Reference no: EM132530780

General Instructions for Response Papers

The idea behind each Response Paper is for you to reflect on the case or article and to write a thoughtful, well-reasoned response to the situation or issue presented, incorporating any arguments or conclusions you may make in light of the other readings and presentations in the course. Your evaluation of the case should be based on the following questions: Do you agree with the ultimate outcome of the case or conclusion to the article? What would you have done differently? Are there any red flags that are raised in your mind? As a Christian, how should you respond to situations or arguments like these? The prompt for each Response Paper will present additional, specific questions for you to consider as you read the case. Each prompt will identify which questions you must address and which ones you may consider and optionally address in your response.

One thing to avoid is an emotional response. You may passionately disagree with the outcome or the views of the author(s) or judge(s); however, you must not turn your Response Paper into an emotional rant. Each paper must be a reflective, intellectual, academic response to the merits of the case or article. Also, be respectful of those involved. Do not insult them by calling them names or using other derogatory language. This will lose you points. You can disagree and be respectful about it.

Response Paper 4: "Buck v. Bell (1927)" by Nathalie Antonios and Christina Raup (Embryo Project Encyclopedia)

Read the case summary and address the following questions:

1. What 2 principles are in conflict in this case? Support your answer.

2. What are some red flags you see in how the trial came about and the persons involved?

3. Do you think forced sterilization of those deemed genetically inferior is an appropriate way to deal with the disease?

Questions to consider:

1. How much do you think the decision to treat Carrie as "feebleminded" was based on a moral evaluation of her unwed pregnancy (and her mother's moral background)? Do you think this raises questions about the other 60,000 institutionalized patients who were sterilized between 1927 and 1974?

2. The court argued that forced sterilization as necessary for the public good was similar to forced vaccination. Do you think that argument is successful? In what ways are forced sterilization and forced vaccination analogous and disanalogous?