exam2studyquestions2023
.pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of Maryland, College Park *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
220
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
1
Uploaded by SargentLemurMaster91
Bioethics: Regulation Right and Wrong (PHIL 220), Fall ‘23
Exam 2, Wednesday, October 18
In-person, 9:00-9:50 in SQH 1120
Study Sheet
During the exam, you may consult
completely clean paper copies
of assigned readings,
but you may not consult any other materials (e.g., notes, recordings, or electronic copies of
articles). You will not be permitted to use any electronic devices during the exam. The
instructors will select the
two
questions that will appear on the exam from among the
following:
1] In “They Decide Who Lives, Who Dies,” Shana Alexander relates several criteria that the
members of the Seattle “Life or Death Committee” mentioned in discussions regarding who
would get access to a dialysis machine. One of these criteria is past performance, in terms
of contribution to society. Is it morally permissible to use this criterion as a basis for
deciding to whom to give a scarce, life-saving resource? Set out a justification of your
answer and then defend your answer against one plausible objection to it.
2] Set out and explain
one
of Harris’ criticisms of the use of QALYs in health resource
allocation. Then set out in detail a reply that a defender of QALYs might make to this
criticism. How would Harris respond to this reply? Would his response be effective?
Explain why or why not.
3] Persad, Wertheimer, and Emanuel claim that in the allocation of scarce health resources,
adolescents and young adults should get priority over infants (428). Set out and explain
their defense of this claim. Then develop a plausible objection
to how they defend it
. How
would Persad, Wertheimer, and Emanuel respond to this objection? Would their response
be effective? Explain why or why not.
4] White et al. set out a system for rationing critical care resources such as ventilators and
intensive care beds during a public health emergency. Their framework does not
incorporate long-term life-expectancy into judgments of priority among patients. It “treats
as equal all patients who are not expected to die within a year from an end-stage illness.
For example, a patient expected to live 3 more years would receive equal priority for ICU
treatment as a patient expected to live 30 more years, all other things equal,” they say
(White et al. 3). Explain how White et al. do or would justify this aspect of their framework.
Then develop a plausible criticism of this aspect of it and explain how, in your view, White
et al. might defend the framework against the criticism. Would their defense be successful?
Explain why or why not.
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