Read the case below. In a 500- to 750-word essay make an ethical argument that answers one of the question at the end of the case based on "rules," legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, etc.
As this is an argumentative style essay, it must have a thesis statement. Please review argumentative essays and thesis statements provided by the Purdue Online Writing Lab (OWL).
Each of the mini assignments focuses on at least one element of ethical analysis. For this essay, your argument should be focused on "rules" – legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, etc. However, it should also include a more brief interested parties piece. This mini assignment builds on several of the assignments so far, including, Ethics Exercise 4: Identifying rules.
In this assignment, rules will be the key to the reasoning that supports your thesis statement. Your essay must show that you have thought broadly about rules and should discuss at least two different kinds of rules (e.g., legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, etc.). The relative importance of the rules should be explicitly articulated.
Case
A group of researchers at Eastern Pacific College (EPC), a member of AAALAC, are utilizing primates as model subjects to test a new obstetric sedative to aid in human child birth. Their plan calls for routinely sedating, injuring by creating small burns on the skin to the upper legs of the chimpanzee, and monitoring their condition for several days.
They are only on day 2 of their planned 120-day protocol, which has not yet included sedation, injury, or monitoring. Near the end of the day, the researchers begin conversing about their distaste for recent animal rights protests on campus, when they suddenly hear a lot of commotion from the primate enclosures. They rush into the enclosure lobby to see that both of the large cages on either side of the room (designed to keep certain chimps apart) are open. While most of the team attempts to settle the aggression, one team member rushes to the lab to alert the veterinarian and the primate handler in accordance with their disaster protocol. Fortunately, the rest of the team manages to quell the fighting with the exception of the two most aggressive and rivalrous chimps. With the help of the veterinarian and handler, they are forcefully separated.
Everyone catches their breath while they assess the damage: several chimps have deep gashes and puncture wounds, one will require amputation of the left arm as it was mangled badly in the fight, another appears to have broken ribs and perhaps internal bleeding. They realize that they will also have to run several tests to rule out the spread of bacterial infections which can take hold in open wounds. No humans are injured during this interaction, assuaging the concerns of the occupational health and safety team.
The researchers go on to discover that one of the team members accidentally left the cages open, leading to the violent encounter. The researcher, clearly shaken by the experience, claimed to not know how to properly secure the doors after missing multiple training sessions. But the team sees opportunity in disaster. To IACUC and Eastern Pacific College's institutional official, they plan to argue that the study does not need to be delayed or canceled. Rather, they can evaluate the sedative in a more realistic setting now that they need to operate and perform testing on these injured chimps anyways. It will make the effects of the sedative easier to study and improve their level of confidence, should it work.
Should the experiment continue? What rules, policies, or ethical principles would you base your decision on?
The Fine Print
Responses should be:
- Submitted via Canvas
- 500 - 750 words
- Uses 2 distinct citations from course material
- In a standard 10 or 12-point font
- Formatted with standard 1 to 1.25- inch margins
You are NOT expected to do research beyond the readings and other materials assigned for class or presented in lecture or recitation.
When you draw on course materials, you need to cite them appropriately. Your essay should include in-text citations and works cited list in APA format. Although including page numbers in APA citations is not required unless you're using a direct quotation, citations to our text are not very illuminating without them. In short, please also include page numbers in your in-text citations using the following schema: (author last name, year, page number).
Background and Grading Rubric
The rubric can be viewed below.
Hints
Your first paragraph should only include case context and your thesis statement.
To identify a principle, policy, etc., explain it in about a paragraph. Describe it specifically and concisely by outlining who, what, when, and where (or as many of these aspects that are appropriate for the item you’re discussing.) Discuss in 1-2 sentences the significance of the item for analyzing your case.
EDME2
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts |
|---|---|---|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeETHICAL THESISEssay contains a thesis statement which suggests a specific course of action and relays reasons for or against the action. | 10 to >7.0 ptsExcellentClear thesis statement appropriately placed in the introduction. Thesis statement attempts to map the argument and give basic structure of the essay. Thesis is normative. At least one element (pieces of justification) involves ethical considerations in the biomedical context.7 to >4.0 ptsGoodThesis is provided, but is deficient in one of the following ways: is not conclusive (e.g., does not serve as argument's conclusion) or omits relevant premises (e.g., interested parties/norms/consequences). 4 to >0 ptsPoorThesis is provided with more than one deficiency OR not provided. | 10 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTHESIS CONNECTIVITYBody of paper provides evidence for claims made in the thesis statement (e.g., thesis accurately maps essay). | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentAccurate correspondence between ethical thesis and essay content.8 to >6.0 ptsGoodPaper defends a thesis, but does so indirectly or narratively. Much of the paper summarizes or restates information given in the case. Information not framed as evidence for a claim. Ethical elements introduced in the analysis but not carried through as key part of argument. 6 to >0 ptsPoorMain point of paper unclear: no thesis, or thesis not defended. Strategy for organizing information is neither articulated nor easily identifiable. Paper fails to consider ethical dimensions of situation in formulating response to question. Ethical analysis is limited to simplistic, sweeping claims | 10 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeNORMS AND STANDARDSEssay identifies legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, or other rules or guidelines relevant in the case. | 30 to >26.0 ptsExcellentAll relevant laws that influence the ethical analysis have been identified and related to the case. Other ethical principles, institutional policies, rules, or guidelines relevant to the analysis that are not necessarily dictated by laws are recognized and related to the case. The relative importance of the laws, ethical principles, institutional policies, and other rules or guidelines has explicitly articulated with rational thought.26 to >23.0 ptsGreatAll major laws have been identified that influence the ethical analysis, but some other ethical principles, institutional policies and other rules or guidelines have been missed. The relative importance of the laws, ethical principles, institutional policies, and other rules or guidelines has not been fully articulated. 23 to >19.0 ptsGoodSome major laws have been identified that influence the ethical analysis, but other ethical principles, institutional policies and other rules or guidelines have been missed. The relative importance of the laws, ethical principles, institutional policies, and other rules or guidelines has not been articulated.19 to >0.0 ptsPoorNot all relevant laws have been identified, or the relationship of those laws are not clear to the issues. The ethical principles, institutional policies, and other rules or guidelines have not been addressed fully.0 ptsNeeds Significant ImprovementNo legal standards, ethical principles, institutional policies, or other rules identified. | 30 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSOURCE INTEGRATIONIntegrates course readings and other course content | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentShows serious contemplation and accurate comprehension of assigned materials. Uses at least 2 distinct sources appropriately using APA format.8 to >6.0 ptsGoodShows completion of and general understanding of assigned materials. May include minor misunderstandings of content or context of materials. Uses less than 2 distinct sources or uses them inappropriately. 6 to >0 ptsPoorSuggests materials skimmed or unclear that materials read/viewed significant misunderstanding of content. Both uses less than 2 distinct sources and does so inappropriately. | 10 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTIMELINESS AND LENGTH | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentPaper is on time and meets the word length requirements8 to >6.0 ptsGoodPaper is either late (between 1-24 hours) or too short. 6 to >0 ptsPoorPaper is both late (between 24-48 hours) and too short without reason. | 10 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWRITING MECHANICS | 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentWriting is clear and free of grammatical errors and typos. References and in-text citations are appropriate and clear.8 to >6.0 ptsGoodWriting has minor errors. There may be minor issues with references and/or in-text citations. 6 to >0 ptsPoorWriting is unclear and has errors that contributes to clarity problems. | 10 pts |
Total Points: 80