Consider the following case:
Mr. Q is a white 55-year-old man who injured his left hand some time ago and now it has turned gangrenous. The skin of his hand has turned black and the odor of the dead and dying skin is overwhelming. If Mr. Q does not have his left hand amputated, the gangrene could spread, requiring the loss of part of his arm or even a systemic infection which could kill him. However, despite the look and smell of his hand and the repeated statements of multiple doctors, Mr. Q refuses to accept that his hand must be amputated and says that if it is just left alone, it will get better. Mr. Q has been examined twice by independent psychiatrists and found to be wholly competent and cognizant and not in any general way mentally impaired, despite his strange refusal to accept medical advice about his hand and its treatment.
You have been called in as an ethics consultant. Some of Mr. Q’s treatment team believe that his hand should be amputated despite his refusal to consent because of the high probability of his death if it is not and the seeming irrationality of his refusal. Others on the team insist that all that should be done is repeatedly giving Mr. Q the medical facts, and beyond that his wishes, whatever they may be, should be respected. Using either care ethics or virtue ethics (not both) as a theoretical basis, describe which of these options you would support, or, if relevant, articulate a third option you believe is superior to both.
Other guidelines
Use direct quotes (whether from the readings, internet sources, or my lectures/slides) sparingly. In essence, I already know that I understand the material and the authors understand their material. If 40% of your paper is direct quotation or close paraphrase, you really aren’t doing much to prove that you understand the material, and your grade will suffer accordingly
The paper prompt is not looking for you to recite back what is on the slides for the relevant day(s) of lecture. What I want to see is that you’ve put some thought into what it would mean to face a difficult medical decision with either virtue or care at the front of your thoughts. This will require some creativity and introspection, not just regurgitating “There are 3 important concepts in virtue ethics. #1 is… #2 is…”
Remember that for this paper, you have been brought in to have an opinion, so don’t make your thesis something like “this is a hard case and there’s arguments on both sides”. At the same time, it’s your job to have an intelligent, informed opinion, so it’s not good enough to say something like “Personally, I think they should…” You should make a recommendation, but you need to give reasons for your recommendation. It can be surprisingly difficult to give reasons for a view in cases like these, but think about things like “What benefits would the opposite decision have? Are they just outweighed by benefits of my preferred decision? Could my preferred decision perhaps incorporate those benefits? What about downsides to my recommendation? Do they also apply to the alternative(s)?” And so on.
Rubric information:
Rubric: Your grade will be based on 4 criteria: clarity, accuracy, relevance, and organization. For each criterion, you will get a score between 1 and 4. Those scores will then be added together and multiplied by 5, giving a possible range of scores between 20 and 80. You automatically get 20 points just for handing in the paper, so when your earned points are added in, your range of possible scores is 40 to 100. The TAs can give scores in quarter-point increments, so it is possible, for instance, to get a 2.25 or a 3.75 for one of the components, but you would not get a 3.3 or a 1.9. Put another way:
a = clarity score
b = accuracy score
c = relevance score
d = organization score
Your total score will be 20 + (5*[a+b+c+d])
Here are guidelines for what counts as a given score on each criterion:
Clarity:
1 – Consistently difficult or impossible to tell what the writer means. Claims are frequently vague or ambiguous, and concepts are used improperly. Grammatical mistakes may hinder intelligibility.
2 – Frequently difficult, sometimes even impossible, to tell what the writer means. Claims are repeatedly vague or ambiguous, and some concepts are used improperly. Grammatical mistakes may hinder intelligibility.
3 – Usually clear writing, but occasionally difficult to tell what writer means. In a few cases, claims are vague or ambiguous, or a concept is misused. Grammar is consistently good.
4 – Writing is consistently clear and writer’s meaning is clear. Claims are rarely if ever vague or ambiguous, and concepts are used properly. Grammar mistakes, if there are any, do not get in the way of understanding the paper’s claims
Accuracy:
1 – Factual claims are regularly incorrect and reconstructions of arguments have many errors.
2 – Incorrect factual claims are incorrect with some frequency, and reconstructions of arguments often have one or more significant errors.
3 – Most factual claims are accurate, and reconstruction of arguments have no serious errors.
4 – Factual claims are reliably correct, having few if any incorrect statements. Arguments are consistently reconstructed correctly
Relevance:
1 – Essay includes a lot of material that is not relevant to the prompt and/or lacks a lot of material that is essential to answering the prompt adequately
2 – Essay repeatedly includes irrelevant material and/or lacks important material
3 – Essay has all or almost all needed material but contains some irrelevant information as well.
4 – Essay is focused on the relevant material, includes everything needed to answer the prompt and does not go off-course with irrelevant things.
Organization:
1 – There is effectively no discernable organization in the paper. Claims are introduced in no orderly way, and the paper does not build on itself to any serious degree
2 – There is not much organization to the paper. In a few short stretches, the paper builds on itself or rationally expands upon ideas introduced, but these are the exceptions, not the rule
3 – The paper mostly succeeds in creating an organized structure where ideas are introduced and then expanded upon and the paper builds on itself well.
4 – The paper consistently offers an organized structure and builds upon itself in a way that makes it easy to follow the author’s line of reasoning
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|