syllabus wws 315 bioethics and public policy spring ...hts/pdfs/syllabus.pdf · wws 315 bioethics...

SYLLABUS WWS 315 BIOETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY

Spring Semester 2011

[All required weekly readings must be done before the seminar meets for the week in

question. (e.g., the readings for January 31st should be done before the first meeting of the seminar, etc.)]

Textbooks

Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter, A Companion to Bioethics, 2nd Edition, Blackwell Publishers, 2009. Students who do not wish to purchase this volume can access the particular assigned readings on electronic reserves. In addition, there are four copies of the first edition (2001) in the Stokes Library. Kuhse, Helga and Singer, Peter, Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition Blackwell Publishers, 2006. All the selected readings for this book are on electronic reserves. Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010.

Weekly Assignment: After our first seminar all students should come to our weekly seminar prepared to discuss the issues under consideration in the weekly readings, the controversies involved and a tentative view on the desirable role of public policy in the area under discussion.

Required Reading January 31st Meeting: A Brief Introduction/Overview of Normative Ethics and the Subject Matter of Bioethics In this first of our seminar meetings I will be doing more lecturing than in our remaining seminars. In future seminars I expect to share this sort of “leadership” with other members of the seminar. In the first segment of this week’s seminar I will outline the overall scope of the bioethics/public policy issues that will be dealt with in this seminar. This will include the briefest introduction to the development of various approaches to setting ethical norms,

2

a brief review of the major public policy tools available to address issues in bioethics and the relationship of bioethics to the law [particularly the U.S. Constitution] and to religion. Some common themes that will continue to arise in the seminar will be identified. In the second segment of this week’s seminar we will begin to focus on the material in this week’s required readings. Our objective in this segment (which will continue into next week’s session) is to gain an initial acquaintance with the nature and the kinds of questions raised by normative ethics and some of the proposed frameworks that have been developed for considering answers to these questions (Kuhse and Singer, Rachels, Childress, Boyle, and Hare). Particular attention will be devoted to distinguishing moral views based on consequences vs. duties vs. rights. The Gutmann and Thompson and the Warren readings focus on two specific issues that will come up again and again throughout the seminar namely: the problem faced by public policy makers in dealing with morally contested issues in a pluralistic democracy (Gutmann and Thompson) and the issue of Moral Status (Warren).

Boyle, J., “An Absolute Rule Approach”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 77-84; 2001, (first edition) pp. 72-79.

Childress, J. F., “A Principle-Based Approach”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.) A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 67-76; 2001 (first edition), pp. 61-71. Engelhardt, H., Tristram Jr., “Bioethics as Politics” in the Ethics of Bioethics, edited by Lisa A. Eckenwiler and Felicia G. Cohn, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007, pp. 118-133.

Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis, Democracy and Disagreement, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 1996, pp. 11-49.

Hare, R. M., “A Utilitarian Approach”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 85-90; 2001 (first edition), pp. 80-85.

Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), “What is Bioethics? A Historical Introduction”, A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 3-12; 2001 (first edition), pp. 3-11.

Oakley, Justin, “A Virtue Ethics Approach” in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 91-104; 2001 (first edition), pp. 86-97.

3

Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, “New Directions: The Ethics of Synthetic Biology and Emerging Technologies, December 2010, pp. 24-31.

Rachels, J., “Ethical Theory in Bioethics”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.) A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2009 (second edition), pp. 15-23; 2001 (first edition), pp. 15-23. Warren, Mary Anne, Moral Status, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 1-23, 148-177.

Since a great many contemporary bioethical issues arise from developments on the scientific frontier and resulting challenges for public policy in the second meeting of this seminar we will consider, in brief, an overview of the history of science and technology policy in the U.S. Since the U.S. government finances a great deal of both biomedical research and the provision of medical care public policy cannot escape its own moral responsibilities with respect to many bioethical issues. February 7th Meeting: Introduction (continued): Science Policy, Medical Ethics, “Concerns”

This week’s seminar will begin with a review of the material covered in segment two of our first meeting. In addition there will be three segments of new material. One will deal with the development of science policy in the U.S. since the involvement of the federal government in biomedical research and health care delivery is an important source of public policy disagreements in the arena of bioethics. A second segment is aimed at an initial understanding of both the history and nature of: medical ethics or the nature of the mutual obligations of physicians (and other care givers) and patients to each other. This is, perhaps, the oldest branch of what is now known as bioethics. Moreover, medical ethics is intimately connected to a relatively more recent issue in bioethics namely: the treatment of human subjects participating in medical experiments. A third segment will deal with some “concerns” regarding scientific and technological progress (i.e. How do we understand our simultaneous embrace of new technology and our continuing sense of unease regarding its meaning for our lives.)

Science Policy

Charo, R. Alta, The Endarkenment in “The Ethics of Bioethics” Eckenwiler, L.A. and Cohn, F.G. (eds), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007, pp.95-107. Dupree, A. Hunter, Science in the Federal Government, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1957, Chapters 1-3.

4

Grief, Karen F. and Merz, Jon F., Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007, Chapter 1, pp. 1-16. Martensen, R., “The History of Bioethics: An Essay Review. Journal of the History of Medicine, 2001, 56(2): pp. 168-175. Short, B.W., “History ‘Lite’ in Modern American Bioethics.” Issues in Law and Medicine, 2003, 19(I): pp. 45-76.

Smith, Bruce, American Science Policy Since World War Two, The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1990, Chapters 1-3.

Stokes, Donald, Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and

Technological Innovation, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. 1997, Chapters 1-2.

Medical Ethics

“Ancient” Approaches:

“AMA Code of Ethics (1847)” (see Course Pack).

Camus, Albert, “The Plague”, in The President’s Council on Bioethics, Being Human, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 126-130.

Percival, Thomas, “Medical Ethics (1803)”, Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns, ed. by Reiser, S.J., Dyck, A., and Curran, W., Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977, pp. 18-24.

“The Book of Sirach” in The President’s Council on Bioethics, Being

Human, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 123-125.

"The Hippocratic Oath" [see Course Pack].

Contemporary Approaches:

AMA “Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician Relationship”, a concise summary of the key principles (see Course Pack).

Emanuel, E. and Emanuel, L., “Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship”, in Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Steinbock,

5

Bonnie, Arras, John D., and London, Alex John, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 67-76.

Goldman, Alan, “The Refutation of Medical Paternalism” in Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, Steinbock, Bonnie, Arras, John D., and London, Alex John, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 2003, pp.56-64.

Jonsen, Albert R., The Birth of Bioethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 1-13.

Concerns Regarding Scientific and Technological Progress

Jasanoff, Sheila, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, Chapter 5, pp 93-113. Jonas, Hans, Philosophical Essays: From Ancient Creed to Technological Man, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1974, pp. 3-20.

Kass, L, “The New Biology: What Price Relieving Man’s Estate?” Science, (1971), 174(11): pp. 779-788. Sandel, Michael J. “The Case against Perfection”, Atlantic Monthly,

April 2004, pp. 51-62.

Shapiro, Harold T., “Some Ethical Dimensions of Scientific Progress.” In Shapiro, Harold T., A Larger Sense of Purpose, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005, pp. 120-162.

February 14th Meeting: Scientific Medicine and the Protection of Human Subjects This is an issue that is primarily associated with the rise of scientific medicine and the increasing desire to carry out experiments using human subjects beginning in the 19th century and continuing to the present day. There are earlier examples of circumstances where the investigation of the human body and/or specific diseases raised the issue of the investigator’s ethical obligations to human subjects, but our focus will be on developments since the rise of modern scientific medicine. We will also discuss a series of examples where human subjects were seriously abused and the impact of these events on the articulation and development of attitudes related to the protection of human subjects.

6

Fletcher, J., "Realities of Patient Consent to Medical Research", in: Jecker, N.S., Jonsen, A.R., and Pearlman, R.A., (eds.), Bioethics. An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice, Boston-London-Singapore: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997, pp. 51-60.

Freedman, B., “Equipoise and the Ethics of Clinical Research”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology, Oxford: 2nd edition Blackwell Publishers, 2006, pp. 513-519.

Jonas, Hans, "Philosophical Reflections on Experimenting with Human Subjects", in: Jecker, N.S., Jonsen, A.R., and Pearlman, R.A., (eds.), Bioethics. An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice, Boston-London-Singapore: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997, pp. 42-50.

Jonsen, Albert R., The Birth of Bioethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 125-158. Or Brody, Baruch A., The Ethics of Biomedical Research, New York: Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 31-54.

Moreno, Jonathan, Undue Risk, New York: Routledge, 2001. Sass, H.M., “Reichsrundschreiben 1931: Pre-Nuremberg German Regulations Concerning New Therapy and Human Experimentation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1983, 8: pp. 99-111.

“The Nuremberg Code” (see Course Pack).

February 21st Meeting: Federal and International Regulations Regarding Human Subjects Our primary focus in this session will be on the nature and development of the specific U.S. regulations regarding the protection of human subjects. In this respect it is particularly important to review The Belmont Report and the United States “Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 45 Part 46”. With respect to “CFR 45-46” the reading is hardly exciting or “gripping”, but it is critical to understand how difficult it is to translate ideas into regulations. Keep your focus on the challenge of protecting human subjects through voluntary informed consent and independent review of the risks, protections,

Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, Chapters 16-17, pp. 340-387.

7

and benefits of research protocols that employ human subjects. We will also take up the challenges of obtaining voluntary informed consent in more unusual settings (i.e. with vulnerable populations, with third party consent and when working in other countries). In the case of international research we will review various international documents such as the Nuremburg declaration, various UN declarations, the Declaration[s] of Helsinki, and the CIOMS reports dealing with the protection of human subjects. With respect to policy our attention should focus on whether or not contemporary oversight mechanisms should be enhanced.

Jonsen, Albert R., The Birth of Bioethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1988, pp. 99-122. Emanuel, E.J., Wendler, D., & Grady, C. “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?” Journal of the American Medical Association 283 (2000); pp. 2701-2711. Foddy, Bennet, “A Duty to Deceive; Placebos in Clinical Practice”, The American Journal of Bioethics, December 2009, Volume 9, Number 12, pp. 4-12. Brendel, D.H., and Miller, F.G., “A Plea for Pragmatism in Clinical Research Ethics”, American Journal of Bioethics, April 2008, Vol. 8, Number 4, pp. 24-31. Elliot, Carl, “Making a Killing”, in Mother Jones Vol. 35, no. 5 [September/October 2010], pp 55-63

Levine, Robert J., “International Codes and Guidelines for Research Ethics: A Critical Appraisal”, The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects: Facing the 21st Century, ed. Vanderpool, Harold Y., Frederick, MD: University Publishing Group, Inc., 1996, pp. 235-259. Miller, Franklin G. and Colloca, Luanda, “The Legitimacy of Placebo Treatments in Clinical Practice: Evidence and Ethics” The American Journal of Bioethics, December 2009, Volume 9, Number 12, pp 39-47.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report, “Research Involving People with Mental Disorders...”, Vol. I., Bethesda, Maryland, August 2001.

Shamoo, Adil E, Schwartz, Jack, “Universal and Uniform Protections of Human Subjects in Research,” The American Journal of Bioethics, December 2007, Volume 7, Number 12, pp. 7-9.

8

United States “Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Part 46” (see Course Pack).

United States, “Report and Recommendations for Research Involving Children. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research”, in: Source Book in Bioethics: A Documentary History, ed. by Jonsen, Albert R., Veatch, Robert M., and Walters, Leroy, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998, pp. 40-53.

United States, “The Belmont Report. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research” (see Course Pack). Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case

Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, chapters 16 and 17, pp. 340-364; Cases 6-1 through 6-6, pp. 116-132.

February 28th Meeting: The Moral Status of the Human Embryo and the Issue of Abortion This session will focus on aspects of what is in the U.S. the most politically polarizing and controversial issue within bioethics namely the moral status of the fertilized human ova and its implication for such issues as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and reproductive or therapeutic cloning. This session will focus on the general issues of how one might think about the moral status of the human embryo and the implications this holds for public policy on the issue of abortion. In this session we will also review both the ‘facts’ regarding the changing incidence of abortion, both where it is legal and illegal and some of the key arguments in the pro-life/pro-choice approaches. We will deal with these issues as they impact attitudes toward cloning and embryonic stem cell research at a later date.

The Moral Status of the Human Embryo.

A significant portion of contemporary bioethical controversies concern the moral status we assign, or should assign to the fertilized human ova and the resulting

Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, Chapters 16-17, pp. 340-387.

9

“early stage” embryo. This issue is significant in a large number of contexts including abortion, reproductive or therapeutic cloning, assisted reproductive technologies (e.g. IVF), and embryonic stem cell research. The issue of moral status also arises in the debate regarding the appropriate use of non-human animals which we will discuss in a subsequent seminar.

De Paula, Ignacio Carrasco, “The Respect Due the Human Embryo: A Historical and Doctrinal Perspective“, Identity and Statute [sic-!!!, recte=Status] of Human Embryo, ed. by Juan de Dios vial Correa and Elio Sgreccia, Citta di Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998, pp. 48-73. Singer, Peter, “Creating Embryos”, in Mappes, Thomas A. and Degrazia, David (eds) Biomedical Ethics 5th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 534-541.

Warren, Mary Anne, Moral Status, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 3-23. (Again!)

Abortion. The issue of Abortion is one of the most polarizing issues in America and one on which thoughtful persons have strong disagreements. Our task is to try to develop a clear understanding of the arguments behind the different views.

Marquis, D., “Why Abortion is Immoral”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, Oxford: 2nd Edition Blackwell, 2006, pp. 51-62.

Pope John Paul II, “The Unspeakable Crime of Abortion”, The Problem of Abortion, ed. by Dwyer, S. and Feinberg, J., New York: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1996, pp. 21-23.

Thomson, Judith Jarvis, “A Defense of Abortion”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd Edition, 2006, pp. 40-50. Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, Case 3-1, pp. 49-56, and Case 3-5, pp. 64-67.

Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, Chapter 10, pp. 207-226.

10

March 7th Meeting: The Status of Non-Human Animals. Experimentation with Animals, Animal Rights etc. There has been a long history of debate over the appropriate relationship of the human species to non-human animals. For some this reduces to a discussion of what the moral status of non-human animals is, but historically there has never been complete agreement on this issue. For others a large number of additional matters arise including the concern that if we mistreat non-human animals we will eventually mistreat humans as well, and the view that God’s world includes many forms of life all of which deserve thoughtful consideration. This session will focus on some of the principal approaches to these issues.

Bentham, J., “An Utilitarian View”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 566-567.

Cohen, C., “Do Animals Have Rights?” in: Beauchamp, T.L. and Walters, L.R., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Belmont, C.A: Wadsworth, 1998, pp. 495-501.

Kant, I., “Duties Towards Animals”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 564-565.

Regan, T., “The Case against Animal Research”, in: Beauchamp, T.L., and Walters, L.R., Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998, pp. 484-495.

Singer, P., “All Animals are Equal”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 568-577.

Warren, Mary Anne, Moral Status, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997, pp. 224-242.

March 21st Meeting: Eugenics, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Human societies have always been fascinated by familial relationships and the apparent inheritance of various traits from one’s parent or other family members. It is

11

only in the last century or so, however, that a scientific understanding of the genetic mechanisms governing aspects of this inheritance has been developed. While the full role of genes in determining various characteristics remains hotly debated, it seems quite clear that in most cases a large variety of genetic and environmental and cultural factors work together in some symbiotic manner. Nevertheless there are some traits that seem to be dominated by genetic factors and many more whose probability of expression (i.e. its presence in a specific phenotype) are impacted by genetic factors. Moreover in the last decade or so the possibility of altering one’s genetic inheritance via genetic engineering either on somatic or germ line cells has raised a number of controversial bioethical issues. In this session we will consider how these matters relate to the Eugenics movement.

Eugenics as a concept may have begun more or less innocently enough, as an idea that it might be a good idea to do something to improve the “quality” of the gene pool bequeathed to the next generation. In the late 19th century and until very recently this meant adopting certain social practices that “encouraged” the “right” people to reproduce and “others” to cease doing so. Quite aside from the misuse or mistaken use of science the movement had a tendency, one way or another, to became quite a coercive one eventually “culminating”, for example, in forced sterilization, or even more ominous in the Nazi eugenics program of the 1930s and 1940s. Nevertheless, continued progress on the biomedical frontier keeps bringing this issue back for the consideration of individuals as well as public policy. Contemporary discussions focus on the use of our new knowledge to eliminate disease, but this has proved difficult to separate fully from various eugenic concepts. On the U.S. legal front since the Supreme Court case of Buck v. Bell, involuntary sterilizations either as punishments for specific crimes or as a “public health” measure, have not withstood legal scrutiny.

The development of ART has provided a large number of intentional parents to overcome various fertility problems and enjoy the fulfillment of raising a family where the children have some biological relationship to at least one of the parents. It has also raised a number of new issues regarding our understanding of the meaning of family, the regulation of medical practice, and the role of public policy and the law with respect to defining the legal frameworks within which family rights and responsibilities are articulated.

Part I. Eugenics

Caplan, Arthur L., “What’s Morally Wrong with Eugenics?” in: Sloan, P., Controlling Our Destinies, Notre Dame, IN: University of Indiana Notre Dame Press, 2000, pp. 209-222. Paul, Diane, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present, Atlantic Highlands, N J: 1995, pp. 1-21.

12

Part II. Assisted Reproductive Technologies

Grief, Karen F. and Merz, Jon F., Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007, Chapter 4, pp. 77-99.

Ketchum, Sara Ann, “Selling Babies and Selling Bodies”, in Steinbock, Bonnie, Arras, John D., and London, Alex John, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 625-630. Levine, Aaron D., “Self Regulation, Compensation, and the Ethical Recruitment of Oocyte Donors”, in the Hastings Center Report, Volume 40, No. 2, March-April, 2010, pp. 25-36.

Macklin, Ruth, “What is Wrong with Commodification?”, New Ways of Making Babies, ed. by Cohen, C., Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 106-121.

Madison, P., “The Moral Right to Have Children”, in: Faden, R.R., Kass, N.E., HIV, AIDS, and Childbearing: Public Policy, Private Lives, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 320-344.

Pence, G. , “Maximize Parental Choice”, in: Stock, G., Campbell, J., (eds.), Engineering the Human Germline, New York: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 111-113.

Purdy, L.M., “Assisted Reproduction”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2009 (second edition), pp. 178-192; 2001 (first edition), pp. 163-172. Radin, M.J., “Contested Commodities: The Trouble with Trade In Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things”, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, Chapter 10, pp131-153.

Robertson, John, Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies, Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 149-194.

Shapiro, Vivian B., Shapiro, Janet R., and Paret, Isabel H., “Complex Adoption and Assisted Reproductive Technology”, The Guildford Press, New York, 2001. Chapter 8, pp. 173-200.

13

Zelizer, V. A., “From Baby Farms to Baby M” in Economic Lives: How Culture Shapes the Economy, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2011, pp 61-71.

March 28th Meeting: Further Issues in Genetics, Behavioral Genetics The development of genetic science has opened up a truly vast array of issues in bioethics in the following areas: genetic testing and reproduction, genetic screening, genetic counseling, gene therapy, parentage and family law, forensic testing, behavioral genetics, the regulation of genetic research, patenting of genes, and the use of genetic information. A relatively new interest within the “enhancement/privacy/safety” area is neuroethics which deals with the ethical issues arising because of the implications of new and prospective technologies able both to monitor brain function and to alter the brain with specific and selective chemicals. We will be able to deal with only a subset of these issues in this seminar, and will probably not have time to deal with neuroethics at any length. This session we will focus on the issue of enhancement and how this differs, if at all, from traditional “treatment” and the difference, if any, between medical and behavioral genetics.

Part I. Further Issues in Genetics, Enhancement, Therapy, and Reproduction. As a group we will discuss whether there should be any limit either to the human capacity to create and/or master the world we inhabit, or to the level of responsibility we take for the future. In particular we will focus on whether public policy or professional norms should limit in any way the use of new biomedical modalities to provide enhancement potentials to individual human beings, the implications of these issues for the formation of human identity, and how one might differentiate between enhancement and therapy.

Braun, Stephen, “The Science of Happiness: Unlocking the Mysteries of Mood”, in the President’s Council on Bioethics, Being Human, Washington, D.C. 2003, pp. 67-71.

Elliott, Carl, Better Than Well, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2003, Introduction and Conclusion.


14

Glover, Jonathan, “Questions About Some Uses of Genetic Engineering”, in Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., Bioethics An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 2006, pp. 187-197.

Hawthorne, Nathaniel, “The Birth Mark”, in The President’s Council on Bioethics, Being Human, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 5-20.

Kamm, Frances. “Is There a Problem with Enhancement?” American Journal of Bioethics 5.3, 2005, pp. 5-15.

Knoppers, B.M., Bordet S. et al (2006). “Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis: An Overview of Socio-Ethical and Legal Considerations” Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics.

Lappe, M., “Ethical Issues in Manipulating the Human Germ Line”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 198-208.

Lewis, C.S., “That Hideous Strength”, in The President’s Council on Bioethics, Being Human, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 49-53.

Lewis, Thomas, “The Wonderful Mistake” in The President’s Council on Bioethics, Being Human, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 31-33. Murray, Thomas H., “Making Sense of Fairness in Sports”, in the Hastings Center Report, Volume 40, No. 2, March-April, 2010, pp. 13-24.

Parens, E., “Is Better Always Good? The Enhancement Project”, Hastings Center Report, Special Supplement, January 1998, pp. S1-S15. Resnik, David B., The Moral Significance of the Therapy-Enhancement Distinction in Human Genetics, in Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., Bioethics An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 2006, pp. 209-218. Silver, L.M., Remaking Eden, New York: Avon Books, 1997, pp. 199-240. Veatch, Robert M., Haddad, Amy M., English, Dan C., Case Studies in Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 2010, Case 4-1, pp. 72-76.

15

Part II. Behavioral Genetics

Kass, L.R., Life, Liberty and the Defense of Dignity, San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002, chapters 4 & 5, pp. 150-219. Parens, Eric, “Genetic Differences and Human Identities”, Hastings Center Report Special Supplement 34, no. 1 (2004): pp. S1-S36.

April 4th Meeting: Issues Surrounding Human Reproductive Cloning and Stem Cell Research: Some Case Examples Concerning the Formation of Public Policy and the Role of Advisory Commissions Since the early 1970s the U.S. has appointed a number of advisory commissions to help address the role of public policy and/or professional norms regarding a sequence of bioethical issues. However, unlike the situation in many other countries, there has not been any standing committee in this arena. Indeed, from the early 1980s until the mid 1990s no such committee and/or commission existed in the U.S. In 1996, however, President Clinton appointed the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC), and among the issues it dealt with were reproductive cloning (subsequent to the Dolly experiment) and human embryonic stem cell research (subsequent to the ability to isolate human embryonic cells, and culture such stem cell lines). More recently President Bush appointed the Presidents Council on Bioethics (PCOB) which has issued a number of reports which address a variety of issues including: embryonic stem cell research, reproduction, and ART.

Brock, D.W., “Cloning Human Beings: An Assessment of the Ethical Issues Pro and Con”, Nussbaum, M.C. and Sustein, C.R., (eds.), Clones and Clones, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1998, pp. 141-164.

Moreno, Jonathan D. “Ethical Consultation as Moral Engagement” in Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds) Bioethics, An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford, 2006, pp. 707-714.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Ethical Issues in Human Stem Cell Research, Vol. I-II, Rockville, Maryland, 1999.


16

National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Human Cloning and Human Dignity: the Report of the President’s Council on Bioethics, New York Public Affairs, 2002. Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 7.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission "Report on Cloning Human Beings", Vol. I-II, Rockville, Maryland, 1997.

President’s Council on Bioethics, July 2002, Human Cloning and Human Dignity.

President’s Council on Bioethics, September 2004, Monitoring Stem Cell Research.

Walters, LeRoy, “Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Vol. 14.1, 2004, pp. 3-38.

April 11th Meeting: Death and Dying, Euthanasia and Suicide The moral status of suicide has a long history and attitudes towards suicide are heavily influenced by the surrounding culture and its attitudes towards life and death. These cultural attitudes range from outright opposition to any form of suicide or euthanasia, to its glorification under certain circumstances and for the most part public policies in this respect reflected these cultural attitudes and norms. It has long been recognized that a person who “dies” loses their human agency and efficacy, and as a result enters into a new moral category in the sense that their rights and obligations are now either greatly diminished or non-existent. As a result it is both morally and practically important to determine when death has occurred. Modern technology has made this a challenging matter. Moreover there is the associated matter of attitudes towards refusing treatment and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) and the role of public policy in these respects. As regards these latter matters you might want to keep in mind the fact that it is estimated that about 70% of those that die in the hospital do so after someone’s decision to refuse, withhold, or withdraw treatment.

Death and Dying

Arras, John D. “Physician Assisted Suicide: A Tragic View” in Batin, M.P., Rhodes, R., and Silver, A., (eds), Physician Assisted Suicide, Routledge, New York, 1998, pp. 288-300.

Beauchamp, T.L. and Veatch, R., (eds.), Ethical Issues in Death and Dying, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996, pp. 1-60.

17

Didion, Joan, “The Case of Theresa Schiavo”, The New York Review of Books, June 9, 2005, pp. 60-69.

Dworkin, Ronald, “Assisted Suicide: What the Court Really Said”, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 44, No. 14, September 25, 1997.

Fletcher, George P., Dworkin, Ronald, “The Philosophers’ Brief: An Exchange”, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 44, No. 9, May, 29, 1997.

Gostin, L., “Life and Death Choices after Cruzan”, in: Beauchamp, T. L. and Veatch, R., (eds.), Ethical Issues in Death and Dying, 2nd ed., New York: Prentice Hall, 1996, pp. 295-298.

Grief, Karen F. and Merz, Jon E., Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007, Chapter 12, pp. 357-363.

Kamisar, Yale, Dworkin, Ronald, “Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia: An Exchange”, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 44, No. 17, November 6, 1997.

Lee, Daniel E., “Physician Assisted Suicide: A Conservative Critique of Intervention”, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 33, #1, January-February, 2003, pp. 17-19. Lindsay, Ronald A., “Oregon’s Experience: Evaluating the Record”, The American Journal of Bioethics, March 2009, Volume 9, Number 3, pp. 19-27.

McHugh, Paul, “Annihilating Terri Schiavo”, Commentary, June 2005, pp. 27-33. Pellegrino, E., “The Place of Intention in the Moral Assessment of Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia“, in: Beauchamp, T. L., (ed.), Intending Death, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996, pp. 163-183.

Rachels, J., “Active and Passive Euthanasia”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 288-291.

Rawls, John, et al., “Assisted Suicide: Philosophers’ Brief”, The New York Review of Books, Vol. 44, No. 5, March 27, 1997.

18

Supreme Court of New Jersey, “70 N. J.: In the Matter of Karen Quinlan, an Alleged Incompetent”, Steinbock, B. and Norcross, A., (eds.), Killing and Letting Die, New York: Fordham University Press, 1994, pp. 51-77.

Suicide: Ethical Considerations

Grisez, G., and Boyle, Jr., J.M., "The Morality of Killing: A Traditional View", in: Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 283-287. Hume, David, Essays on Suicide and the Immortality of the Soul”, pp. 1-4 (electronic assess).

Nesbitt, Winston, "Is Killing No Worse Than Letting Die", in: Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 292-296.

Rachels, J., "Active and Passive Euthanasia", in: Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 288-291.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Declaration on Euthanasia" in: Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 276-280.

Stoffell, Brian, "Voluntary Euthanasia, Suicide, and Physician-Assisted Suicide", in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2009 (second edition), Chapter 27, pp. 312-320; 2001 (first edition), Chapter 27, pp. 272-279.

April 18th Meeting: Distributive Justice and Access to Biotechnologies Every society has specific attitudes towards assigning tasks and benefits with respect to the distribution of work effort on the one hand and material rewards on the


19

other. An important question is whether the status quo meets our sense of social justice and the role of public policy in insuring that over time we achieve a just distribution of effort and rewards. In the context of this overall issue we will focus on the distribution of health care services. In this context we will also want to consider the relationship between health and human rights. An important issue here is whether universal access to health care services eliminates health disparities. If time allows we may review the ethical dimensions of the new Prescription Drug Benefit recently enacted as a supplement to Medicare.

Buchanan, Allen, "Justice: A Philosophical View", in: Mappes, Thomas A. and DeGrazia, David, (eds.), Biomedical Ethics 5th edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 610-621.

Cohen, Carl and Benjamin, Martin, "Alcoholics and Liver Transplantation" in Steinbock, Bonnie, Arras, John D, and London, Alex John, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6th edition, McGraw Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 228-232.

Grief, Karen F. and Merz, Jon F., Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007, Chapter 12, pp. 329-345.

Harris, J., “The Value of Life”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 428-436. Harris, J., “Micro Allocation: Deciding Between Patients”, Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2009 (second edition), pp. 335-350; 2001 (first edition), pp. 293-305. Mann, J. M., Gruskin, S., Grodin, M. A., and Annas, G.J., (eds) Health and Human Rights, New York and London, Routledge, 1999, pp. 1-20.

Menzel, P.T., “Rescuing Lives: Can’t We Count”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 407-409.

Moss, A.H. and Siegler, M., “Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Live Transplantation?” in: Steinbock, Bonnie, Arras, John D., and London, Alex John., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 223-228.

20

Rescher, N., “The Allocation of Exotic Medical Life Saving Therapy”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 410-420. Sankar, Pamela et. al. “Genetic Research and Health Disparities”, Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], Vol. 291, No. 24, June 23/30, 2004, pp. 2985-2988.

Winkler, D. and Marchand, S., “Macro Allocation: Dividing Up the Health Care Budget”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2009 (second edition), pp. 351-361; 2001 (first edition), pp. 306-315.

April 25th Meeting: Genetically Modified Food [Segment 1] and Medical Ethics in a Time of “Crisis” (Segment 2) The application of contemporary scientific developments to the production of food, as with other applications, presents both risks and benefits. The potential benefits include improving nutritional content, improving agricultural efficiency, and decreasing the allergic potential of certain foodstuffs. The risks include any unknown health and environmental risks. In addition there are those who believe it is unethical to “fool with mother nature”. It is an excellent example of the need to properly “manage” the introduction of new technologies. In any case there is now considerable world wide controversy regarding the application of biotechnology to agriculture despite the fact that farmers have been genetically modifying their crops in the “old fashioned way” for millennia. Without a specialist using advanced technology we could not recognize the “ancestor” rice or corn plant that is now common. Nevertheless we should focus on the current controversy and try to understand and evaluate the nature of the disagreements. Interestingly the issue seems “hotter” in Europe than in the U.S. The second issue this week is whether or not medical ethics need to be at least partially set aside in a time of real crisis such as in wartime, or at a “time of terror”, or in the midst of a public health crisis of one type or another. This set of issues has become more salient in the public’s mind because of recent events such as the SARS “epidemic” and the “involvement” of physicians in legally authorized executions, or in the


21

“no-mans” land of the treatment of both POWs and “enemy combatants”. If time allows we will also spend some time discussing the issues that surround just and unjust wars.

Segment 1

Falk, M.C. et. al. “Food Biotechnology: Benefits and Concerns”, in Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 132, 2002, pp. 1384-1390.

Ferber, Dan, “Risks and Benefits: GM Crops in the Cross Hairs” in Science, Vol. 286, Nov. 26, 1999, pp. 1662-1666. Segment 2

Annas, George J., “Terrorism and Human Rights” in Moreno, Jonathan D., In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2003, Chapter 3.

Childress, James F., “Triage in Response to a Bioterrorist Attack”, in Moreno Jonathan D., In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 2003, Chapter 5.

Gostin, Lawrence O., Bayer, Ronald, and Fairchild, Amy L., “Ethical and Legal Challenges Posed by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 290, No.24, December 2003, pp. 3229-3237.

Grief, Karen F. and Merz, Jan F., Current Controversies in the Biological Sciences, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007, Chapter 9, pp. 235-254.

Hodge, James G., and Gostin, Lawrence O., “Protecting the Public’s Health in an Era of Bioterrorism: The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act”, in Moreno, Jonathan D., In the Wake of Terror: Medicine and Morality in a Time of Crisis, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2003, Chapter 2.

Wynia, Matthew K., “Mandatory Vaccination”, The American Journal of Bioethics, December 2007, Volume 7, No. 12, pp. 2-5.

Princeton University, WWS 315 Spring Semester 2011

22

Additional Sources

January 31st Meeting:

• Beauchamp. Tom L. and Walters, LeRoy, eds., “Ethical Theory and

Bioethics“, Contemporary Issues in Bioethics, 5th ed., Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1998, pp. 1-30.

• Brody, B., “Religion and Bioethics”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P.,

(eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp. 41-48.

• George, Robert P., “The Clash of Orthodoxies”, ISI Books,

Wilmington Delaware, 2001.

• Gorovitz, Samuel, “Bioethics and Social Responsibility”, The Monist, Vol. 60, No.1 (January 1977), pp. 3-15.

• Heclo, Hugo, "Religion and Public Policy: An Introduction", Journal

of Policy History, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2001, pp. 1-18

• Hursthouse, Rosalind, “Virtue Theory” in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice., (3rd Edition) Malden, Mass,, Blackwell pp. 45-55

• Manning, R.C., “A Care Approach”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P.,

(eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp. 106-114.

• McNaughton, David, and Rawling, Piers, “Deontology” in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd Edition), Malden Mass., Blackwell, 2007, pp. 31-44

• President’s Council on Bioethics, December 2003, Being Human: Readings from the President’s Council on Bioethics.

• Sandel, M.J., “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do”, Farrar,

Straus and Giroux, New York, 2009, Chapters 2,3 & 5

• Steinbock, Bonnie, Arras, John D., London, Alex John, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 1-43.

23

• Vallentyne, Peter, “Consequentialism”, in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd edition), Malden Mass., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp.22-30.

• Van Der Burg, W., “Law and Bioethics”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer,

P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp. 49-60.

February 7th Meeting:

Ancient Approaches

• Bloche, Mr. Gregg MD, JD, and Marks, Jonathan H., MA, BCL, “When Doctors Go to War”, The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 352:3-6; January 6, 2005, Number 1.

• Bowersock, Glenn W., “The Prestige of Galen”, Greek Sophists

in the Roman Empire, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968, pp. 59-76. • Essay on Herophilus and Vivisection of Human Subjects.

• Essay on Premodern Human Subject Research.

• Galvco-Sobrinho, “The Legacy of the Oath”, Journal of the

History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 51(4): 1996, pp. 438-455.

• Hooker, Worthington, Physician and Patient, New York, Baker

and Scribner, 1849, pp. 357-382.

• Kitcher, Philip, Science, Truth, and Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Contemporary Approaches

• AHA, “A Patient’s Bill of Rights (1992)” [see Course Pack].

• Brody, A.B., Rothstein, Mark A., McCullough, L.B., and Bobinski,

M.A. (eds), “Medical Ethics: Codes, Opinions, Statements” BNA Books, Washington D.C. 2000.

• Eckenwiler, Lisa and Cohn, Felicia (eds), “The Ethics of

Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape”, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 3-21

24

• Ramsey, Paul, The Patient as Person, London and New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970, pp. 239-275.

• Steinbeck, Bonnie, Arras, John D., and London, Alex John,

Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 2003, pp. 43-54.

Concerns Regarding Scientific and Technological Progress

• Heidegger, Martin, “The Question Concerning Technology” in

The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977, pp. 3-35.

• Potter, Van Renssaeler, Bioethics: A Bridge to the Future,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971, pp. 69-74. • Ziolkowski, Theodore, The Sin of Knowledge, Princeton,

Princeton University Press, 2000. February 14th Meeting:

• Beecher, Henry K., “Ethics and Clinical Research”, in: Kuhse, H.

and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2006, pp. 505-512.

• Childress, James F., Meslin, Eric M. and Shapiro, Harold T.

(eds.), Belmont Revisited: Ethical Principles for Research with Human Subjects, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005.

• Emmanuel, E.J. and Miller, F.G., "The Ethics of Placebo

Controlled Trials", New England Journal of Medicine 345, 2001, pp. 1915-1919.

• Faden, Ruth R. and Beauchamp, Tom, A History and Theory of

Informed Consent, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 3-49.

• Freedman, B., Weiger C., and Glass, "Placebo Orthodoxy In

Clinical Research", Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics 24, 1996, pp. 245-251. Reprinted in Monarch Bioethics Review 16 (4), 1997, pp. 12-26.

25

• Grodin, Michael A., “Historical Origins of the Nuremberg Code”, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, ed. by George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 121-140.

• Harris, Sheldon H, Factories of Death, London and New York:

Routledge, 1994, pp. 57-82.

• Katz, Jay, Experimentation with Human Beings, New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 1972, pp. 284-291.

• Nimbes, Ronald, “William Beaumont and the Ethics of Human

Experimenting”, Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 12, 1979, pp. 113-135.

• Pappworth, M. H., Human Guinea Pigs, London: Routledge &

Kegan Paul, 1967, pp. 3-28. • Rothman, K.J. and Michels, K.B., "The Continuing Unethical Use

of Placebo Controls", New England Journal of Medicine 331, 1994, pp. 394-398.

• Taylor, Telford, “Opening Statement of the Prosecution,

December 9, 1946”,The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, ed. by George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 67-93.

• The Human Radiation Experiments: Final Report of the

President’s Advisory Committee, Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 1-39, 43-131.

February 21st Meeting:

• Buchanan, Allen and Brock, Dan W., "Deciding for Others:

Competency", Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, ed. by John D. Arras and Bonnie Steinbock, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999, pp. 290-300.

• CIOMS, “International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical

Research Involving Human Subjects” [see Course Pack]. • Evans, Donald and Evans, Martyn, A Decent Proposal, New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996, pp. 33-49.

26

• Faden, Ruth R. and Beauchamp, Tom, A History and Theory of Informed Consent, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 235-373.

• National Bioethics Advisory Commission Report, "Policy Issues

in Research Involving Human Participants, Summary", Bethesda, Maryland, August 2001.

• Perley, Sharon et al., “The Nuremberg Code: An International

Overview”, The Nazi Doctors and the Nuremberg Code, ed. by George J. Annas and Michael A. Grodin, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992, pp. 149-173.

• United States, “21 CFR 50. Protection of Human Subjects” [see

Course Pack].

• United States, Report and Recommendation for Research Involving Prisoners, The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, GPO, Washington, 1977, pp. 1-21.

• World Medical Association, “The Declaration of Helsinki (2002)”

[see Course Pack]. February 28th Meeting:

• Finnis, J., “Abortion and Health Care Ethics”, in: Kuhse, H., and

Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 17-24.

• Griswold v .Connecticut (1965). U.S. Supreme Court decision

on the legality of contraception.

• Manninen, B. A., “Rethinking Roe v. Wade: Defending the Abortion Right in the Face of Contemporary Opposition”, The American Journal of Bioethics December 2010, pp 33-46

• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey

(1992). The legality of notification/permission requirements.

• Roe v. Wade (1973), The US Supreme Court Decision.

• Roth, Rachel, Making Women Pay: The Hidden Cost of Fetal Rights, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 2000

27

• Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). Nebraska law banning partial birth

abortions.

• The New Atlantis, A Journal of Technology and Society, Kass, Leon R., “The Right to Life and Human Dignity”, Spring 2007, Number 16, pgs. 23-40.

• Tooley, M., “Abortion and Infanticide”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer,

P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 25-39.

March 7th Meeting:

• Coetzee, J.M. “The Lives of Animals”, Princeton University

Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1999.

• Fox, M.A. “The Moral Community”, in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd edition), Malden, Mass., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 181-191 .

• Frey, R.G., Moral Standing, “The Value of Lives and Speciesism” in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd Edition) Malden Mass. Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 192-204.

• Frey, R.G. and Paton, Sir W., “Vivisection, Morals, and

Medicine: An Exchange”, in: Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 578-588.

• Maehle, A.H., and Trohler, U., “Animal Experimentation from

Antiquiity to the End of the 18th Century”.

• Orlans, F.B., “History and Ethical Regulation of Animal Experimentation: An International Perspective”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 399-410.

• Passmore, John, “The Treatment of Animals”, Journal of the

History of Ideas, Vol. 36, 1975, pp. 195-218.

• Regan, T. “Defending Animal Rights” University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, 2001, (Chapter 1).

28

• Regan, T. “The Case For Animal Rights”, in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd edition) Malden Mass., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, PP 205-212

• Rollin, B.E., “The Moral Status of Animals and their Use as

Experimental Subjects”, in: Kuhse, H. and Singer, P., (eds.), A Companion to Bioethics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, pp. 411-424.

• Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation, New York: New York Review

of Books, 1991

• Singer, p. “All Animals Are Equal”, in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd Edition) Malden Mass., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp.171-180

March 21st Meeting:

Eugenics

• Black, Edwin, “War Against The Weak”, Four Walls Against The Windows, New York, 2001.

• Buck v. Bell, U.S. Supreme Court [1927] upholding the rights of

States, under certain circumstances to carry out involuntary sterilizations. Since 1974 Virginia no longer has an involuntary sterilization statute.

• Dowbiggin, Ion, "A Rational Coalition: Euthanasia, Eugenics,

and Birth Control in America, 1940-1970". Journal of Policy History, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2002, pp. 223-244.

• “Eugenics and Genetics: Discussion”, in: G. Wolstenholme, ed.,

Man and His Future, 1963, pp. 274-298.

• Fletcher, J.F., “Knowledge, Risk, and the Right to Reproduce: A Limiting Principle”, in: Milunsky, A.-Annas, G.J., (eds.), Genetics and the Law, II, New York:Plenum Press, 1980, pp. 131-134.

• Hubbard, R. and Wald, E., “The Eugenics of Normalcy”, The

Ecologist, 23, 1993, pp. 185-191.

• Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1995.

29

• Kühl, Stefan, The Nazi Connection, Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.

• Muller, H.J., Out of the Night. A Biologist’s View of the Future,

New York-London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1984, pp. 103-127.

• Ramsey, Paul, Fabricated Man. The Ethics of Genetic Control, New Haven-London: Yale University Press, 1971, pp. 1-59.

• Rosen, C., Preaching Eugenics, Oxford University Press, New

York, 2004.

Assisted Reproductive Technologies • Davis, D. S., “Genetic Dilemmas and the Child’s Right to an

Open Future”, Hastings Center Report, 20:2, March/April 1990, pp. 38-45.

• Davis v. Davis (1992). Tennessee Supreme Court decision on

the ownership of frozen embryos.

• Johnson v. Calvert (1993). Supreme Court of California. (Is the surrogate mother the natural mother?)

• Knowles, Lori P. and Kaebnick, Gregory E. (eds)

“Reprogenetics: Law, Policy and Ethical Issues” Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2007

• “New Jersey. In the Matter of Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J.

1988)”, in: A. R. Jonsen-R.M. Veatch-L.R. Walters, Source Book in Bioethics: A Documentary History, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1998, pp. 376-385.

• Overall, Christine, Ethics and Human Reproduction, Boston:

Allen & Unwin, 1987, pp. 17-38.

• Posner, R. A., “The Ethics and Economics of Enforcing Contracts of Surrogate Motherhood”, Journal of Contemporary Health Policy, 5 (1989), pp. 21-31.

• President’s Council on Bioethics, March 2004, Reproduction and

Responsibility: The Regulation of New Biotechnologies.

• Snowden, R., “The Family and Artificial Reproduction”, Bromham, D., Dalton M., and Jackson J., Philosophical Ethics in

30

Reproductive Medicine, Manchester-New York: Manchester University Press-St. Martin’s Press, 1990, pp. 70-83.

March 28th Meeting:

Further Issues in Genetics, Enhancement, Therapy, and Reproduction

• Chapman, A. R. and Frankel, Mark S. (eds), Designing Our Descendants, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2003.

• Ezrahi, Y., “Haldane between Daedalus and Icarus”, in: K. R.

Dronamraju, Haldane’s Daedalus Revisited, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 64-78.

• Farah, Martha J., and Wolpe, Paul Root, “Monitoring and

Manipulating Brain Function: New Neuroscience Technologies and Their Ethical Implications”, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 34, No. 3, May-June 2004.

• Hamer, D., and Copeland, P., Living with Our Genes, New York:

Doubleday, 1998, pp. 182-199.

• Harris, John, Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

• Illes, Jules, and Racine, Eric, “Imaging or Imagining? A

Neurpetjocs Challenge Informed by Genetics”, American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 5-18.

• Kamm, Frances M., “Is There a Problem with Enhancement?”,

American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 5-15.

• Kitcher, P., “The Lives To Come”, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1996.

• Murray, Thomas H., “Enhancement”, in: Oxford Handbook of

Bioethics, Bonnie Steinbock (ed), Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 491-515

• Muller-Hill, B., “Lessons From a Dark and Distant Past”, in:

Kuhse, H., and Singer, P., (eds.), Bioethics. An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 231-236.

31

• Noguchi, P., “From Jim to Gene and Beyond: An Odyssey of Biologics Regulation”, Food and Drug Law Journal, 51, 1996, pp. 367-373.

• President’s Council on Bioethics, October, 2003, Beyond

Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness.

• Schuklenk, U. et al., “The Ethics of Genetic Research on Sexual Orientation”, Hastings Center Report, July, 1997, pp. 6-13.

• Young, A.H., “New Reproductive Technologies in Canada and

the United States: Same Problems, Different Discourses”, Temple International and Comparative Law Journal, 12, 1998, pp. 43-85.

Behavioral Genetics

• Kane, Robert (ed.) “Free Will”, Blackwell Readings in Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002.

• Kass, L. R., “The Wisdom of Repugnance”, in: Kass, L.R. and

Wilson, J. Q.,The Wisdom of Repugnance, Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1998, pp. 3-59.

• Parens, Erik and Asch, Adrienne (eds.), Prenatal Testing and

Disability Rights, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001, selections.

• Rothman, Barbara Katz, The Book of Life, Boston: Beacon

Press, 2001, pp. 13-41 April 4th Meeting:

• Elshtain, J.B., “To Clone or Not To Clone”, in: Nussbaum, M.C.

and Sunstein, C.R., (eds.), Clones and Clones, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1998, pp. 181-189.

• National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the

National Academies, “Guidelines for Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research, The National Academies Press, 2005.

32

April 11th Meeting:

Death and Dying

• Admiraal, P., “Voluntary Euthanasia: The Dutch Way”, in: McLean, S., (ed.), Death, Dying and the Law, Brookefield, VT: Dartmouth Publishing Co., 1996, pp. 113-125.

• Beauchamp, Tom, L., “Justifying Physician Assisted Deaths”, in La Follette, Hugh, Ethics in Practice, (3rd Edition, Malden Mass. Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 72-80.

• Callahan, Daniel, "Aging and the Ends of Medicine", in: Mappes,

Thomas A. and DeGrazia, David, (eds.), Biomedical Ethics 5th edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 627-634.

• Cohn, F. and Lynn, J., “A Duty to Care” in La Follette, ugh Ethics

in practice, (3rd edition), Malden mass. Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 103-113.

• Duff, R. and Campbell, A.G.M., “Moral and Ethical Dilemmas in

the Special-Care Nursery”, Jecker, N. S., Jonsen, A. R., and Pearlman, R. A., (eds.), Bioethics: An Introduction to the History, Methods, and Practice, Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1997, pp. 70-75.

• Hardwig, Jon, “Dying at the Right Time” in Lafollette, Hugh,

Ethics in Practice, (3rd edition), Malden Mass, Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 91-100.

• Hooker, B., “Rule Utilitarianism and Euthanasia” in La Follette,

Hugh, “Ethics in Practice” (3rd Edition) Malden Mass., Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp.62-71

• Moazam, F. Zamon, R. M. and Jafarey, A. M. “Coversations with

Kidney Vendors in Pakistan”, in The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 39, No.3, May-June 2009, pp 29-44

• President’s Council on Bioethics, September 2005, Taking Care:

Ethical Caregiving in an Aging Society.

• Quill, Timothy E., Lo, Bernard, and Brock, Dan W., “Palliative Options of Last Resort”, Journal of the American Medical Association, Dec. 17th 1997, Vol. 278, pp 2099-2104.

33

• Robertson, John, “Cruzan: No Rights Violated”, Beauchamp, T. L. and Veatch, R., (eds.), Ethical issues in Death and Dying, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996, pp. 299-300.

• Unger, Peter K., Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of

Innocence, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996, pp. 24-61.

• United States, “Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health”, in: Beauchamp, T.L. and Veatch, R., (eds.), Ethical Issues in Death and Dying, 2nd ed., New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1996, pp. 287-294.

• Veatch, R.M., Transplantation Ethics, Washington, D.C., 2000,

pp. 28-140.

• Velman J.D., “Against the Right to Die” in La Follette, Hugh, “Ethics in Practice” (3rd Edition), Malden Mass. Blackwell Publishing, 2007, pp. 81-90

Suicide: Ethical Considerations

• Battin, M., Rhodes, R., and Silvers, A., (eds), Physician Assisted Suicide, Routledge, New York and London, 1998.

• Bowersock, Glenn W., Martyrdom and Rome, Cambridge-New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1995, appendices excluded.

• Camus, Albert, The Myth of Sisyphus, New York: Vintage Books, 1991.

• Durkheim, Emile, Suicide, Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1951,

selected chapters.

• Foley K., and Hendin, H., (eds), “The Case Against Assisted Suicide”,The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 2002.

• Hume, David, “Of Suicide”, in: David Hume, Essays. Selections,

ed. by R.H. Popkin, Indianapolis: Hackett Pub., 1998, pp. 97-106.

• Kohlberg, Etan, Medieval Muslim Views on Martyrdom,

Amsterdam: KNAW, 1997.

34

• Kuhse, H., "Why Killing Is Not Always Worse – and Sometimes Better – Than Letting Die", in: Kuhse, H., Singer, P., Bioethics: An Anthology, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, pp. 297-300.

• Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill (1997). The U.S.

Supreme Court recognized the power of each State to regulate Physician Assisted Suicide [PAS], but denied the Constitutional right to PAS.

April 18th Meeting:

Other Sources

• Annas, G. J., American Bioethics: Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries, Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press, 2005.

• Beauchamp, T.L. and Childress, James F., Principles of

Biomedical Ethics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 326-394.

• Brock. D. W., “Funding New Reproductive Technologies”, in:

Cohen, C., New Ways of Making Babies, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1996, pp. 213-230.

• Daniels, Norman, “Equity and Population Health: Toward a

Broader Bioethics Agenda”, The Hastings Center Report, Volume 36, No. 4, July-August, 2006, pp. 22-24.

• Danis, M., Clancy, C., and Churchill, L.D., (eds), “Ethical

Dimensions of Health Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002, Chapters 2, 4, and 9.

• Iglehart, John. “The New Medicare Prescription Benefit: a Pure

Power Play”, The New England Journal Medicine. 350(8): 826-833. February 19, 2004.

• Johnson, Josephine and Wasunna, Angela A., “Patents,

Biomedical Research, and Treatments: Examining Concerns, Canvassing Solutions”, A Hastings Center Special Report, 37, No. 1, 2007, pp. S1-S36.

• London, Alex John, “Another Voice, What is Social and Global

Justice to Bioethics or Bioethics to Social and Global Justice”,

35

The Hastings Center Report, Volume 36, No. 4, July-August, 2006, pg. 3.

• Unequal Treatment, Institute of Medicine, Washington D.C.

2002, pp. 1-23 (Summary).

• Wikler, Daniel, "Ethics and Rationing: "Whether", "How", or "How Much" in: Mappes, Thomas A. and DeGrazia, David, (eds.), Biomedical Ethics 5th edition, New York, McGraw-Hill, 2001, pp. 641-649.

April 25th Meeting:

Segment 2 • Colgrove, James, State of Immunity, The Politics of Vaccination

in Twentieth-Century America, University of California Press, 2006, pp1-16.

• Reed, Charles, and Ryall, David, (eds.), The Price of Peace:

Just War in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2007.

syllabus wws 315 bioethics and public policy spring ...hts/pdfs/syllabus.pdf · wws 315 bioethics...

Documents