Essay Instructions: As one of the “applied” ethics, Biomedical Ethics is neither simply a theory to be learned in philosophy
books nor a set of codes to be learned in a technical training course ??" it is a discipline that moves between theory and
practice. Thus, one of the key methodologies in Biomedical Ethics is the method of “Case Studies,” which presents
an analysis of the ethical questions arising from real-world situations as they are faced by healthcare professionals,
patients, and families. This approach requires a careful foundation in ethical theories and concepts, and a careful
exploration of the ethically relevant facts of the case at hand. Indeed, theories often arise from the attempt to
systematize our intuitions of what is right and wrong in particular cases, and reciprocally new cases require that we
re-evaluate our theories! Your first written assignment will thus be an analysis of a case.
In this assignment, you are required to include 4 sections corresponding to the following list:
A) Introduction: Identify the main topic of concern using the terminology, concepts, and arguments learned
from our course videos, readings, podcasts, and website. Also, clearly identify the “morally relevant
facts” of the case, and any key concepts or facts that are important.
B) Argument(s) for side #1: Identify the strongest argument(s) you can think of for ONE side of the debate.
Be sure to include the reasons supporting the argument(s).
C) Argument(s) for side #2: Identify the strongest argument(s) you can think of for the OTHER side of the
debate, or the best objections to side #1. Again, give reasons and go beyond simply repeating the story.
D) Recommendation/Conclusion: In your opinion and based on your reasoning and arguments, what
ought to happen in this particular case, and what general policy should be supported? Be “objective” and
find the best way between the two sides, or give a reason to choose one over the other. This is your
“considered” or “critical” opinion, not just your unreflective beliefs.
My Case Study:
2) The Case of Scott Starson
In 1999, Scott Starson was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital in Ontario after he had been
found “not criminally responsible” for two counts of uttering death threats. Starson had a history of psychiatric
disorders, and had recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Starson recognized his disorder and voluntarily
underwent psychotherapy, but he refused any medication for the condition. Starson, a gifted theoretical physicist,
believed the medications would destroy his ability to pursue his research, which in his opinion was the only thing
that gave his life meaning. Physicians and officials believed Mr. Starson was unable to genuinely appreciate the
value of treatment, so they petitioned to have his treatment decisions transferred to a surrogate. The petition was
granted, but Mr. Starson appealed in a case that made its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, which overturned
the decision and asserted that Mr. Starson was not incompetent to make medical decisions. A patient, they argued, is
not required to make a decision that is in their “best interests” as determined by the physician, and therefore they are
allowed to disagree with a treatment recommendation. Mentally ill patients, then, must also be allowed to make
medical decisions that disagree with doctors unless a clear inability has been demonstrated. Explore this case and the
consequences it represents for the concept of informed consent and the notion of competence in Canada. Should
doctors be allowed to impose treatments in such cases?
My book that we have to use:
Kluge, Eike-Henner W., ed. Readings in Biomedical Ethics: A Canadian Focus. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall: Toronto, 2005.
There are faxes for this order.
