Untitled document (2)

.pdf

School

Michigan State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

894

Subject

Philosophy

Date

May 10, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

1

Uploaded by SuperRockSquirrel4

SHORT QUESTIONS [2 SENTENCES] 1. What is the standard gambling technique for determining quality of life? -The standard gambling technique for determining quality of life involves using a utility function to assign subjective values to different potential outcomes. 2. What is the ranking scale technique for determining quality of life?- assigns numerical values to health states based on their perceived desirability or utility. 3. What is the time trade-off technique for determining quality of life? - involves individuals trading off a portion of their remaining life expectancy to avoid living in a particular health state. 4. What is the double jeopardy objection to QALY? - argues that using (QALYs) discriminates against individuals with disabilities or chronic conditions by valuing their lives less than those without such conditions. 5. What is the difference between ‘deaf’ and ‘Deaf’? - The capitalized 'Deaf' is often used to emphasize the cultural and linguistic aspects of deafness as opposed to the purely medical or auditory aspects represented by the lowercase 'deaf'. 6. What does it mean to be conservative vs. liberal in terms of genetic enhancement ?- Being conservative in genetic enhancement generally means advocating for caution and restraint, emphasizing the potential risks and ethical considerations, while being liberal involves being more open to exploring and implementing genetic enhancements with fewer restrictions. 7. What are the criteria that QALY calculations take into account ?- Health-related quality of life scores, Life expectancy, Severity of health conditions, Effectiveness of treatments, Individual preferences and values 8. Describe the difference between macro- and micro-allocation. - Macro-allocation refers to the distribution of resources or healthcare services among different populations or regions, while micro-allocation involves allocating resources at the individual level, such as determining which patients receive specific treatments. 9. How do physical characteristics play into the adoption of culture? - can influence the adoption of culture by shaping perceptions of identity, belonging, and social status within a cultural group. 11. What are the three major types of genetic modification? Gene Therapy,Genetic Enhancement, Genetic Engineering 12. What features do philosophers usually discuss when it comes to enhancement and why? - discuss features such as autonomy, fairness, and the enhancement's impact on well-being when debating the ethics of enhancement, as these features are central to understanding the moral implications of altering human capacities. 13. Why is the Russian alcoholism treatment of “coding” an unimaginable practice in the U.S.?- is unimaginable in the U.S. due to ethical concerns surrounding genetic manipulation for behavioral control and the potential infringement on individual autonomy and consent. 15. What is economism? - economic factors are the primary drivers of social, political, and cultural phenomena. It suggests that economic considerations overshadow and dictate other aspects of human life and society. 1. Describe Harris’ arguments regarding ageism in the QALY system and how the fair innings argument stands to disprove it.- Harris argues QALY exhibits ageism by devaluing the life years of older individuals, leading to unequal distribution of healthcare resources. The fair innings argument, proposed by Harris, attempts to counter this by asserting that individuals have a fair claim to a certain number of healthy years in their lifetime, justifying prioritization of younger individuals for healthcare interventions as they have not yet reached their "fair innings." However, this argument remains contentious as it may perpetuate age-based discrimination in healthcare allocation despite aiming to address it. 2. What are some of the primary “erosion” arguments against genetic enhancement? 2. Social Inequality: There are concerns that genetic enhancement could exacerbate existing social inequalities by favoring those with the resources to access and afford enhancement technologies. 3. Unpredictable Long-Term Consequences: Critics argue that the long-term effects of genetic enhancement on individuals and society are uncertain and could lead to unintended negative consequences. 4. Ethical and Moral Concerns: Many argue that genetic enhancement raises significant ethical and moral questions related to human identity, autonomy, and the sanctity of life. 5. Potential for Discrimination: Genetic enhancement could create a societal divide between the genetically enhanced and non-enhanced individuals, leading to discrimination and stigmatization. 3. What are the three distinct arguments that Levy sees Deaf advocates making against cochlear implants? - disability argument, the culture argument, and the message argument. 4. Explain the disability argument and Levy’s response to i t.- The disability argument posits that cochlear implants are seen as a way to "fix" or "cure" deafness, which is perceived as a form of disability. Levy's response to this argument is that it is based on the medical model of disability, which views deafness as a problem to be fixed. He argues that the social model of disability, which focuses on the barriers and discrimination faced by deaf individuals, is more relevant in this context 5. Explain the ‘culture’ argument and Levy’s response to it.- The 'culture' argument asserts that cochlear implants threaten the unique Deaf culture and community by promoting assimilation into the hearing world. Levy's response to this argument is that Deaf culture is not inherently tied to the inability to hear, but rather to shared experiences, language, and identity. He argues that cochlear implants do not necessarily erode Deaf culture, but rather provide individuals with the choice to participate in both Deaf and hearing communities 6. Explain the ‘message’ argument and Levy’s response to it. - The 'message' argument suggests that the widespread adoption of cochlear implants sends a message that deafness is a problem to be fixed, rather than a natural variation in human experience. Levy's response to this argument is that the message sent by cochlear implants is not inherently negative, as they can provide individuals with access to sound and language. He argues that the focus should be on ensuring that individuals have access to information and resources to make informed choices about their own bodies and identities. 7. What was the 1961 Seattle ‘God Committee,’ and what were some of the issues with it?- panel of medical professionals tasked with allocating dialysis resources, making life-and-death decisions based on criteria like marital status, age, and social worthiness, raising ethical concerns about discrimination and the value of human life. Critics argued that the committee's decisions were arbitrary and lacked transparency, highlighting the need for more equitable and inclusive healthcare allocation systems. 8. Does choosing your child's genetic aptitude for certain activities violate their autonomy? - violate their autonomy if it restricts their ability to freely choose their own interests and pursuits, potentially limiting their personal development and self-determination. However, the extent of autonomy violation depends on factors such as the degree of parental influence and the child's ability to consent to genetic modifications. (A) Should a physician lie to their patient about a treatment (like coding) if the truth would make the patient stop receiving the treatment? What are some potential positions for and against this? The question of whether a physician should lie to their patient about a treatment, such as coding for alcoholism, if revealing the truth would make the patient stop receiving the treatment, is ethically complex and can generate various positions. On one hand, the principle of autonomy and informed consent dictates that patients have the right to make decisions based on accurate and complete information. By withholding the truth, the physician may be violating the patient's autonomy and right to be fully informed about their health and treatment options. Additionally, honesty is a fundamental component of the physician-patient relationship, and breaching this trust can have significant negative implications for the patient's overall care and well-being. However, on the other hand, some argue that in certain cases, such as when revealing the truth may lead to the patient refusing critical treatment, a physician may have a duty to act in the best interest of the patient's health. This perspective emphasizes the principle of beneficence, which requires healthcare providers to prioritize the well-being of their patients. From this standpoint, withholding information or even providing misleading information could be seen as a means to ensure that the patient continues to receive necessary care, even if it involves a departure from strict honesty. Ultimately, navigating this ethical dilemma requires careful consideration of the competing principles of autonomy, beneficence, and the preservation of the physician-patient relationship. (D) Are you for or against genetic modification? Why or why not? Human genetic modification, particularly in the context of germline editing, poses significant ethical, social, and scientific considerations. Proponents argue that genetic modification holds the potential to prevent genetic diseases, enhance human capabilities, and address health disparities. For instance, gene editing techniques like CRISPR-Cas9 offer the possibility of correcting genetic mutations responsible for hereditary conditions such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease. Furthermore, genetic modification could theoretically be used to enhance traits such as intelligence, strength, or longevity, leading to the concept of "designer babies." Advocates believe that such enhancements could improve human health and quality of life, ultimately benefiting society as a whole. However, there are numerous ethical concerns surrounding human genetic modification that give rise to opposition. One primary concern is the potential for unintended consequences and unforeseen risks associated with altering the human genome. Genetic editing techniques are still relatively nascent, and the long-term effects of modifying DNA in humans are not fully understood. Moreover, there are fears of exacerbating existing social inequalities by creating a divide between those who can afford genetic enhancements and those who cannot, leading to a "genetic elite" and widening socioeconomic disparities. Additionally, ethical considerations such as informed consent, autonomy, and the potential for eugenics-like practices loom large in discussions about the ethical permissibility of human genetic modification. In conclusion, the debate over human genetic modification is complex and multifaceted, with arguments both for and against based on scientific, ethical, and social considerations. While proponents highlight the potential benefits of genetic enhancement in improving human health and well-being, opponents raise valid concerns about the ethical implications, potential risks, and societal consequences of manipulating the human genome. Ultimately, the regulation and ethical oversight of human genetic modification will be crucial in navigating this challenging terrain and ensuring that any advancements in genetic technology are deployed responsibly and ethically.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help