Health ethics discussion paper

Health ethics discussion paper

This week, we will discuss the ethical considerations surrounding the forced containment of those who may become infected with the Ebola virus.

For this assignment, you will first play the role of a senior advisor to the President of the United States. He has asked you to assist him in persuading the American people that containment is ethical.

You will then play the opposing role – a private citizen who opposes containment. Your job here will be to argue that containment is not ethical.

Finally, for your third post, respond to one of your classmates’ post and argue against the position in the post you respond to. You will either argue in favor containment or against containment.

Be sure to title your posts accordinglyLet the class know if it is Post 1, Post 2 and Post 3

Here is a summary of the three posts you will submit this week:

POST 1: ( I did this)

Provide the American people (i.e. class members) with your justifications for containment. You should persuade them to believe that containing their sick family members is ethical.

POST 2: ( pending )

For post 2, you are no longer a presidential advisor. You are now a private citizen who opposes containment. Choose a fellow student’s post, and state your objections. Your job is to persuade that particular presidential advisor (i.e. that student’s post) that containment is unethical. Be sure to choose a post that has not already been responded to.

POST 3: ( pending )


Now you choose a side; you can either be a presidential advisor, or a private citizen. Review the posts submitted by your colleagues, and respond to one. This is your final opportunity to persuade your audience in either direction. If you’re a presidential advisor, convince us that containment is ethical. If you’re a private citizen, convince us that containment is not ethical.


For a 100, you will need at least……

  1. Three posts:
    1. Between 150 – 250 words each
    2. With citations to outside research
    3. On three different days
  2. Correct grammar and spelling
  3. Posts that are responsive to the question(s) asked


Here is an example of a post that meets criteria:

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. The Supreme Court at that time determined that a woman had a right to choose. One of the “underpinning” issues of Roe is a right to privacy. The right to privacy is addressed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments.The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Roe v Wade 38 times (1). In 1992, Casey v Planned Parenthood,14 F.3d 848, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the core of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy. In this case, the Supreme Court stated, “the ability of women to participate equally in economics and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives and that this ability to control their reproductive lives was enough of a reliance to sustain Roe.”(2). This conclusion by the court specifically affirmed the doctrine stare decisis as it applies to Roe v Wade.(3)

In my opinion the original ruling in 1973, 38 reaffirmations, the 1992 affirmation of Roe v. Wade doctrine of Stare Decisis , the rights to privacy as indicated above, along with the fact that this law has become a law that has come “to be relied on”(4), makes it obvious that this is “settled law”. However, Judge Alito’s refusal to commit to one side or the other, has enabled him to avoid hanging himself with either the pro-life or the pro-choice side. In my opinion, Judge Alito is not correct in his refusal to acknowledge Roe v Wade as settled law.

Open chat