3.) What are some of the connections that might be made between Aristotelian Virtue Ethics and the Hippocratic Oath (both classic and contemporary renderings) in terms of their prescriptions for moral behavior? Explain. 4.) In your own words, explain the meaning of Aristotle’s notion of ‘ eudaimonia ’, and its pertinence to our reflections on the occupational functioning of health-care professionals and to the needs of patients. 5.) In your own words, explain Aristotle’s doctrine of the ‘Golden Mean’ in relation to the virtues. In relation to what you know about some of the major ethical issues in medicine and/or the ethical issues that medical professionals must navigate in performing their occupational functions, do you agree with Aristotle’s claim that the right thing to do in any given situation calling for moral deliberation resides in acting in accordance with the virtuous mean between extremes? Why or why not? II. Aquinas and Christian Ethics: 1.) With reference to what you know about some of the major ethical issues in biomedicine and/or the ethical issues that medical professionals must navigate in carrying out their occupational functions, is ethics even possible without some conception of ‘God’ grounding it? Are members of the clergy necessarily experts in relation to morality? Why or why not?
PHILOSOPHY 2202: Ethics in Medicine and the Law Fall 2012, University of Winnipeg 2.) With reference to the sources of Christian Ethics, what are the chief limitations to a biomedical professional’s potential use of its principles in navigating the moral issues that arise in carrying out their occupational function, if any? Explain and provide examples. 3.) With reference to the sources of Christian ethics, does religion (e.g. including recourse to the notion of ‘God’) have any place in respect to determining what is right and wrong in the largely secular medical profession? Why or why not? 4.) Are religious justifications in respect to legislation concerning ethical issues in medicine and the biomedical sciences, e.g. abortion, euthanasia, cloning, stem cell research, the genetic modification of organisms, etc… acceptable? Why or why not? If not, are mechanistic and reductionist views more appropriate (e.g. the ‘scientific’ description of the human embryo as a mere ‘ball of cells’)? 5.) Should patients have the right to deny scientifically legitimate treatments on religious grounds when they could be the only thing that saves their lives? Should family members of patients have the right to deny scientifically legitimate treatments for loved ones who are unable to make a decision for themselves (e.g. children, the mentally challenged), on religious grounds? Why or why not?