Group Two

We started out talking about our group project.  We are doing our project over animal testing.  We touched on some of the pros and cons of animal testing.   We looked at some of the progress that we have been making while using animals for testing, as well as looked at the poor living conditions and poor treatment of some of the test specimens.  We also set a meeting time to get together and work on this.  Dr. Oliver came and helped to add to our conversation on animal rights.

Group 2

We took our test on Thursday and decided that we would not meet to work on our project after it.  Up coming is Life at the Speed of Light by Craig Venter.  Here is an interview from NPR in which Craig Venter talks about his book.
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/25/240751591/craig-venter-life-at-the-speed-of-light

Daily Quiz

Feb 18

1. What theory (or view of life) holds that organic life follows its own impetus and rules, and cannot be reduced to inorganic chemistry?

2. The merged understanding of computing and life as "coded" is called the ____ Age?

3. What's protoplasm?

4. What cells have a half-life of 120 days?  

5. Who couldn't "hold back his urine," and why does it matter to Venter?

6. What's Weismann's corollary? (OR, to whose revolutionary work in biology does it point?)

7. What crucial component of life does the "new vitalism" downgrade or ignore?

8. What is "nature's self-reproducing automaton"?

What is life?

One of the landmark events of 20th century science was celebrated and reinterpreted for the 21st century in Trinity College Dublin on 12 July 2012 as part of the Science in the City programme of ESOF2012. Dr Craig Venter, one of the leaders of the Human Genome Project in the 1990s and a pioneer of synthetic biology delivered a lecture entitled, 'What is Life? A 21st century perspective' recreating the Irish event that inspired the discovery of the structure of DNA. 

In February, 1943 one of the most distinguished scientists of the 20th Century, Erwin Schrödinger, delivered a seminal lecture, entitled 'What is Life?', under the auspices of the Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, in Trinity College Dublin. The lecture presented far-sighted ideas on how hereditary information could be encoded in a chemical structure (aperiodic crystal) in living cells. Schrödinger's book (1944) of the same title is considered to be a scientific classic. The book was cited by Crick and Watson as one of the inspirations which ultimately led them to unravel the structure of DNA in 1953, a breakthrough which won them the Nobel prize. YouT

Group 1: Venter, Chapters 1 and 2

It's a little late at night, but I thought I'd kick things off for our group.

(FQ) What organic molecule was synthesized by Wöhler in the 19th century, allegedly "disproving" vitalism?
Urea

(FQ) True/False: In Louis Pasteur's experiment involving the regular beaker and the beaker with the swan shaped neck, bacteria grew in both when exposed to air.
False

(FQ) What two scientists are credited with the discovery of the structure of DNA?
James Watson and Francis Crick

(DQ) I'd like to discuss everyone's view on "creating life", as was done by Venter and his team.

Below is a link to an interview with Mr. David Rajeski, the director of the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, discussing the morality of creating life.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127018685

Life At The Speed Of Light (Ch. 1,2)

I hope everyone did well on the exam.

FQ: What theory stated, "Organic substances have at least 3 constituents... they cannot be prepared artificially... but only through the affinities associated with vital force. It is made clear that the same rules cannot apply to both organic and inorganic chemistry, the influence of the vital force being essential."
A: Vitalism

DQ: Do you believe that all lifeforms, even possible exoplanet life, have to be organic?

I watched an interesting documentary on Netflix. The film is called "Cracking Your Genetic Code" and it's by PBS. This refers to "knowing yourself to the genetic level." Would one really want to know they're possible fate by looking at they're own genetic codes? I only have a short clip of the documentary on YouTube, but here it is... http://youtu.be/4gUZiwgWpW8

Group 1: Study Questions

1. What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?
Aristotle

2. What is the best known consequentialist theory?
Utilitarian

3. What principle of John Stuart Mill's is frequently referenced in this chapter?
Mill's Harm Principle

4. Which religious traditions are most akin to virtue ethics? 
Hinduism and Buddhism

5. What is the generally accepted term for Eastern bioethics (often called the antithesis to western bioethics)?
Familial Communitarianism

6. What ancient philosophy is a powerful influence on many parts of Asia, dealing with the practice of ren and sustained by rituals of rites?
Confucianism

7. What is the first, and arguably most, important consideration a health professional has in relation to his patients?
He/She must always act within the welfare and best interests of his patients.

8. The Geneva Code of Medical Ethics was drawn up in 1948 after the medical atrocities from what significant event? 
World War II

9. What political philosopher details the aspects of minimum health status in his book, A Theory of Justice?
John Rawls

10. How did John Snow halt the spread of cholera on Broad Street?
He removed the water pump handle.

Group 2: Study Guide Questions

1) What percentage of our nations GDP is spent on health care and are we one of the highest or lowest? 

            18% and we are the highest compared to others, some spending as little as 3%. 

2) Although the major infectious diseases may have been eradicated in higher income societies, they have been replaced by ____________.
            Diseases of affluence 

3) In Bernard Shaw's play The Doctor's Dilemma, he describes the medical relationship as a conspiracy  against what group/ type of people?
            the laity (lay people, ordinary people)

4) what are the three key features of valid consent?
            it is informed, competent, and voluntary

5) Name one of the Four Principles in Beauchamp and Childress's theories on biomedical ethics?

            Non-Maleficence, Beneficence, Autonomy, and Justice

6) What Greek philosopher was one of the earliest exponents of virtue ethics?

            Aristotle

7) What 40 years US study denied information and treatment to its subjects?

            Tuskegee Syphilis Study

8) Bioethics has broken free of what mentality?

            Doctor knows best

Genetically Modified Kids

Betsy here, ran across this today and thought of bioethics class. 2 genetically altered children, both born to mothers who couldn't otherwise conceive on their own. Tested to have genetic material from 2 mothers and 1 father. Obviously a lot of people are critical of the experiment. The head scientist mentions that cloning a child would be 'easy work' for one of his students.
I scanned through recent posts and didn't see mention of it, so I thought I'd leave it here!

Group 3: Chapter 6

     Today we spent a huge portion of our class discussing social contract philosophies and those that affiliate with it, including John Rawls, Thomas Hobbes, J. Rousseau, and John Locke. We briefly touched on a point that being a celebrity should not grant privilege to the healthcare, in a case like jumping up the list to receive a kidney transplant. We have, also, discussed the lifeboat situation and a few people have stated their opinions on the issue.
     For those that have missed the class today, we will take a look at the links that have been nominated as interesting next Tuesday and our exam, covering the first book, will be on Thursday.
     Groups did not have a lot of discussion time; however, we did talk about a possible mid term presentation topic which will center around a movie that is similar to the lifeboat scenario presented in the book.
     Factual questions for Exam 1:
---------these are all of the factual questions asked in our group; once every group has posted theirs we can make the list shorter -------

1- The idea of Natural Law, which bases itself upon the departure from ''natural procreation'', is a principal that belongs to which philosopher and theologian?

(Thomas Aquinas)

2-What is inverse care law?

(The availability of good healthcare varies with the need of the population served) p148

3- What is therapeutic misconception?

(Wrongly believing a new experimental research project may benefit a particular patients illness)

4- Name two of the four codes that protect an individual from malicious research.
(protection of the research participant is paramount, independent ethical review, scientific validity, fully informed and voluntary consent, acceptable balance of risks and benefits. p.116)

5- In what kind of a randomized clinical trail (RCT) does neither the researcher nor the research subject know to which group any patient is assigned?
(double blind. p.121)

6- Which famous, contemporary philosopher coined a term called speciesism?
(Peter Signer. p122)

7- Name the features that represent a valid consent between a health care professional and a patient.
(it must be informed, competent, and voluntary)

8- (T/F) According to the book, confidentiality should not be breached when there is a clear threat to a specific individual.
(F)

9- What are the two major spheres of justice discussed by Campbell?
(Social Justice and Distributive Justice)

10- What 2 major factors need to be considered when informing a patient about a treatment?
(Severity and Probability)

11- What is medical paternalism?
(The idea that the doctor always knows best, beyond what is known about the medical facts and consequences.)

12- In religions, like Buddhism, what is meant by the ''way of dharma''? 
(a way of a universal spirituality which maintains and nurtures all life)

13-: List the five major religions mentioned in the book in a chronological order, starting with the earliest.
(Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

14- True/False. If a chronic patient is not getting any any better, the physician's primary role is to generate furor therapeutics. 
(False)

15- Which theory has been dominant in bioethics and often used by many health professionals?

(Consequentialism)

Group 1 Discussion Post: Chapter 6

We had some very high quality discussion as a class on the assigned reading. After discussing Chapter 6 as a class, we elected to go through our old questions to select notable ones for the upcoming test. During our discourse, the subject of our midterm project came up and we discussed some ideas with Dr. Oliver, such as the use of cadavers for artistic purposes or for whimsical uses.

Daily Quiz

1. Feb 6
2. 1. What are the two major spheres of justice discussed by Campbell?
3. 2. Wha is inverse care law?
4. 3. Name one of the methods in preventative medicine used to control the spread of disease.
5. 4. What political philosopher details the aspects of minimum health status in his book, A Theory of Justice?
6. 5. What is meant by the term "heartsick patients"?
7. 
   
   
8. 
   
9. 1. Social Justice and Distributive Justice  2. (The availability of good healthcare varies with the need of the population served) p148  3. Screening, vaccination/immunization, and notification and controls on the movement of infected people  4. John Rawls  5. People in deprived areas with multiple health problems.
10. Maiki - DQ: Should the Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) be the only way to prioritize treatment (such as organ transplant) recipients...This link is not very relevant to what was discussed in this chapter, but I thought there are pros and cons to the evolution or transition of healthcare towards electronics. The first link shows how it is benefiting in healthcare while the second link discusses the negatives. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-01/uomh-whs012414.php ...http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2014/01/do-doctors-spend-too-much-time-looking-at-computer-screen.html
11. Nikita - DQ: What are your pros and cons of John Rawls' veil of ignorance analogy...
12. Since we discussed what will happen in the future to not only the healthcare but humans in general, here is a link that talks about the risks that we might face in the future
    link: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=28833 
13. Logan - (DQ) How would you guys handle the lifeboat situation? I'm curious as to who everyone else would elect to survive
    
    Below is a link to a discussion on health rationing from a bioethics symposium at the University of Wisconsin-Madison 
    http://www.med.wisc.edu/news-events/health-care-rationing-discussed-at-uw-madison-bioethics-forum/27087

Group 3 Discussion

Our group went ahead a little and talked about the life boat scenario. We discussed who we thought would have the best chance of survival. We discussed if it would be killing someone to push someone off into the water and other ways to make the rest survive. It was posed that perhaps someone could make a sacrifice for the others to survive by jumping into the water. We all discussed the implications of a society that had the capabilities to genetically modify itself and what parts of society might get these enhancements. It was later posed that there be a non transferable lottery to possibly make the whole thing fair instead of just the rich getting every enhancement.

Group 2 Discussion

Our group discussed the animal rights topic. We had some disagreements about the rights of animals and whether or not they should be used for medical research.  I personally believe that animals are not equals and therefore don't share the same rights. With that being said, I do like animals! I would not agree with testing on animals for insignificant gains but if animals can be used to make us as humans suffer less then I would be for it.  One more thing that struck me as off in the book is on page 122 where Bentham states that since animals can suffer.  Yes, I do believe they can suffer but I don't think that animal suffering should count as much as human suffering in the utilitarian calculus of happiness.

Group 1 Chapter 5 Discussion

Our Chapter 5 discussion began when Logan and I combined our discussion questions to ask for thoughts from the group on animal research. Kat said she thought that we might be slightly elitist against animals (to echo Peter Singer), but the group's general consensus was that if the research was foreseeably humane then animal subjects are a necessary evil.

We then briefly discussed genetically modified organisms and how we felt about this "enhancement" of our foods. There was much debate, with some members not as against it as others. Proponents cited the better taste of GMO's, while opponents speculated their potential future health implications.

Logan then continued the enhancement discussion by asking the group for opinions on human enhancement. Evan responded that such enhancements would widen the gap between the wealthy who could afford such technology and the poor who could not. We then broached the subject of testing embryos for genetic predisposition to diseases, and again the camp was split because we could not assume what the implications of such practices would be. There is certainly no clear-cut answer for these questions. We all agreed that all the time, thought, and money spent on controversial issues should be funneled toward curing widespread diseases, such as cancer.

Finally, Evan asked if the results of unethical studies should be used if they profit the greater good. We all thought that they should be used if they could help others, and their benefits to society could be a stepping stone toward redeeming the ill means it took to achieve the results.

Daily Quiz

Feb 4

Group 3, where are you?

1. Name one offour R's used in international legislation pertaining to animal rights in research?

2. What is World Health Organization's '10/90 Gap' referring to? 

3. Name one of  four areas of research discussed in the book.


4. What decree states that consent must be gained in all experimentation with human beings?


5. What method do scientists use when carrying out epidemiological research?

6. What is the term for altering the numbers in a calculation to make the hypothesis more convincing, with no justification form the research findings for such members?

7. Name two of the four codes that protect an individual from malicious research.

8. 8. Which famous, contemporary philosopher coined a term called speciesism?

Also of note:

* In what kind of a randomized clinical trail (RCT) does neither the researcher nor the research subject know to which group any patient is assigned?

1. (pg 123) Respect, reduction, refinement, and replacement 

2. (pg 133) Less than 10% of the funds spent on health research is devoted to the health problems which account for 90% of global disease.

3. Clinical trials, medical research with animals, genetic research, and epidemiological research.

4. The Nuremberg Code

5. Looking for associations between large banks of data gathered over extended periods of time.

6. Falsification Page 127 Ch. 5 Cameron

7. (protection of the research participant is paramount, independent ethical review, scientific validity, fully informed and voluntary consent, acceptable balance of risks and benefits. p.116)

8. (Peter Signer. p122) 

* double blind. p.121

We discussed a few topics during our group meeting. First, we talked about our standpoints on how we wanted our bodies to be handled after death. We all agreed that it really wouldn't matter how our bodies were used after death such as becoming a cadaver or "silent mentor" as long as our bodies were handled with respect and dignity. Most beliefs view that the soul and body are separate entities, and the soul goes on whether it is incarnation or eternal life. If the body is left behind, why not make a contribution (such as medical studies) for the current and future health professionals to get a better understanding of the human body? (Although there are limits).
Euthanasia was another major topic discussed. I don't believe we came to a consensus on this one. Even though everyone wants a "good death" to end their life, we shouldn't be able to schedule our moment of death. Abortion was the last debated subject. This was also another topic that required views from every angle. We had to consider the definition of life, the fetus' dependence on the mother, and many of the possible situations of conception. This was all left with a gray area.

In conclusion, many of the answers to the questions discussed in Chapter 4 (Clinical Ethics) depends on the condition and situation.

Berry Lectures at Vanderbilt

Please join us for the first in our 2014 series of Berry Lectures in Public Philosophy on Tuesday, February 11th in Buttrick Hall, Room 101.  The theme for this year’s series is Human Existence: Insights from Philosophy’s History.   The full schedule appears below. 

Our first speaker in the series is Professor Lenn Goodman.  His topic is “Two Ways to do Metaphysics without Really Trying: Aristotle and Avicenna on Being at Large.”  The lecture begins at 7:00pm, and will be preceded by a light reception at 6:30pm.  All are invited. 

Many Thanks,

--Robert Talisse

Professor of Philosophy and Department Chair

_______________________________________________________________

The Berry Lectures in Public Philosophy

Human Existence: Insights from Philosophy’s History

Tuesday, February 11

7:00pm, Buttrick Hall, Room 101

Lenn Goodman

Two Ways to do Metaphysics without Really Trying:

Aristotle and Avicenna on Being at Large

Tuesday, February 18

7:00pm, Buttrick Hall, Room 101

Julian Wuerth

What is Enlightenment?

Kant’s Copernican Revolution

Tuesday, February 25

7:00pm, Buttrick Hall, Room 101

David Wood

‘What does not kill me makes me stronger’:
Why we Still Read Kierkegaard and Nietzsche

Thursday, March 13

7:00pm, Wilson Hall, Room 126

José Medina

Love and Other Demons:

Wittgenstein and Skepticism

All Lectures are Free and Open to the Public

Sponsored by the Vanderbilt Philosophy Department with the Generous Support of the Berry Fund

Group 2

First up we talked about euthanasia.  We talked about how we felt on the issue.  Some people thought that if someone was dying then they should just let it happen naturally; you should make them comfortable, but medicine should not be used to help end the life.  Others thought that if the person was of sound mind, then we should let them make their own decision.
Then we talked about one baby, five parents.  How can this affect the child?  We talked about different scenarios that could come up in this type of issue.  Then our conversation turned to surrogate mothers.  We found a website that talks about the process of being a surrogate mother or egg/sperm donor, and some of the qualifications and compensation of it.  We briefly went over if any of us would be able to do this or take on a baby that was made through these methods.  We also briefly touched on adoption.

Group 1 Class Discussion: Chapter 4

After the Daily Quiz and discussing the Chapter as a class, our group began discussing the issue of organ harvesting after death and what should be done.  Kat had no problem with it, and soon after we transitioned into the issue of cadavers being used. No one had an issue with it or thought it was morally wrong as long as the person opted in. Meredith began a discussion on organ donors by stating that her family advised against being one, but she still supported the prospect. Overall, we all think that once someone has died, they will have no further use for their body, so there's not much of a problem donating it to a valuable purpose.

Next, we transitioned into a discussion on the topic of "medical paternalism", and the notion that doctors automatically jump to throwing prescriptions at patients. We all discussed the prospect of conditions and afflictions being "invented" by physicians, and Evan brought up the point that parents nowadays are stunting their children's creativities by prescribing them medication for perceived afflictions. Finally, we discussed the issue of physicians not spending enough time on patients and the potential ramifications.