Focus on the stuff on the from the second half. Almost all the questions will be geared to those.
How does mcmahan use the example of a sexual enhancement…?
Screening for disability implies that the disability is a bad thing. If deaf is not bad, then it’s not bad to stop it from happening or induce it. If it is bad and it’s not okay to stop it, then it would be okay for a woman to take a drug that increases sexual pleasure but also increases chances for deafness, but we don’t think that’s okay, so we think that it is okay to stop it.
Transitional costs: it is okay to be born deaf, but it’s not okay to deafen someone because they have to make a transition cost.
Vaughn mentions stem cells. Won’t be a lot of stem cell questions or anything.
Gannon line between treatment enhancement?
you’re treating someone if they’re below normal and you’re bringing them to the normal. You’re enhancing if they’re above normal and you’re raising above. In order to account for this, you need an idea for what normal functioning is.
What do we need to know about Dutch euthanasia?
Just need to know that that’s one of the places where it’s allowed. And it was brought up generally that there’s been some evidence that a lot of the concerns about slippery slope stuff is unfounded. No need for statistics. What might count against Arras? Well this would be a counterexample.
Could we go over the distinctions between collective euthanasia/active and passive?
Active euthanasia and passive: difference between actively killing them like killing them with a pillow, vs passively which is just letting them die like removing a feeding tube. Difficulties with where that line is actually drawn, though. You can have voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary versions of each of them. Voluntary means they actually gave permission (could have been as a do not revive), involuntarily is where they can’t give permission, and non voluntary involves actually killing them against their wishes.
voluntary Physician assisted suicide: you actually give them permission to kill you.
Can you talk about theories of justice (libertarian, utilitarian, egalitarian):
Vaughn talks generally about theories of justice. The general picture:
libertarian: just protect individuals individual rights, just to keep the peace. No positive rights. No right to healthcare.
Utilitarian: everyone in general is as high off as possible. An empirical question on whether to offer healthcare. In none of these views you have an inherent right to heathcare, but it could be a derivative fact.
Egalitarian: it’s about fairness. So try to get everyone to some equality, even if that doesn’t make everyone best off overall. This could be the one where you may have a moral right to healthcare??
Could we talk about why Robinson things there’s a difference between selecting for first vs second child?
One worry about sex selection is that if you select one more than the other is that there will be gender imbalances, it also is a concern about attitudes toward a certain sex. There may be other justifications that are more reasonable: you may want to have a different experience in parenting if you originally had a boy, and you want a girl now. That’s more reasonable and it’s not necessarily going to have a bad consequence because things should be balanced because you’re not just generally selecting one gender over another.
Priorities problem for daniels:
Suppose you have two groups and one is significantly worse off than the other already. You could spend money to make the better off group way better off, or you could help the worse off group just a little bit. What do you do. Sort of a question of utilitarianism.
Two things to get from the canadian healthcare article:
Get why healthcare goods can’t be fully marketed. If you just can’t afford your cab ride, you don’t get the ride but if you can’t afford your heart transplant we still give it to you. Many things we can learn from the canadian healthcare system. Could learn that doing it based on state could be better than what we’re doing. A bunch of small points. Canadians seems to be generally happy with their system. Not a lot of specific questions about this.
QALYs is talked about vaughn in the intro chapter.
Best impact fair outcomes problem is similar to the priorities problem, but not the same. Should read about the best impact fair outcomes problem.
Stuff from the first midterm is fair game, but no questions are going to be explicitly the first half. They’d just be about the stuff connects to the second half.
What according to Anderson, is wrong with applying market norms to human reproduction?
When you use the child as a source of income, you commodified the child and that’s bad. Also because it has a bad effect on the mother. When do it, you’re asking someone to take a different attitude toward the child than normal, and that violates the respect that’s supposed to happen during the pregnancy.
Consent and intent. It’s not necessarily a genetic relationship. Anderson thinks that there is a genetic ties, that when children is born that there’s someone who’s automatically meant to care for them. Essentially that it’s good that there are genetic ties.
What roberston view on PGD to select from perfect pitch?
Just stopped talking about sex selection. Why would we worry about perfect pitch? Worries about sex were whether you’d be leading to social inequalities, but there aren’t these objections for perfect pitch because they’re not a disadvantaged class. A lot of the worries just don’t apply to some instances, such as perfect pitch.