In this assignment, identify and explore your intuitive critical-thinking strategies.
It is the starting point to developing the skills to analyze information critically.
Also cover the following:
• Identify premises and conclusions
• Discuss whether or not an inference is warranted
• Determine whether arguments utilize inductive or deductive reasoning
• Debate 1: Should the "Ashley X" treatments have been permitted?
The moral line in medicine shifts once again ; EDITORIAL & OPINION:
Lewis, Jemima.The Independent[London (UK)] 06 Jan 2007: 37.
The international outcry over the case of Ashley X, reported in an American medical journal, shows that there are still some scenarios that have a universal power to shock. Ashley, nine, suffers from a rare brain condition, static encephalopathy, which means she has a healthy body but the mental age of a threemonth-old baby. She cannot walk, talk, swallow, hold her head up or roll over. And now she will never grow up, thanks to a pioneering medical intervention that her parents have proudly dubbed "Ashley's Treatment".
It sounds so grotesque as to be scarcely credible. But clear-cut moral judgements rarely survive close examination of the facts. Ashley's parents have cared for her every day of her life, and know her needs better than anyone. As they explain on their website, "Ashley's biggest challenges are discomfort and boredom" - both of which might be greatly exacerbated by the onset of puberty.
She would grow too large to be carried in their arms. Hoists and slings would have to be used instead, replacing the human touch that gives her much reassurance. The extra weight would make her more vulnerable to bedsores. The difficulty of moving her around would leave her even more bed-ridden than she is already, unable to participate in enjoyable every day activities such as car trips or family meals. Her parents were concerned, too, about the perils and pains of sexual maturity. In her state of utter dependency, Ashley can be reduced to tears by a stray hair tickling her face; how would she cope with menstrual cramps, or with the discomfort of being strapped into a wheelchair if she had developed large breasts.
A Convenient Truth: [Op-Ed]
Singer, Peter.New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast)[New York, N.Y] 26 Jan 2007: A.21.
CAN it be ethical for a young girl to be treated with hormones so she will remain below normal height and weight, to have her uterus removed and to have surgery on her breasts so they will not develop? Such treatment, applied to a profoundly intellectually disabled girl known only as Ashley, has led to criticism of Ashley's parents, of the doctors who carried out the treatment, and of the ethics committee at Seattle Children's Hospital, which approved it.
The objections to Ashley's treatment take three forms familiar to anyone working in bioethics. First, some say Ashley's treatment is ''unnatural'' -- a complaint that usually means little more than ''Yuck!'' One could equally well object that all medical treatment is unnatural, for it enables us to live longer, and in better health, than we naturally would. During most of human existence, children like Ashley were abandoned to become prey to wolves and jackals. Abandonment may be a ''natural'' fate for a severely disabled baby, but it is no better for that reason.
Finally, there is the issue of treating Ashley with dignity. A Los Angeles Times report on Ashley's treatment began: ''This is about Ashley's dignity. Everybody examining her case seems to agree at least about that.'' Her parents write in their blog that Ashley will have more dignity in a body that is healthier and more suited to her state of development, while their critics see her treatment as a violation of her dignity.
• Identify and explain the strongest argument in each article.
Or
• Identify and explain the weakest argument in each article.
• Give reasons and examples from your research in support of your response.
Your initial response should be about 300-400 words in length, with at least one reference cited in APA format.