5 questions using textbook on Bioethics. 300 words each question totalling 1500 words for total paper. Due Monday June 1st at 7pm est.

1. Read pages 104-109 & 115-121 than form an opinion on medical paternalism and autonomy after having read both sides of the issue. YOU MUST QUOTE FROM THE TEXT AND CITE THE PAGE NUMBER IN YOUR POST. Please discuss BOTH sides of the issue in your post, and then your own opinion on the matter, in light of both sides of the issue. In other words, show your reasoning for your view by reflecting on different sides of the debate. ( 300 words) 2. Read pages 155-159 and than answer the following question: Although Thomasma says the truth is important, he describes a number of cases where patients should not be told the truth. Do you agree with Thomasma that these cases are exceptional and patients should not be told the truth? (300 words) 3. Read pages 196-223 and than write a summary explaining how you would give a patient informed consent for an upcoming surgery (please fill in the details using your imagination). In your explanation of how you would give consent, address the following issues: (300 words) -Shared Decision-Making: Why are Faden and Beauchamp against the idea of informed consent as "shared decision-making"? Explain by discussing the distinction between sense1and sense2 of informed consent. -Legal Documentation of Informed Consent: Why are Faden and Beauchamp (and Katz, who they discuss in the article) disappointed with the legal doctrine of informed consent? -Joint Decision-Making: What is Katz's concept of 'joint decision-making' (p. 199) and what are some barriers to joint decision-making? What does he propose should replace the current state of physician-patient decision-making? 4. Read the Belmont Report, the gold standard of ethical research in humans, (p. 217-220) and answer the following question: A well-known AIDS researcher believes he has discovered a new and less expensive medication for the treatment of AIDS. To test the efficacy of the medicine, he needs to conduct a Phase III clinical trial in which one group receives the medicine and one group does not. However, in the United States, he is not allowed to give the control group a placebo, since it is illegal to withhold the standard treatment, when an adequate treatment has been discovered. He chooses to conduct the trial in a poor African nation where there is no standard of treatment, so that he can have a control group that receives no medicine. His rationale is that a new unknown treatment is better than no treatment at all. Is this argument ethical and consistent with the principles laid out in the Belmont Report? 5. Read pages 348-352 and write about Noonan (300 words). Noonan's discussion addresses the question, "When does personhood begin?" What is his answer to this question? Explain by describing the details of his argument for his position. (This argument is known as an 'argument by elimination.') Do you agree with Noonan regarding the point at which one is a person? Why or why not? If you have read all instructions and would like to send me a bid, please start off your message/offer with the word READ. Thank you! Textbook: file:///Users/krista/Downloads/Lewis%20Vaughn%20-%20Bioethics%20Principles,%20Issues,%20And%20Cases-Oxford%20University%20Press%20(2016)%20(1).pdf