

2) All of the info or factual content in the conclusion was already contained, at least implicity in the premises

Inductive

1) If all of the premises are true, the conclusion is probably true but not necessarily true

2) The conclusion contains info not present, even implicity, in the premises

Utilitarianism

X is the morally right thing to do = X maximizes net happiness (total happiness created by the action - total suffering created by the action)

Kantianism

X is morally wrong when X uses another person merely as a means to an end (goal)

Ex. Tuskegee Study

The Social Model of Disability

This model views disability as a social construct resulting from the interaction between individuals and societal barriers, rather than a biological or medical deficiency.

The Medical Model of Disability

This model views disability primarily as a medical impairment or deficiency within the individual, focusing on diagnosis, treatment, and rehabilitation. The impairment is viewed as something that needs to be cured or treated.

Rachel Cooper’s definition of disease

My condition X is a DISEASE =

1) X is BAD FOR ME to have
2) I am UNLUCKY to have X

3) X is MEDICALLY TREATABLE

Objection to 1: If Cooper’s definition is right, then the same physiological condition could be a disease for you but not for me. (The fix: We should replace ‘bad for me’ with ‘bad for a typical person’ (in my demographic).).

Epistemic Injustice

An injustice done to you as a knower

Testimonial Injustice

The speaker is given less credibility than they deserve, because of a negative stereotype about a group the speaker belongs to

Hermeneutical Injustice

The concepts needed to understand the wronged person’s experience are not part of the dominant set of concepts

John Stuart Mills’s Principle of Liberty

A philosophical concept advocating that individuals should have the freedom to act as they choose, provided their actions do not harm others.

James Rachels argument #1

(C): Morality is NOT relative

(P1): If morality was relative, then we could no longer say that the customs of other societies are inferior to our own.

(P2): Saying that the customs of other societies are inferior to our own is not true.

James Rachel argument #2

(C): Morality is NOT relative

(P1): If morality was relative, then we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society.

(P2): Deciding whether actions are right or wrong by consulting the standards of our society is not true.

James Rachel argument #3

(C): Morality is NOT relative

(P1): If morality was relative then, the idea of moral progress is called into doubt.

(P2): The idea of moral progress being called into doubt is not true.

Warren argument that most abortions are morally permissible

(C): All fetuses are not persons

(P1): All beings that lack consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and a self-concept are not persons

(P2): All fetuses lack consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, the capacity to communicate, and a self-concept

Marquis argument that most abortions are morally impermissible

(C): Abortion is prima facie morally wrong

(P1): Abortion deprives something of a valuable future like ours.

(Objection P1): Fetuses lack the desire to live and their futures are not valuable to them.

(Reply Objection): A suicidal teen's future is ultimately valuable to them even though such futures do not seem valuable to them at the moment of attempted suicide. A fetus's future can be valuable in the same way.

(P2): Anything that deprives something of a valuable future like ours is prima facie wrong.

John Harris: Fair Innings Argument

(C): When there aren’t enough medical resources for everyone, people who have NOT yet reached a reasonable life span should get priority over people who HAVE reached that reasonable life span (other things being equal).

(P1): Everyone should have an equal chance to reach a reasonable life span

(P2): If everyone should have an equal chance to reach a reasonable life span, then when there aren’t enough medical resources for everyone, people who have NOT yet reached that reasonable life span should get priority over people who HAVE reached that reasonable life span (other things being equal).

John Harris: Anti-Ageist Argument

(C): It is unfair to choose a young person’s life at the expense of an older person’s life (other things being equal).

(P1): There are older people who value living out the rest of their life just as much as younger people value living out their life.

(P2): If an older person values thing X just as much as a younger person values thing Y, and only one of X or Y can happen, then (even if Y>X) it is unfair to choose to give the younger person Y, at the expense of the older person not getting X (other things being equal).

Debra Satz’s argument IN FAVOR of legalizing kidney sales

(C): Kidney sales should be legalized

(P1): Legalization of kidney sales would increase the supply of kidneys.

(P2): People who are currently dying while still on the waiting list would be saved.

Debra Satz’s argument AGAINST of legalizing kidney sales

(C): Kidney sales should not be legalized

(P1): Legalization would crowd out altruistic motivations

(P2): Individuals may feel pressured to sell their kidneys due to financial needs rather than offering them out of kindness.

Objection: There would be a increase in overall supply of kidneys

Reply: A legalization could undermine the ethical value of donation, where gifts should be freely given rather than commodified.

Rachel Cooper’s argument against Boorse’s definition of ‘disease’

Boorse’s definition: Health= not normal functioning; n organism’s X is healthy = X has at least as much normal functioning as other organisms of that species, who are the same age and sex

(P) the function of an organ (or whatever) is that the organ’s standard contribution to survival and reproduction, which is what was selected for by natural selection in the past

Cooper’s argument against:

(C) Boorse’s definition is too broad

(P1) If being gay or lesbian diminishes reproductive success, Boorse’s definition would have to count them as diseases

(P2) Being gay or lesbian its not a disease

Parens and Asch expressivist argument against abortion

(C): We should not do genetic testing for disabilities followed by selective abortion.

(P1): We should not express unjust discriminatory attitudes.

(P2): Prenatal genetic testing for disabilities, followed by selective abortion expresses an unjust discriminatory attitude.

(Evidence for P2, P1): Anything that makes one part of a person stand in for the whole person expresses an unjust discriminatory attitude (toward people who have that part).

(Evidence for P2, P2): Prenatal genetic testing for disabilities followed by selective abortion makes one part of a person stand in for the whole person.

Bayne and Levy’s argument that surgeons should perform some patient-requested amputations of otherwise healthy limbs:

(C): In general, doctors should honor wannabes’ wishes to have their limb removed.

(P1): In general, doctors should honor (i) long-standing, (ii) competent, (iii) informed wishes of

patients.

(P2): Wannabes have a (i) long-standing*, (ii)competent, (iii) informed wish to have their limb

removed.

Callahan’s argument against active euthanasia:

(C): Active euthanasia is not ok

(P1): If active euthanasia is ok then the doctor must have her own independent reasons for thinking this patient’s suffering outweighs the good part of the patient’s life

(P2) Doctors don’t have their own reasons to think this patients life is not worth living

(Lachs objection): Callahan's ethical conclusions about euthanasia ignore context/people's lived experiences.

James Rachel’s argument that passive euthanasia is more humane than active euthanasia

(C): If passive euthanasia is ok, then so is active euthanasia

(P1): In many cases, active euthanasia is more humane than passive euthanasia

(P2): If X is in many cases, more humane than Y, then if Y is ok, then X is ok too

Oliver Wendell Holmes’ argument that sterilizing Carrie buck was constitutional

(C): Sterilizing Carrie Buck was constitutional

(P1): the state has the right to protect the welfare of society

(P2): the welfare of society may be promoted in certain cases by the sterilization of mental defectives

(P3): Carrie Buck is classified (by the state) as mentally defective

Nathan Nobis’s argument against harmful, non-therapeutic research on animals,
PLUS an objection, AND his reply

(C): Harmful, non-therapeutic use of animals in research is morally wrong.

(P1): Harmful, non-therapeutic experimentation on (conscious, sentiment) human beings - imposing disease, injury, addiction, pain, suffering, fear, distress, confinement and early death and so on - is morally wrong.

(P2): This fact can be explained or justified: we can identify what it is about these human beings that makes such experimentation wrong.

(P3): The best explanations for why these human experiments are morally wrong support belief that similarly harmful non-therapeutic experimentation on (concious, sentient) animals is morally wrong also.