In the following study, imagine that a court has subpoenaed you to testify as an expert witness prior to ruling on a potential abortion. An insurance company wishes to minimize its expenses by offering to pay for no more than the cost of an abortion. The company refuses, unless ordered by the court, to pay more than this amount or to provide medical expenses and death benefits for the family if an abortion is not performed. The company claims that the couple involved is misusing the concept of insurance and is neglecting good advice and good practice. Your expert testimony, therefore, must be packaged in philosophy so transparent that even the newspapers will editorially applaud the obvious wisdom of all concerned.

The Case:
Daniel marries Jane, a girl with a genetic, hormone-sensitive, inoperable brain tumor. While not malignant, the tumor grows slowly and greatly reduces Jane's life expectancy. Jane has known of her condition since early adolescence, when rapid tumor growth occurred under the stimulus of puberty. Tumor growth has slowed and her condition is regarded as stable. She has no evident mental or behavioral defects. Both Jane and Daniel are in their mid-20's. The couple has been warned that pregnancy will stimulate renewed tumor growth and that the gene will be passed to the fetus. Daniel and Jane married acknowledging this circumstance.

After a couple years of marriage, Jane expresses feelings that her life is incomplete without a child. Daniel is convinced and together they conceive. During her pregnancy, Jane's tumor grows. By the sixth month of pregnancy, Jane displays considerable disability and, according to her physician, has now even further reduced her life expectancy to less than a decade.

The condition of the fetus has been examined, revealing a benign brain tumor that is ultimately operable but which will cause irreversible blindness during childhood.

The Question:
What is the insurance company's obligation? What reasons support this view? Should Jane have the abortion? Are Daniel and Jane behaving in an ethically responsible manner? Why or why not?

Suggestion #1:
Your personal stance on abortion per se is not at issue here. The insurance company views the abortion as an effective, less expensive way to meet its obligation and so advocates that action. Moreover, the insurance company is not forcing the abortion, merely claiming that it is not obligated to bail the wife and husband out of financial consequences resulting from their free choices. Your testimony might emphasize rights of the child vs. those of the parents, duty of the husband, role of an impartial "authority" such as the court, responsibility of the couple for their own actions, freedom of the woman, interest of the company (state, society) in medical payments and child support, or innocence of the fetus. Or, your testimony might emphasize something else.

Suggestion #2:
Your correct application of bioethical principles to the position you choose is far more important than the position itself. Therefore, research the texts and apply relevant principles to support your recommendation. Remember: The court's first question to you is going to be, "Why do you argue as you do? What reasons strong enough to sway a skeptic support your testimony?" Failure to have such reasons plainly evident will result in your testimony being disregarded.

Suggestion #3:

After you have accomplished your integrative task and written your paper to address the questions above, please have someone else read it and consider the questions listed below.

• Is interest sparked and maintained throughout the discussion? At what point(s) does interest wane? Where do arguments falter and become unclear?
• Are the argument and language appropriate for the intended audience?
• Has meaningful and appropriate research been done? Are the presented facts beyond dispute? Are there some questions that still need to be answered?
• Are the sources incorporated smoothly and purposefully, or do quotations seem "tacked on"?
• Does the case analysis follow good critical thinking that is clear, logical, deep, broad, and discriminating? Does one point move smoothly to the next?
• Is the thesis insightful? Is it either too nebulous or too trivial?
• Does documentation follow a correct, clear format?
• Is the prose clear and engaging?

---after Carolyn Haynes, Miami University, Ohio

• Please limit yourself to four pages. In-text citations and complete bibliographic references are required for ideas not your own.
• Your audience for this paper is the civil court judge. Use vocabulary, syntax, and format suitable for communicating effectively to an educated audience with liberal knowledge of biology and ethics.
• Expectations and limits related to the mechanics of writing, proof reading, and editing, as outlined in the syllabus, are in effect. A fatal error policy is in effect.
• For this paper, please use a separate page for the title and your name. Staple; do not fold.

Main Learning Objective:
Can the student identify the core of a bioethical problem, construct and analyze viewpoints that may differ in disciplinary content and perspective as they apply to a real problem, subscribe to standards of validity corresponding to those viewpoints, and communicate an understanding of how separate disciplinary standards contribute to support a third [better, interdisciplinary] interpretation?