LWN 164

Health Law and Ethics

Workbook Assessment

Semester 2 2023

Introduction

Students are required to complete
four compulsory workbook exercises. Workbook responses should address the issue raised succinctly and within the word limit set. Students should reference material relied upon in their responses in the usual way. The purpose of the workbook exercises is for students to show their critical engagement with the module material and literature (see CRA sheet for the workbook available on the Canvas site).

Please note:

1) No independent research is required other than as directed below. Use the readings and the lecture material to assist you in answering the workbook exercises.

2) Save this document and insert your answers into it at relevant points.

3) To submit upload to Canvas.

4) The due date is: 5 September 2023

REMEMBER: QUT policy is that late submissions, without an authorised extension, are not marked and receive a mark of 0. There are no exceptions.

Workbook exercise 1: Introduction to Ethics

1) Apply each of the ethical frameworks discussed in the lecture to the following scenario using the space provided in the table below (do not go above 1500 words in total).

A surgeon was approached by a political science lecturer who requested that the surgeon amputate the lecturer’s healthy leg. The lecturer had the support of his wife in making this request. He was a member of a small on-line community of persons who shared his desires who called themselves ‘wannabes’ (i.e. want to be amputees). The lecturer told the surgeon “my left leg is not part of me” and that his desire to be an amputee was so intense and all-consuming it was ruining his life to the extent that he was considering either suicide or performing a self-amputation if the surgeon would not undertake the surgery. The lecturer was assessed by a psychiatrist as being competent to make decisions and had received counselling. Does each ethical theory suggest that the surgeon should or should not operate?

(Further optional reading on the topic of the scenario C Elliott, “A New Way to Be Mad”
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/2000/12/elliott.htm)

Workbook exercise 2: Research Workshop

Read the following papers and answer the questions that follow in the table:

· N Emmerich and C Phillips “Should Professional Interpreters Be Able to Conscientiously Object in Healthcare Settings?’ (2019) doi:10.1136/medethics-2019-105767.

· J Manning “Does the Law on Compensation for Research-Related Injury in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand Meet Ethical Requirements?” (2017) 25:3
Medical Law Review 397-427.

c) Overall, which paper do you consider to be better written and why? (Word limit 200 words)

Workbook exercise 3: Research Ethics

In a maximum of 1000 words, address and justify, using ethical theories and with reference to the required readings and comparing the Ebola outbreak with the Covid-19 outbreak, whether and how research should be undertaken in public health emergencies.

Workbook exercise 4: End-of-life

a) Selecting one ethical theory, mount an argument for or against the legalisation of voluntary assisted dying that is taking place throughout States in Australia. (Word limit 500 words).

b) Identify and discuss the regulatory challenges in implementing a regulated system of voluntary euthanasia/physician assisted suicide in jurisdictions that do not currently have one. You may wish to discuss the recent implementation in States such as Victoria and Western Australia in your answer. (Word limit 500 words)