Final: Thl 467 Bioethics

Section I. Short Answer and Multiple Choice. 1 point apiece. 5 points total

Type the letter for the correct response immediately BEFORE the question number (and maybe even highlight it). You may also type a short justification for your answer following the question.


Use the following case for questions 1-4.

“Jim the horse’s contribution to saving lives towards the end of the 19th century cannot be questioned. During his time, the onetime milk wagon horse was used to produce over seven gallons of serum that held antibodies used against diphtheria – the contagious and potentially deadly respiratory tract illness that’s especially dangerous to young children. Then in early October 1901, Jim was found to have contracted tetanus and was put to sleep. At about the same time, a girl in St. Louis died, and it was discovered that the serum from Jim had caused her death. It was subsequently revealed that serum taken from the horse on September 30 onwards was infected with incubation-phase tetanus. Damningly, the samples had not been tested – a process that could easily have uncovered the infection. Additionally, bottles of serum taken on September 30 had been marked ‘August 24.’ Such oversights cost the lives of a further 12 children.” (

“Furthermore, samples from September 30 had also been used to fill bottles labeled ‘August 24,’ while actual samples from the 24th were shown to be free of contamination.” (

Assume that those who gathered and distributed the serum were not intentionally negligent. Don’t read too much into the scenario, either—try to stick to what is written here.

  1. Define “ethical blindness” or “ethical fading,” and explain how it applies to this scenario. (Two sentences is probably enough, but you may write more if you wish. Be precise!)
  1. Which factor helps to explain why the samples were not tested?
  2. Rewards System
  3. Sanctions
  4. Moral Compensation
  5. Overly Discounting the Future
  6. Egoism/Overclaiming
  1. Which of the following is another factor that helps explain why the samples were not tested?
  2. Motivated Blindness
  3. Indirect Blindness
  4. Slippery Slope
  5. Valuing Outcomes Over Process
  1. Which ethical sinkhole best explains why the samples were not tested?
  2. Want Self
  3. Uncertainty
  4. Time
  5. Isolation
  1. A brand-new Concordia grad gets a job with a medical billing company. The company collects payment from patients on behalf of physicians’ offices. The company uses aggressive techniques to collect payments from patients quickly, and it keeps patient payments for 90-100 days before forwarding the funds to physicians’ offices. The Concordia grad is uncomfortable with these practices for a few days, but she quickly forgets about her discomfort. Which factor explains why she quickly forgets about her discomfort?

(Type the answer here):

Section II. Short Essay. 5 points apiece. 15 points total.

Answer each essay question in one to three paragraphs. Articulate and defend a clear thesis rather than simply listing lots of facts. Your essay will be graded on 1) accurate, appropriate use of relevant course concepts and 2) how well you defend your thesis.

  1. Is healthcare a right? That is, do individuals have a right to receive healthcare regardless of their ability to pay? Your response must engage Glannon, ch. 7 or the article by Norman Daniels.
  1. Scenario: a nurse refused to help provide life-sustaining treatments (chest compressions after cardiac arrest, insertion of a ventilator tube) for an incompetent, frail, elderly patient, even though the family requested the treatments and the attending physician ordered them. The nurse believed the treatments would cause great harm with no benefit. She claims that it would go against her conscience to participate in harming a patient in this way. She has been practicing for twelve years, and this is the only time she has been accused of wrongdoing.

Write one paragraph arguing that she should lose her nursing license.

Write a second paragraph arguing that she should not lose her nursing license.

Write a third paragraph in which you choose a side and defend your answer.

You must make use of the articles by Brock and Wicclair. A good response will not merely quote the articles, but engage their arguments in some way.

  1. Should we permit the parents of young children (under age 5) with cancer to volunteer their children for clinical research trials for cancer drugs? Write one paragraph arguing that we should, one paragraph arguing that we should not, and one paragraph in which you choose a side and defend your answer. You must make use of Glannon, ch. 3 or Meilaender, ch. 10.
  1. How long did you spend working on this exam (including looking material up, writing answers, and any other exam-related activities)?

Click here to access the answer..

Leave a Reply

Open Whatsapp chat
Can we help you?