Does the example of prisoners and medical experimentation provide a special case for the standards of informed consent and reasoning supporting it or do his standards and arguments apply equally to more ordinary medical circumstances where informed consent is required?

Research paper Philosophy (Business Ethics)

1. Critically discuss whether and how professional ethics is distinct from ordinary ethics, using two different professions as the basis for your discussion. For each of the two professions you choose, provide at least one example of a situation where, arguably, professional duties would require a violation of ordinary morality. For each situation, defend a position on whether or not professional duties and obligations should take priority over ordinary duties and obligations or vice versa.
2. Choose a profession other than engineering, and critically discuss whether it is ever morally permissible and/or morally obligatory for a professional to blow the whistle in the case of moral wrong doing. Under what conditions and what kind of actions might warrant whistle blowing?
3. Critically discuss David Thomasma’s position that physicians may be justified in withholding the truth from patients, which he presents in “Telling the Truth to Patients: A Clinical Ethics Exploration.” What other profession do you think that his

argument is applicable to and why?

4. Critically discuss Benjamin Freedman’s arguments in support of the three standards for informed consent outlined in “A Moral Theory of Informed Consent.” Do you agree with these standards and the reasoning supporting them? If yes, explain why you think his arguments are successful and provide additional argumentation in support of his position. If not, explain why you think his arguments are unsuccessful and what objections might

be made or opposing arguments that might be offered. Does the example of prisoners and medical experimentation provide a special case for the standards of informed consent and reasoning supporting it or do his standards and arguments apply equally to more ordinary medical circumstances where informed consent is

required?

5. Critically discuss at least two different concepts of “objectivity” as it applies to journalism and the challenges that it poses for the practice of journalism. Do you think journalistic objectivity (of some form or another) is crucial to the integrity of journalism as a profession? Explain and defend your answer.
6. Critically compare situations in which lawyers and physicians may wish to withhold their services. Do you believe that physicians and lawyers are professionally and morally obligated to provide their services to those in need? In what way are these

professions/professionals similar and different in this regard?

Philosophy