THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

SOCIOLOGY 573

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

James G. Anderson, Ph.D Andersonj@purdue.edu] Fall, 2009

Stone 353 494-4703

Objectives:

Health care has become the focal point for many of the current social conflicts in the U.S. (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, equity in access to health care, etc.). This course is designed to introduce students to the ways in which social theory and research can illuminate these issues. It encourages a research orientation and critical thinking involving a sociological perspective. Materials selected for reading and discussion situate these issues and the health care institutions in their social, political, and cultural context.

Each issue that is discussed is designed to:

(a) Provide students with well-developed material concerning sharply opposed points of view on social-medical conflicts.

(b) Help students to understand the sociological perspective and its relevance to vital issues confronting them and American society.

(d) Develop students’ ability to collect data and information that can be used to draw conclusions and form opinions.

(e) Develop professional skills in presenting orally and in writing the results of group and independent research.

Requirements:

Attendance: You are expected to attend and participate in each class. One point will be deducted for each class that you miss. In case of an illness or emergency, please notify me before class. I will determine whether or not to excuse you from class on that day.

Study Questions: The course is divided into a number of topics that will be discussed in class. Readings will be assigned for each topic. You are to complete the study questions for any 10 of the issues. These study questions are due the class after we discuss the topic. Use a word processor.

Group Projects: You are required to complete five group projects. These projects will require you to collect and analyze data. The reports should be 3-4 pages double spaced. Use a word processor. Your group may be asked to present your findings from a group project. Each member of the group will be asked to rate the contribution of all other group members.

Research Project: In addition, you are expected to write a research paper on a topic related to the course. Your topic should be approved by the instructor. The papers should be based on a small scale research project that you design and carry out after consultation with me. You also are expected to make a short class presentation based on your project. The projects should be carried out in stages (see following section). The proposal for your project is due on Sept. 17. After conducting your research, a draft of the final report of your project is due on Nov. 19. I will go through it and make suggestions for revisions. The final copy of your research report is due on Dec. 10.

Grading in the course is based on the following:

Research Project

Proposal 5

Draft of report 5

Final report 30

Class Presentation 20

Group projects 20

Class Attendance and Participation 10

Study Questions 10

Total 100

Texts:

Required:

J. G. Anderson, The Human Side of Medicine, Syllabus. www.//web.ics.purdue.edu/~janders1

C. Levine, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues, 12^th Edition, Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Co., 2008.

Recommended:

J.G. Anderson and K.W. Goodman, Ethics and Information Technology: A Case-Based Approach to a Health Care System in Transition. New York: Springer, 2002.

Schedule:			Assignment
Date	Topic
Aug 25	Introduction: Strangers at the Bedside Human Side of Medicine Overview 2003 Class Organization

	Choices in Reproduction
Aug 27	Should pregnant women be punished for exposing fetuses to risk? 60 Minutes: Cracking Down Fetal Harm		Issue 1 TV
Sept 1	Are reproductive technologies beneficial or harmful? Bloodlines: Technology Hits Home Reproductive Technologies 99		Issue 2 TV
Sept 3	Is genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology? Human Embryo Research		Issue 3 TV
Sept 8	Is Surrogate motherhood beneficial or harmful? Surrogate Mothers		Issue 4
Sept 10	Is Abortion immoral? Abortion: Desperate Choices Abortion		Issue 5 VCR
Sept 15, 17	Are abstinence programs effective in preventing HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies or extra-marital sex? Group Project		Issue 6 VCR
Sept 17	Preliminary outline of your research project		Due
	Decisions About Death
Sept 22	Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide? Medicine and Mercy Assisted Suicide		Issue 7 DVD
Sept 24	Who should decide end-of-life decisions? The Terry Schiavo case: Lines drawn between end of life decisions		Issue 8 DVD
	AIDS
Sep 29	Should health care workers and patients be tested for HIV? Mandatory HIV Testing		Issue 9
Oct 1	Should HIV-infected surgeons be allowed to operate? 48 hours: Fatal Secret Restrictions on HIV+ Physicians		Issue 10 VCR
Oct 6, 8	Does online access to health information pose risks to consumer? Group Project		Issue 11
Oct 13	*Fall Break* Human and Animal Experimentation
Oct 15	Should animal experimentation be permitted? 60 Minutes: Animal research Animal Research	Issue 12 TV
Oct 20	Can human experimentation be justified by the outcomes? Deadly Deception	Issue 13 VCR
	Organ Donation
Oct 22	Should there be a market in body parts? Organ Donation	Issue 14
	Doctor/Patient Relationship
Oct. 27, 29	Should pharmacists be allowed to deny prescriptions on grounds of conscience? 60 Minutes: The Morning After Pill Group Project	Issue 15 TV
Nov. 3	Do parents harm their children when they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds? 60 Mins: Some Call it Manslaughter? Refusal of Medical Treatment on Religious Grounds	Issue 16 TV
Nov. 5	Should doctors be able to refuse demands for futile treatment? CBS: The right to live Medical Futility	Issue 17 VCR
Nov. 10	Does direct-to-consumer drug advertising enhance patient choice? Big bucks, Big Pharma: Marketing Disease and Pushing Drugs	Issue 18 DVD
	Genetic Testing and Research
Nov. 12, 17	Should the Federal Government fund human stem cell research? Stem Cell Research Social Use of Genetic Information Group Project	Issue 19
Nov. 19	*Preliminary draft of your research report*	Due
Nov. 19, 24	*Class presentations*
Nov. 26	*Thanksgiving*
Dec 1, 3, 8, 10	*Class presentations*
Dec. 10	*Research Project report*	Due

Reading Assignments:

Issue No.	Description	Location
1	Should pregnant women be punished for exposing fetuses to risk?	Text Issue 9
2	Are reproductive technologies beneficial or harmful?	VCR
3	Is genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology?	Text Issue 13
4	Is surrogate motherhood beneficial or harmful?	UG Library
5	Is abortion immoral?	Text Issue 8
6	Are abstinence programs effective in preventing HIV/AIDS/ unwanted pregnancies or extra marital sex? Group Project	Group Project
7	Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide?	Text Issue 6
8	Who should decide in end-of-life decisions (the Terry Schiavo case)?	DVD
9	Should health care workers and patients be tested for HIV?	UG Library
10	Should HIV-infected health care workers be restricted from performing invasive procedures?	UG Library
11	Does online access to health information pose risks to consumers? Group Project	Anderson Chapts. 3-4
12	Should animal experimentation be permitted?	Text Issue 14
13	Can human experimentation be justified by its outcomes?	VCR
14	Should there be a market in body parts?	Text Issue 19
15	Should pharmacists be allowed to deny prescriptions on grounds of conscience? Group Project	Text Issue 20
16	Do parents harm their children when they refuse treatment on religious grounds?	Text Issue 11
17	Should doctors be able to refuse demands for futile treatment?	Text Issue 7
18	Does direct-to-consumer drug advertising enhance patient choice?	Text Issue 3
19	Is the ban on federal funding of human stem cell research justifiable? Group Project	Text Issue 12

Grading

You are expected to attend and participate in each class. One point will be deducted for each class that you miss. In case of an illness or emergency, please notify me before class. I will determine whether or not to excuse you from class on that day. Assignments are due on the date indicated in the syllabus. A point will be deducted for each day that an assignment is late.

Group projects will be graded on both your contribution to the group effort and your specific written portion of the project.

Final grades will be based on the following:

Points Grade

100-99 A+

98-93 A

92-90 A-

89-88 B+

87-83 B

82-80 B-

Points Grade

79-78 C+

77-73 C

72-70 C-

69-68 D+

67-63 D

62-60 D-

59-0 F

Evaluation Criteria for Written Assignments

(adapted from the GRE scoring guide)

An “A” paper presents a cogent, well-articulated analysis of the complexities of the topic and conveys the meaning of this complexity with skill. A typical paper in this category will:

• Clearly identify all critical features of the topic, including competing positions, and present an insightful position on the topic. Graduate students are expected to present and defend an original position.

•Develop this position with compelling arguments and/or persuasive examples

•Sustain a well-focused, well-organized analysis which connects your ideas in a logical progression, with clear transitions, and builds to a persuasive, forward-looking conclusion

•Express ideas fluently and precisely, use effective vocabulary and sentence variety

•Demonstrate excellent facility with the conventions of standard English with no errors of grammar, usage, or mechanics. The paper will use a standard bibliographic reference style. The paper will be proofread for other technical errors (page numbering, “widows” etc).

•Refer to a variety of sources (academic publications, “grey literature” from NGOs, popular print media, professional peer-reviewed scholarly websites, popular websites), but the bulk (80%) of the argument is based on peer-reviewed scholarly sources (unless the topic of the paper is specifically an analysis of popular sources)

•Include all the standard components of a written assignment, including but not limited to: cover page (title, course details, personal contact information), page numbers on all pages except title page, sub-headings, introduction with thesis, hypothesis, or research questions clearly articulated, paper summary AND conclusion – conclusion is forward-looking with ideas for further research or suggestions for interventions. See “Final Paper Checklist” in your syllabus for a more complete list.

•A few, minor errors are permitted if they do not interfere with the clarity of the argument or flow of the paper

A “B” paper presents a generally thoughtful, well-developed analysis of the complexities of the topic and conveys the meaning of this complexity clearly. A typical paper in this category will:

•Present a well-considered position on the topic

•Develop the position with logically sound reasons and/or well-chosen examples

•Be focused and well organized, connecting ideas appropriately

•Express ideas clearly and well, using appropriate vocabulary and sentence variety

•Demonstrate good facility with the conventions of standard English but may have some minor errors of grammar, usage, or mechanics. The paper will use a standard bibliographic reference style. The paper may have some other technical errors (page numbering, “widows” etc).

•Refer to a variety of sources (academic publications, “grey literature” from NGOs, popular print media, professional peer-reviewed scholarly websites, popular websites), but less than the bulk (80%) of the argument is based on peer-reviewed scholarly sources (unless the topic of the paper is specifically an analysis of popular sources)

•Include all the standard components of a written assignment, including but not limited to: cover page (title, course details, personal contact information), PAGE NUMBERS, sub-headings, introduction with thesis, hypothesis, or research questions clearly articulated, paper summary AND conclusion – conclusion is forward-looking with ideas for further research or suggestions for interventions. See “Final Paper Checklist” in your syllabus for a more complete list.

A “C” paper demonstrates some competence in its analysis of the issue and in conveying its meaning, but is obviously flawed in at least ONE of the following ways:

•Is vague or limited in presenting or developing a position on the topic

•Is weak in the use of relevant arguments or evidence

•Is poorly focused and/or organized

•Has problems of language and sentence structure that interfere with the clarity of the argument

•Contains occasional major errors or frequent minor errors in grammar, usage or mechanics that interfere with the clarity of the argument

•Does not refer to a variety of sources as described above

•Is missing some of the standard components of a written assignment as described above

General Guidelines for Papers:

All papers must be typed, with 1 inch margins and in 12 point font (times new roman or similar) and double spaced. Papers can be turned in directly to me or emailed to the instructor (receipt of email papers will be confirmed by return email). The student is responsible for ensuring that the paper has reached the instructor by the deadline. The instructor is not liable for lost papers, undelivered e-mails or unreadable attachments. Late papers will be penalized (it doesn’t matter why they were late unless you have a doctor’s written excuse). For each day late (day 1 = the day the paper is due past the stated deadline or end of class) the paper will be reduced by 10% of the grade. Papers that are more than one week late, without prior permission from the instructor, will not be graded and will receive a 0 (unless you were in a coma or being held hostage – proof is required).

Cite your work. If you are unsure of how to reference or what should be referenced – see the instructor or consult the writing center. All quotations or numbers (facts and figures) must be referenced with a page number. Paraphrases or summaries of other’s work or ideas must be referenced with the author and year.

The best references are from recent, peer-reviewed journals. Books may be used for general information, but remember they are generally out of date by the time they are published and are not peer-reviewed. Web sites may be used with caution. Anyone can put information on a website – Bob’s Globalization Website is not an appropriate website to reference, even if you like what Bob has to say. Only websites that are maintained by reputable organizations – like the World Health Organization – are appropriate. Generally, if you can’t tell when the information was put on the website, or why the authors are experts, you shouldn’t use that site. If you have any doubts, check with the instructor. You will lose points on your papers if you use inappropriate websites as references (the amount of points depends on how much your argument relies on this reference).

Group Presentation

Groups will consist of 3-4 students. The presentation will focus on conclusions drawn from data collected by the group members and must be presented using Power Point. Each group will have a total of 20 minutes. Each group presentation should include a 15 minute presentation and 5 minutes for discussion of the issues. Presentations are limited to 20 minutes (additional question/discussion time will not count against the group). The group’s written reports are due on the date indicated in the syllabus. Correct and appropriate referencing is also required for presentations.

Final Paper/Research Project:

21-30 pages.

This is an individual paper. See the outline below concerning how the paper is organized and will be graded. A minimum of 12 references are required for this paper (but for most, I would recommend more). You are also required to present the results of your research using Power Point. Again see below regarding how to organize your presentation and how it will be graded.

Final Papers are Due Thursday December 10^th, 2009 by 4:30 pm.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Research Project:

You are expected to write a paper applying some aspect of the course material to your own field of study. The paper should be based on a small-scale research project that you design and carry out after consultation with me. I would suggest that you adhere to the following procedures in carrying out your project:

1. Identify an area of interest or one that is relevant to your major, minor, or career interests (e.g., genetic screening and counseling).

2. Read the relevant chapter in the text to learn more about your area of interest. Also, look up some of the references cited in the text and read them (e.g., read Genetic Testing).

3. Talk to me, a faculty member in your department, a practitioner in your field, or a graduate student in your department who has had some experience in a health-related field (e.g., an M.D., R.N., pharmacist, medical technician, etc.).

Proposal: (5 points)

1. Define a specific research topic (e.g., ethical implications of genetic counseling and prenatal diagnosis).

2. Develop a preliminary outline of your paper. Your outline should include the following:

A. State the specific problem that you intend to investigate.

B. Indicate briefly what you already know from your preliminary readings and discussions about the problem. Cite relevant literature.

C. State your research objectives. Indicate what you want to learn about the problem.

D. Describe your research methods. Suggest how you plan to go about collecting information for your study (e.g., site visits, interviews with practitioners and/or patients, questionnaires, etc.).

E. Outline a timetable for your study. This should include expected dates for the completion of:

(1) A literature review

(2) Development of your data collection plan and instruments (i.e., interview schedules, questionnaires etc.)

(3) Collection of data

(4) Preparation of a first draft of your research report

(5) Presentation of your report to the class

(6) Revision and preparation of the final draft of your report

3. Include a preliminary list of references (6 or more).

4. Use the following headings in your proposal: Title, Problem Statement, Research Objectives, and Research Methods.

5. Discuss your outline with me and revise it based on our discussion.

Research:

1. Prepare and submit your research proposal (5 points).

2. Carry out your project and prepare the first draft of your report (5 points). Submit you draft to me by Nov. 19.

3. Present your report to the class when scheduled (20 points).

4. Revise your report and prepare the final draft (30 points).

4. Submit your report to me by Dec. 10.

5. Don’t forget to frequently discuss your project with me and/or faculty in your department as your research project progresses.

Due: When Scheduled

Class Presentation:

1. Your class presentation should be timed to last no more than 10 minutes. Use Power Point.

2. It should be organized as follows:

Points

(5) 1. Introduction: Introduce the problem and its importance; State your research objectives and questions.

(3) 2. Research methods: Describe the research methods you used for your study; How you collected your data/information; Who your respondents were.

(5) 3. Results: Present you findings organized around your research objectives or questions. Use graphs and tables when appropriate.

(5) 4. Discussion: Summarize your findings; Point out the extent to which your results agree or disagree with published studies and interpret similarities and differ3ences; What are the implications, strengths and weaknesses of your study?

(2) 5. Instructional Aids: Use Power Point for your presentation.

20 TOTAL

Preliminary Report (5 points):

A draft of the final report of your research project is due by Nov. 19. I will go through it and make suggestions for revisions. It should be organized as follows:

Pages	Points

1	3	Introduction: Clear statement of the problem and objective of the research
2-4	2	Literature Review: Summary of the important literature that is relevant to the problem
6-8	5
1-2	5	Method: Describe how the study was conducted. Include a description of the data collection plan and any instruments used (e.g., questionnaire).
6-8	5	Results/Findings: Presentation of the results or findings of your research project, summary of the data collected, etc. Use graphs/tables and text.
4-5	5	Conclusions/Implications: Clear statement of the conclusions or implications of your research findings, future directions for research, limitations of your research, etc.
1-2	5	References: List all references cited in the text of your report. Minimum – 12 references.
		Appendix: Include copies of your proposal, preliminary report, data you collected, data collection instruments you used, and a disk file with your PowerPoint presentation.
21-30	30	TOTAL

Final Report (30 points):

The final report of your research project is due by Dec 10.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Points that apply to issues in biomedical ethics

1. Conflicts concerning Bioethical issues.

2. Analysis must involve respect for divergent positions

A. Establish the facts

B. Outline divergent positions

C. Identify underlying ethical principals

3. Law and ethics are not the same

4. Limits to political/legal solutions to social problems

5. Ethical Principals

A. Autonomy

` -Right to make one’s own decisions

B. Beneficence

-Principle of doing good

C. Nonmaleficence

-Avoid causing harm

D. Justice

-Obligation to be fair

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 1 - Should pregnant women be punished for exposing fetuses to risk?

Read Issue 9 from Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues that outlines the affirmative and negative positions on this issue. Outline the arguments for each side.

State your own opinion on this issue.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 1 - Class Exercise

After watching the video,

60 Mins: Cracking Down

1. Does the policy of requiring every pregnant woman who enters the hospital to sign a statement giving their permission to be tested for drugs violate their constitutional rights?

2. Do you agree with the policy of arresting pregnant women who test positive for drugs and refuse to enter a drug treatment program?

3. Will such a policy deter women from seeking prenatal care?

4. Should this policy be extended to other behavior that is hazardous to the fetus such as drinking and smoking?

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 2 – Are Reproductive Technologies beneficial or harmful?

After viewing the video Bloodlines: Technology Hits Home write a critique outlining the issues raised. State your own position on theses issues and the reasons for your position.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Chapter 2 -Class Exercise: Reproductive Technologies

Reproductive technologies allow many couples to have babies. But these technologies raise troubling questions about the increasing medicalization and commercialization of basic biological processes. Below are listed a number of reproductive technologies. List the benefits and potential harm associated with each technology. Also, list any legal restrictions or regulations that you think are needed

Technology	Benefits	Harm	Regulations
Sperm Donation
Egg Donation
Harvesting of Eggs
Artificial Insemination (AI)
Invitro Fertilization (IVF)
Gamete Intrafallopian Transfer (GIFT)
Zygote Intrafallopian Transfer (ZIFT)
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI)
Surrogate Motherhood
Human Cloning

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 3 – Is genetic enhancement an unacceptable use of technology?

Read Issue 13 in Taking Sides.

(1) Should PGS be permitted to allow couples to choose those embryos that are free of their parents’ genetic defects for implantation and gestation?

(2) Will PGS lead to eugenics, discrimination based on gender and other genetically determined traits? If so, how can this be prevented?

(3) Will PGS result in children becoming a means to achieve parents’ goals? Is genetic enhancement acceptable? If not, why not?

(4) How can the privacy and confidentiality of information obtained by PGS be protected? For example, will employers and insurance companies be able to gain access to this information?

(5) Outline any regulations that you think should be imposed on the use of this new technology.

Issue 3 – Class Exercise

Human Embryo Research

You are to recommend guidelines for the funding of research on human embryos. First, you are to classify potential research into one of three categories: research acceptable for federal funding, research that requires additional review before funding, and research that is unacceptable for federal funding. A number of potential research projects are listed below.

Research	Accept-able	Needs More Study	Unaccept-able	Rationale
1. Methods to improve chances of pregnancy
2. Fertilization
3. Egg activation, maturation, and freezing
4. Genetic diagnosis before implantation
5. Development of embryonic stem cells
6. Cloning and use of oocytes without transfer to the uterus for gestation
7. Cloning and use of oocytes followed by transfer to the uterus for gestation
8. Cross-species fertilization

You are to develop specific guidelines for the review and conduct of federally funded research. These guidelines should cover the following aspects of the proposed research:

(1) Research goals

(2) Research design

(3) Alternate means of accomplishing the research goals

(4) Number of embryos required for the research

(5) Informed consent

(6) Commercial buying and selling of embryos for research purposes

(7) Age of embryo when the research is performed

(8) Disposal of embryos

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 4 - Is surrogate motherhood beneficial or harmful?

Read Chapter 3 in Reproductive Technologies. Outline the arguments for and against the use of surrogate mothers who are paid for their efforts.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 4 – Class Exercise

Case

Valerie, a 23-year old mother of two boys, age two and three, agreed to become a surrogate mother for $10,000 fee and expenses. She conceived by artificial insemination with Aaron’s sperm. Aaron and Mandy had undergone years of treatment for infertility without success. They had considered adoption, but would have to wait for several years before an American baby would be available. As the pregnancy progressed, Valerie and her husband, Bill, a truck driver, had begun to have reservations about giving up the child that was “one-half” theirs. When the baby girl was born they refused to give it up and offered to return the money. Aaron and Mandy want the court to order Valerie and Bill to honor their contract.

Valerie and Bill want the court to permit them to keep and raise the baby and to allow them to refund the $10,000 they were paid. A court appointed fact finder has suggested that the two couples be granted joint custody of the baby.

ROLE PLAY

You will be assigned a role to play in the hearing. Try to create details as you go along. Convey your feelings of anger, outrage, betrayal, concern for the best interests of the baby.

The judge and members of the jury can ask questions or challenge statements made by the couples and their attorney at any time. At the end of the hearing the jury will be asked to vote on the three proposals.

ROLES

1. Valerie, the surrogate mother. You might argue that you carried the baby to term; endured the discomfort, pain and risk of childbirth and that you have bonded with the baby.

2. Bill, Valerie’s husband. You might argue that the baby is “one-half” yours and that you and the other children consider the baby part of the family.

3. Attorney for Valerie and Bill. You could argue that the contract is null and void since it constitutes “selling a Baby’ which is against Indiana State Law.

4. Aaron, Mandy’s husband. You can argue that it is your baby since you contributed the sperm.

5. Mandy. You might argue that you have tried for years to have a baby without success. Since Valerie and Bill already have two children, it is only fair that they permit you to have this child.

6. Attorney for Aaron and Mandy. You can argue that the contract is binding and should be enforced by the courts.

7. Court Appointed Fact Finder. You might argue that the dispute could be resolved by granting the two couples joint custody of the baby.

8. Social Worker. You should argue that the baby’s welfare is the most important consideration.

9. Judge. You are to ask each participant and their attorneys to make a statement to the jury. Each attorney may question the other couple and their attorney. Jury members may ask questions and challenge statements made by the two couples and their attorneys.

10. Jury. You will vote at the end of the trial. You may vote to:

A. Award custody of the bay to Valerie and Bill and refund the $10,000 that was paid.

B. Award custody of the baby to Mandy and Aaron.

C. Award joint custody of the baby to the two couples.

D. Award custody of the baby to Valerie and Bill with visitation rights by the other couple.

E. Award custody of the baby to Mandy and Aaron with visitation rights to the other couple.

F. Award custody of the baby to the state with the intention of finding a foster home for the baby.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 5 – Is abortion immoral?

Read Issue 8 in Taking Sides.

After viewing the program, Abortion, select two of the cases depicted in the program.

(1) Briefly outline each case.

(2) Outline the arguments for and against each woman’s decision to have an abortion.

(3) State your own position on each case.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 5 - Class Exercise: Abortion

After viewing the 60 Minutes Program, Becky’s Story:

1. Form into groups of six.

2. Outline the arguments both for and against parental notification for minors seeking abortions.

3. Determine the groups position on this issue (It is quite acceptable to have a minority position on the issue).

4. Appoint a member of the group to report the results of your discussion to the class.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 5 - Class Exercise: Abortion

Attitudes toward abortion range from the contention that women have an absolute right to control their own bodies to the argument that a fetus’s right to life is more important than a woman’s right to control her reproduction. Much of the debate over abortion centers around who should have a say in the decision to abort: the pregnant woman, the parents of teenage girls, the father or the state. Below is a list of restrictions on abortion, some of which have been enacted into state laws. Indicate whether you agree or disagree with each restriction. Also, briefly summarize the reasons for your decision in each case.

Position	Agree	Disagree	Reasons
1. No restrictions on a woman’s right to choose.
2. Restrict the use of public funds for abortion.
3. Require a 24 hour waiting period.
5. Require parental consent for teenage girls.
5. Require husband’s consent for married women.
6. Ban on late term abortions.
7. Ban unless there is a threat to the mother’s health.
8. Ban unless there are severe abnormalities in the fetus.
9. Ban except for rape or incest.
10. Total ban. Fetus has an absolute right to life.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Group Project

Issue 6 – Are abstinence programs effective in preventing HIV/AIDS, unwanted pregnancies or extra marital sex?

Group Project

Form groups of 4-5. Survey at least 30 people using the attached questionnaire. Prepare a 3-4 page report of your findings. Use a word processor.

Organize your report as follows:

(1) State your objectives.

(2) Describe your research methods.

(3) Present your findings in tables and/or graphs. Compare respondents’ responses by age, political identification and religion.

(4) Discuss your results.

Survey

Effectiveness of Abstinence Programs/Access to Birth Control Information

What is your gender?

⁮Male

⁮Female

1. What is your age?

⁮18-24

⁯25-29

⁯30-39

⁯40-49

⁯50-64

⁯65+

2. With which political party do you identify?

⁯Republican

⁯Democrat

⁯Independent

3 Indicate how religious you are.

⁯Very religious

⁯Somewhat religious

⁯Not at all religious

5. Do you think that programs to promote abstinence have been effective in preventing or reducing?:

	Very Effective	Somewhat Effective	Not Very Effective	Not At All Effective
HIV/AIDS
Unwanted pregnancies
Extramarital sex

6. Based on what you know or have heard, compared to European countries like England, France and Germany, how would you compare Americans’ access to birth control?

⁯Americans have better access to birth control

⁯Americans have worse access to birth control

⁯Americans and Europeans access to birth control are about the same

⁯Not sure

7. Please indicate whether you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements.

	Tend to Agree	Tend to Disagree	Not Sure
People should have more access to information about birth control options.
Providing people with access to birth control is a good way to prevent abortions.
Access to birth control should not be limited by someone’s ability to pay.
Abstinence is the best option for protecting teens from unwanted pregnancies.
The “morning after” pill should be easily available in all pharmacies.
Teens should be allowed access to birth control without their parents’ knowledge.
If a pharmacist, for moral or religious reasons, prefers not to dispense birth control he or she should not be required to do so.
It’s too easy to get birth control in the U.S.; tighter restrictions are needed as to how and when it is used.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 7 - Should physicians be allowed to assist in patient suicide?

Read Issue 6 in Taking Sides.

1. Outline the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia.

2. Outline the arguments for and against doctors assisting patients to end their lives.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Class Exercise

Answer the following questions:

1. A patient with a terminal disease ought to be able to tell the doctor to let him die rather than to extend his life when no cure is in sight.

_________ Yes _________ No

2. If a patient is terminally ill, in a coma and not conscious, with no cure in sight... the family of such a patient ought to be able to tell doctors to remove all life-support services and let the patient die.

_________ Yes _________ No

3. A necessary condition for withdrawing life-support systems should be to determine “what the patient said about life-support treatment while still mentally competent.”

_________ Yes _________ No

4. If there is no evidence of what the patient said, then the family and doctors should measure whether the burdens of the patient’s life outweighs the benefits the patient gets from being alive.

_________ Yes _________ No

5. Artificial nutrition and hydration are a form of medical treatment and should be withheld or withdrawn from terminally ill patients at the request of the patient or his/her family.

_________ Yes _________ No

6. When a patient is terminally ill, “with no cure in sight,” requests the right to tell his doctor to “put him out of his misery,” this should be permitted.

_________ Yes _________ No

7. Patients who are chronically ill or seriously injured (e.g., quadriplegics) but not terminally ill, should be permitted to request that their doctor put them out of their misery.

_________ Yes _________ No

8. Parents should be allowed to withhold life-saving surgery from severely retarded infants born with other defects that would be fatal without surgery.

_________ Yes _________ No

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 8 – Who should decide in end-of-life devcisions?

After watching the video on the Terry Schiavo case, answer the following questions:

1. Outline the arguments on both sides of the case.

2. Was it appropriate for the Governor of Florida and legislature to intervene in this case?

3. Was it appropriate for the President and the federal government to intervene in this case?

4. Is it ever ethical (appropriate) to withdraw food and water from a patient at the end of life?

If so, under what conditions?

4. Who should decide when to suspend treatment in cases such as this one: spouses, parents, doctors, ethics committees, the courts?

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 9 – Should health care workers and patients be tested for HIV?

Read Chapter 2 parts 5-6 in AIDS.

Answer the questions on pages 71 and 76.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 9 - Class Exercise

Pair off with another member of the class.

Patient

Person A is to play the part of the patient. You are to argue that you should not be required to undergo testing nor to disclose your HIV status in order to receive necessary medical care. It is your opinion that such a requirement violates your rights to “privacy” and “confidentiality.” Also, if you are HIV positive and information concerning your HIV status was to become known to your employer, you might lose your job and your health insurance.

At the same time, you are to argue that the physician and other health care providers who will be treating you should be required to be tested for HIV, to disclose their HIV status to you in advance of treatment, and should be prohibited from conducting invasive procedures. You can argue that such disclosure and restrictions are implied by the requirement of “informed consent” and the ethical imperative “to do no harm.”

Physician

Person B is to play the part of the physician. You are to argue that the risk of contracting HIV from the patient while performing invasive procedures is much greater than the risk of patients contracting the disease from health care providers. Moreover, the physician has a right to protect him/herself from exposure by requiring potential patients to be tested. The patient can find another physician to treat them if they refuse to be tested.

At the same time, you are to argue that submitting to a test for HIV is unnecessary for you (the physician) because there is such an infinitesimal probability of transmission of the virus to the patient during treatment. Second, you can argue that mandatory testing, disclosure and restrictions on medical practice violate your rights to “privacy” and “confidentiality.” Also, you may be deprived of your “property rights” if you were HIV positive and it became known to potential patients.

After 15 minutes, doctor and patient should switch roles and argue the other point of view.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 10 - Should HIV-infected health care workers be restricted from performing some procedures?

Read the selection from Taking Sides and outline both positions.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 10 - Class Exercise

Dr. John is a cardiovascular surgeon who has AIDS. He has just recently moved to Lafayette, IN and has requested staff privileges so that he can admit patients and perform surgery at Home Hospital. The hospital medical staff board that must approve his application is planning to meet with Dr. Johns and his attorney to hear his request. You will be assigned a role to play in the hearing. You can ask questions or challenge statements made by Dr. Johns, his attorney, or board members. At the end of the hearing, you will be asked to vote on Dr. Johns’ request.

Roles

1. Dr. Johns- you have AIDS but want to continue your medical practice. You and your attorney can argue that (1) you have a right to practice your profession; (2) there is little risk to patients when universal precautions are followed; (3) you will lose your patient population if it becomes known that you are infected; (4) since St. Elizabeth Hospital and Home Hospital have merged, there are no other hospitals in the community in which you can perform surgery.

2. Attorney for Dr. Johns – you are to support Dr. Johns’ arguments. You can argue that (1) Dr. Johns has a disability and that denial of staff privileges violates American’s with Disabilities Act; (2) you can also threaten a civil suit to seek compensation for lost income and punitive damages for harm to his reputation and practice if he is denied full hospital staff privileges.

3. Board Members – you are to hear Dr. Johns request for staff privileges you are to raise the following concerns: (1) Informed consent requires the hospital to notify Dr. Johns’ patients of his HIV status and that patients have a right to know about the risk; (2) professional ethics requires that the physician “do no harm” in treating patients; (3) if the hospital allows Dr. Johns to operate without first informing patients of his HIV status and they subsequently find out about his HIV status, the community will longer trust the hospital and the medical staff, causing irreparable financial harm; (4) if a patient is infected from contact with Dr. Johns, they can sue the hospital.

At the end of the hearing, the hospital board is to vote on the following alternatives:

(1) Grant Dr. Johns full staff privileges with no restrictions.

(2) Grant Dr. Johns staff privileges but require him to inform his patients before surgery of his HIV status.

(3) Restrict Dr. Johns to a practice that does not involve surgery or other invasive procedures.

(4) Deny Dr. Johns staff privileges at the hospital.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Group Project

Issue 11 – Does on-line access to health information and services pose risks to consumers?

Read chapter 2-3 in Ethics and Information Technology.

Group Project

Form a group of four persons to carry out this project. After reading the assignment, survey at least 30 people using the attached questionnaire. Prepare a 3-4 page report of your findings. Use a word processor.

Organize your report as follows:

(1) State your objectives.

(2) Describe your research methods.

(3) Present your findings in tables and/or graphs. Compare respondents’ responses by age and gender.

(4) Discuss your results.

Survey

Use of the Internet to Obtain Health-Related Information and Services

1. What is your gender?

⁭ male

⁭ female

2. What is your age?

⁭ 18-24

⁭ 25-29

⁭ 30-39

⁭ 40-49

⁭ 50-64

⁭ 65+

3. Have you used the internet to obtain health-related information or services?

⁭ Yes

⁭ No

4. If so, how often?

⁭ Often

⁭ Sometimes

⁭ Hardly Ever

⁭ Never

5. Indicate what types of health-related information or services you looked for on the Internet (check all that apply).

⁭ Names and locations of health care providers and/or facilities.

⁭ For a medical consultation.

⁭ For mental health services.

⁭ To obtain prescription and/or over the counter drugs.

⁭ To obtain other health care products.

⁭ To obtain information about a specific disease or medical condition.

⁭ To check on the availability of health insurance.

⁭ To learn about the availability of clinical trials.

⁭ Other (specify). ______________________________________________________

7. How successful were you in your search for information online about health topics?

⁭ Very successful

⁭ Somewhat successful

⁭ Neither successful nor unsuccessful

⁭ Somewhat unsuccessful

⁭ Very unsuccessful

⁭ Not sure/decline to answer

7. How reliable do you believe this information is concerning heath topics? Is it…?

⁭ Very reliable

⁭ Somewhat reliable

⁭ Neither reliable nor unreliable

⁭ Somewhat unreliable

⁭ Very unreliable

⁭ Not sure/decline to answer

8. In the past year have you ever discussed with your doctor the information you found online?

⁭ Yes, always do

⁭ Yes, sometimes do

⁭ Yes, have done once or twice

⁭ No, never do

⁭ Not sure/decline to answer

9. Have you ever searched for medical information on the Internet based on a discussion with your doctor?

⁭ Yes, often

⁭ Yes, sometimes

⁭ No, never

⁭ Not sure/decline to answer

10. How private and secure do you think your medical information (e.g., medical histories, prescriptions, etc.) is?

⁭ Very secure

⁭ Somewhat secure

⁭ Somewhat insecure

⁭ Not at all secure

⁭ Not sure/decline to answer

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 12 - Should animal experimentation be permitted?

Read Issue 14 in Taking Sides. Outline both sides of the issue.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Issue 12 – Class Exercise

The ability to empathize should be considered when weighing the possible benefits and harms of animal experimentation. While all of us can empathize with people who may benefit from animal experimentation, we also do not want animals to suffer. Keeping these considerations in mind,, read the following descriptions of experiments researchers wish to conduct. Assess the merit of each experiment and mark a B by those you believe are beneficial and H by those in which the harm to the animal outweighs the benefit of the experiment. Discuss your answers with the other members of your group and develop a combined group assessment of each experiment.

B(Beneficial/ H (Harmful)	Experiment
	Infect primates with Simian Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (SAIDS) so that the effectiveness of drugs which may cure AIDS in humans can be tested.
	Have high school students dissect frogs so that they learn how the internal organs work.
	Determine the toxicity of a new eye shadow by putting it in liquid form and dripping it into rabbits’ eyes.
	In hopes of finding and testing effective therapies to treat Parkinson’s disease, treat primates with a drug that will induce in their bodies the symptoms of the disease.
	Use the internal organs of pigs to extract a compound that will be used in an antibody that may cure childhood leukemia.
	To test a new, cheaper vaccine that will be used to treat rabies-infected pets and farm animals, infect squirrels with rabies and test the vaccine on them.
	Kill a baboon so that the heart may be transplanted into a human infant born with a heart defect. The chances of the experiment succeeding are low.
	Treat mice with a newly-developed vaccine that clinical studies show may cure Lou Gehrig’s disease.
	To learn about the body’s response to pain, send an electric shock through the tails of young rats and record their vocalizations.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 13– Can human experimentation be justified by its outcomes?

After viewing the program, Deadly Deception, answer the following questions:

(1) Outline the facts concerning the Tuskegee Experiment.

(2) Were the investigators justified in conducting the experiment the way that they did? If not, why not?

(3) What arguments did the investigators use to justify the way they conducted the experiment?

(4) Do you agree with their rationale for the study? If not, why not?

(5) Could the study have been designed and conducted in accordance with ethical standards and NIH guidelines? If so, how?

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 14 - Should there be a market in body parts?

Read Issue 19 in Taking Sides.

Outline the arguments for and against the position that body parts are personal property and that individuals should have the ability to transfer and sell them.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Group Project

Issue 15 – Should pharmacists be allowed to deny prescriptions on grounds of conscience?

Read Issue 20 in Taking Sides.

Group Project

Form a focus group with at least 5 people. Address the following questions:

(1) Should health care providers such as pharmacists, physicians, nurses, and other health care personnel have a right to refuse to perform, assist, counsel, recommend or refer in providing services to which they object on moral grounds? If so, what are some of the specific services that they should be able to refuse to provide?

(2) Should the right to refuse to provide services be protected by state or federal law?

(3) Does the public have a right to access these services? If so, what specific services should they have a right to access?

(4) How can we balance the rights of providers to refuse to provide services and the public’s right to access these services?

Prepare a 3-4 page report of your findings. Use a word processor.

Organize your report as follows:

(1) State your objectives.

(2) Describe your research methods.

(3)Present your findings. If possible, compare your `respondents views by gender, age, religion and/or political identification..

(4) Discuss your results.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue 16 – Do parents harm their children when they refuse medical treatment on religious grounds?

Read Issue 11 in Taking Sides and outline both sides of the issue.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue17 – Should doctors be able to refuse demands for “futile” treatment?

Read Issue 7 in Taking Sides. Outline the debate over who should make decisions regarding what kind of life is worth prolonging.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Reading Assignment

Issue18 – Should Does direct-to-consumer drug advertising enhance patient choice?

Read Issue 3 in Taking Sides. Outline the arguments on both sides of this issue.

PURDUE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY & ANTHROPOLOGY

SOC 573 - THE HUMAN SIDE OF MEDICINE

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Fall Semester

Stone 353 494-4703

Group Project

Issue 19 – Should the federal government fund human stem cell research?

Group Project

Read Issue 12 in Taking Sides.

Form groups of 4-5. Survey at least 30 people using the attached questionnaire. Prepare a 3-4 page report of your findings. Use a word processor.

Organize your report as follows:

(1) State your objectives.

(2) Describe your research methods.

(3) Present your findings in tables and/or graphs. Compare respondents’ responses by age, political identification and religion

(4) Discuss your results.

``
Survey

Support for Human Stem Cell Research

1. What is your gender?

⁭ Male

⁭ Female

2.What is your political party affiliation?

⁭ Republican

⁭ Democrat

⁭ Independent

3.Indicate how religious you are.

⁭ Very religious

⁭ Somewhat religious

⁭ Not at all religious

4. Have you seen, heard or read anything about the debate on whether to allow the use of stem cells from human embryos to be used in medical research?

⁭Yes, seen, heard, read

⁭No, have not/Not sure

5. Stem cells come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, which are not used and normally destroyed. Many medical researchers want to use them to develop treatments or to prevent diseases, such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease. On balance, do you think this research should or should not be allowed?

⁭ Should be allowed

⁭ Should not be allowed

⁭ Not sure//Decline to answer

6 .Please indicate whether you tend to agree or disagree with the following statements.

	Tend to Agree	Tend to Disagree	Not Sure/Refused
As long as the parents of the embryo give their permission, and the embryo would otherwise be destroyed, stem cell research should be allowed .
If most scientists believe that stem cell research will greatly increase our ability to prevent or treat serious diseases we should trust them and let them do it.
Using cells from human embryos for research comes too close to allowing scientists to play God.
Allowing any medical research using stem cells from human embryos should be forbidden because it is unethical and immoral.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Introduction: The Human Side of Medicine - A Sociological Perspective

Levine, C. 2006. Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues, 11th ed., Guilford, CT: Dushkin Publishing Co.

Nelson, J.B., and Rohricht, J.S. 1984. Human Medicine. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing.

Rothman, D.J. 1991. Strangers at the Bedside. NY: Basic Books.

Weisz, G. ed. 1990. Social Science Perspectives on Medical Ethics. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Zussman, R. 1997. “Sociological Perspectives on Medical Ethics and Decision-Making.” Annual Review of Sociology 23:171-189.

2. The Social Use of Clinical and Biological Information

A. Human Experimentation

Applebaum, P.S., and Grisso, T. 1988. “Assessing Patients’ Capacities to Consent to Treatment.” NEJM. 319:1635-1638.

Barber, B. et al. 1979. Research on Human Subjects: Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Cohen, C. 1978. “Medical Experimentation on Prisoners.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine. 21:357-372.

Curran, C. 1975. “Ethical Considerations in Human Experimentation.” Duquesne Law Review. 13:819-840.

Foster, C. 2001. The Ethics of Medical Research on Humans. New York: Cambridge Press.

Hershey, N., and Miller, R.D. 1976. Human Experimentation and the Law. Germantown, MD: Aspen Systems.

Jones, J.H. 1981. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: Free Press.

Levine, R.J. Ethics and Regulation of Clinical Research. Baltimore: Urban and Schwarzenberg.

Lifton, Robert Jay. 1986. The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide. New York: Basic Books.

McCormick, R.A. 1974. “Proxy Consent in the Experimentation Situation.” Perspective in Biology and Medicine. 18:2-20.

Sieber, J.E. ed., 1984. NIH Readings on the Protection of Human Subjects in Behavioral and Social Science Research. Frederick, MD: University Publications of America.

Singer P. et al. 1990. Embryo Experimentation. New York; Cambridge University Press.

Sollitto S. et al., 2003. “Intrinsic Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Research: A Need for Disclosure.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(2):83-91.

Spicker, S.F. 1988. The Use of Human Beings in Research. Boston: Kluner Academic Publishers.

Valenstein, E.S. 1986. The Rise and Decline of Psycho-Surgery and Other Related Treatments for Mental Illness. New York: Basic Books.

Wilkenson, T. 2001. Parental Consent and the Use of Dead Children’s Bodies. The Hastings Center Report 11(4):337-358.

B. Animal Experimentation

Balcombe, J. 2000. The Use of Animals in Higher Education: Problems, Alternatives, and Recommendations. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press.

Bishop, L. and Nolen, A. 2001. Animals in Research and Education: Ethical Issues. The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11(1):91-112.

Bovenkerk, B. et al. 2002. Brave New Birds: The Use of ‘Animal Integrity’ in Animal Ethics. The Hastings Center Report 32(1):16-20.

DeGrazia, D., and Bekoff, M. 1991. Animal Ethics Reconsidered. The Hastings Center Report 21(5): 45.

Donnelley, S. 1989. Speculative Philosophy, the Troubled Middle, and the Ethics of Animal Experimentation. The Hastings Center Report 19(2): 15-21.

Kraus, A.L., and Renquist, D. 2000. Bioethics and the Use of Laboratory Animals: Ethics in Theory and Practice. Dubuque, IA: Gregory C. Benoit Publishing.

Orlans, B.1989. A Kinder, Gentler Practice. The Hastings Center Report 19(5): 46-47.

Varner, G.E. 1994. The Prospects for Consensus and Convergence in the Animal Rights Debate. The Hastings Center Report 24(1): 24-28.

C. Genetics Testing- Genetics & Control of Human Development

Bishop, J.E. 1990. GENOME: The Story of the Most Astonishing Scientific Adventure of Our Time - The Attempt to Map All the Genes in the Human Body.

Blank, Robert H. 1981. The Political Implications of Human Genetic Technology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Breitowitz Y. 2002. “What’s So bad About Human Cloning?,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 12(4):325-341.

Chadwick, R., ed. 1990. Ethics, Reproduction and Genetic Control. Routledge.

Gooding, H. et al. 2002. Unintended Messages: The Ethics of Teaching Genetic Dilemmas. The Hastings Center Report 32(2):37-39.

Green, R. et al. 2002. Overseeing Research on Theraputic Cloning: A Private Ethics Board Responds to Its Critics. The Hastings Center Report 32(3):27-33.

Hubbard, R. 1986. “Eugenics and Prenatal Testing.” International Journal of Health Services. 16:222-242.

Hubbard, R. and M.S. Henifin. 1985. “Genetic Screening of Prospective Parents and of Workers: Some Scientific and Social Issues.” International Journal of Health Services. 15:231-251.

Hull, S. and Prasad, K. 2001. Reading Between the Lines: Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Genetic Testing. The Hastings Center Report 31(2):33-35.

Kenen, R. and R. Schmidt, 1987. “Social Implications of Screening Programs for Carrier Status: Genetic Diseases in the 1970s and AIDS in the 1980s.” Pp. 145-155 in Dominant Issues in Medical Sociology edited by H.D. Schwartz, 2nd ed. NY: Random House.

Kolker, A. and Burke, B. M. 1998. Prenatal Testing: A Sociological Perspective. Bergin & Garvey.

Lauritzen, P. (ed.). 2001. Cloning and the Future of Human Embryo Research. New York: Oxford University Press.

McCormick, R.A. 1994. Blastomere Separation: Some Concerns. The Hastings Center Report 24(2): 14-16.

McFalls, Joseph A. et al. 1987. “Genetic Engineering and Social Policy.” Sociological Viewpoints. 3(1):1-22.

Motulsky, A.G. 1983. “Impact of Genetic Manipulation on Society and Medicine.” Science. 2119:135-140.

Nelkin, D. and S. Lindee, 1995. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. W.H. Freeman & Co.,

Nelkin, D. and L. Tancredi. 1989. Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information. NY: Basic Books.

Nichols, E.K. 1988. Human Gene Therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Oakley, Deborah. 1981. “Genetic Screening and the Public Well Being.” in Medical Ethics and the Law: Implications for Public Policy. Ed. Marc D. Heller. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Outka, G.ene. 2002. “The Ethics of Human Stem Cell Research.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 12(2):175-213.

Parens, E. and Asch, A. 1999. The Disability Rights Critique of Prenatal Genetic Testing: Reflections and Recommendations. The Hastings Center Report 29(5):s1-s21.

Pinkus, Rosa Lynn and Stephen J. Haines. 1981. “Arguing the Morality of Genetic Engineering.” in Medical Ethics and the Law: Implications for Public Policy. Ed. Marc C. Heller. Cambridge MA: Ballinger.

Poland S.C. and Bishop L.J. 2002. “Bioethics and Cloning Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal Part I 12(3):305-324; Part II 12(4):391-409.

President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1983. Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions. Washington, DC: GPO.

Robertson, J.A. 1994. The Question of Human Cloning. The Hastings Center Report 24(2): 6-14.

Singer E., A. Coorning and T. Antonucci. 1999. “Attitudes Towards Genetic Testing and Fetal Diagnosis 1990-1996,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40(4):429-435.

Steinbock, B. 2002. Sex Selection: Not Obviously Wrong. The Hastings Center Report 32(1): 23-27.

Suguki, David T. and Peter Knudtson. 1989. Genetics: The Clash Between the New Genetic and Human Value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Terry, L. and Campbell, A. 2002. The Child That Might Be Born. The Hastings Center Report 32(3):11-12. Case Study.

Weir, R. 1978. “Genetic Counseling and Truth Telling,” in No Rush to Judgement: Essays on Medical Ethics. Ed. David H. Smith and Linda M. Berstein. Bloomington: Indiana University.

White, M. 1999. Making Responsible Decisions: An Interpretive Ethic for Genetic Decision-making. The Hastings Center Report 29(1):14-21.

Winderson, L. 1990. Mapping Our Genes: The Genome Project and the Future of Medicine. NY: Dutton.

3. Social Inequality: Inequalities in Access to Health Care- The Medically Disadvantaged

Anderson, O.W. 1988. “Government Health Insurance and Privatization: An Examination of the Concept and of Equality.” The International Journal of Health Planning and Management. 3(1):35-43.

Binney, E. A. and C.L. Estes. 1988. “The Retreat of the State and Transfer of Responsibility: The Intergenerational War,” International Journal of Health Service. 18(1):83-96.

Binstock, R. H. and S. G. Post, eds. 1990. Too Old for Health Care? Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Brown, Lawrence D. Summer 1990. “The Medically Uninsured: Problems, Problems, Policies, and Politics.” Journal of Health and Illness: A Critical Perspective, 3rd ed., edited by P. Conrad and R. Kern. NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Dutton, D. 1978. “Explaining the Low Use of Health Services by the Poor: Costs, Attitudes or Delivery Systems.” ASR, 43:348-368.

Feder, Judith. 1990. “Health Care of the Disadvantaged: The Elderly.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, Summer 1990, 15:259-269.

Freeman, H. E., R.J. Blendon, L.H. Aiken, S. Sudman, C.F. Mullinix and C.R. Corey. Spring 1987. “Americans Report on Their Access to Health Care.” Health Affairs, 6:6-18.

Grady, D. 1986. “The Cruel Price of Cutting Medical Expenses.” Discover. November, 1986:25-43.

Lewis, L. S. and M. E. Lewin. Spring 1987. “Financing Charity Care in an Era of Competition.” Health Affairs, 6:47-60.

Mehanic, D. 1986. From Advocacy to Allocation: The Evolving American Health Care System. NY: Free Press.

National Rainbow Coalition Health Commission. 1988. “Health is a Human Right.: A National Health Program for the United States.” Critical Social Policy, 8:80-98.

The Pepper Commission, U. S. Bipartisan Commission on Comprehensive Health Care, Final Report. 1990. A Call for Action. Washington, DC: GPO.

President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1983. Securing Access to Health Care; The Ethical Implications in Availability of Health Services. Washington, DC: GPO.

Rumbaut, R.G. et al. 1988. “The Politics of Immigrant Health Care.” Research in the Sociology of Health Care. 7:143-202.

Reinhardt, U.E. Spring 1987. “Health insurance for the Nation’s Poor.” Health Affairs. 6:101-112.

Riessman, C. 1990. “Improving the Use of Health Services by the Poor.” Pp. 419-432 in The Sociology of Health and Illness: A Critical Perspective, 2nd ed. Edited by Conrad and R. Kern. NY: St Martin’s Press.

Vladeck, Bruce C. Summer 1990. “Health Care and the Homeless: A Political Parable for Our Time.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 15:305-317.

Wilensky, G. R. 1987. “Viable Strategies for Dealing with the Uninsured.” Health Affairs. Spring, 1987:33-45.

4. Changing Definitions of Social Deviance

A. AIDS

Aggleton, P. 1988. Social Aspects of AIDS. NY: Fulmer Press.

Ainsile, D. 1999. Questioning Bioethics: AIDS, Sexual Ethics and the Duty to Warn. The Hastings Center Report 29(5):26-35.

Altman, D. 1986. AIDS in the Mind of America. Garden City, NY: Anchor.

Bennett, F. J. 1987. “AIDS as a Social Phenomenon.” Social Science and Medicine. 25:529-539.

Bloom, D. E. and G. Carliner. 1988. “The Economic Impact of AIDS in the United States.” Science. 239:604-610.

Campbell, C.A. 1999. Women, Families, and HIV/AIDS: A Sociological Perspective on the Epidemic in America. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, Duncan. 1988. “The Amazing AIDS Scam”. New Statesman and Society. June 24;10-13.

Coates, T. et al. 1988. “AIDS Antibody Testing: Will It Stop the AIDS Epidemic? Will It Help People Infected with HIV?” American Psychologist. 43:859-864.

Connell, R. W. et al. 1989. “Facing the Epidemic: Changes in the sexual Lives of Gay and Bisexual Men in Australia and Their Implications for AIDS Prevention Strategies.” Social Problems. 36:384-401.

Conrad, P. 1986. “The Social Significance of AIDS.” Social Policy. 17:51-56.

Corless, I. B. 1988. AIDS: Principles Practices and Politics. NY: Hemisphere Publishing.

Cotton, D.J. 1988. “The Impact of AIDS on the Medical Care System.” JAMA. 260:519-523.

Crouch, R.A., and Arras, J.D. 1998. A World of Research Subjects: AZT Trials and Tribulations. The Hastings Center Report 28(6): 26-34.

Curran, J.W. et al. 1988. “Epidemiology of HIV Infection, and AIDS in the United States.” Science. 239:610-616.

Daniels, N. 1991. Duty to Treat or Right to Refuse? The Hastings Center Report 21(2): 36-46.

Epstein, S. 1988. “Moral Contagion and the Medicalization of Gay Identity: AIDS in Historical Perspective”. Research in Law. Deviance, and Social Control. 9:3-36.

Feldman, D. and T.M. Johnson, eds. 1986. The Social Dimensions of AIDS: Method and Theory. NY: Praeger.

Feldman, D.A., ed. 1990. Culture and AIDS. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Five Papers on AIDS. 1989. Special Section of Social Problems. 36(4).

Fox, D.M. and E.H. Thomas. 1987-1988. “AIDS Cost Analysis and Social Policy.” Law, Medicine, and Health Care. 15(4):186-211.

Friedman, S.R. et al. 1987. “The AIDS Epidemic among Blacks and Hispanics.” Milbank Quarterly, 65, Supplement 2:455-499.

Gamson, J. 1989. “Silence, Death, and the Invisible Enemy: AIDS Activism and Social Movement ‘Newness’.” Social Problems. 36:351-367.

Gostin, L.O. 1987. “Screening for AIDS: Efficacy, Cost and Consequences.” AIDS and Public Policy Journal. 2(4):14-24.

Gostin, L. 1989. HIV-Infected Physicians and the Practice of Seriously Invasive Procedures. The Hastings Center Report 19(1): 32-39.

Gostin, L.O. ed. 1990. AIDS and the Health Care System. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Griggs, John, ed., 1987. AIDS Public Policy Dimensions. NY: United Hospital Fund.

Harris, J., and Holm, S. 1993. If Only AIDS Were Different! The Hastings Center Report 23(6): 6-12.

Hastings Center Report, 1988. “AIDS: The Responsibilities of Health Professionals” A supplement to The Hastings Center Report. 18(2).

Horstman, W. and L. McKusick. 1986. “The Impact f AIDS on the Physician.” Pp. 630-674. in What to Do About AIDS, edited by L. McKusick. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hiam, Peter, 1987-1988. “Insurers, Consumers, and Testing: The AIDS Experience”. Law, Medicine, and Health Care. 15(4):212-222.

Hrdy, D.B. 1987. “Cultural Practices Contributing to the Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus I Africa.” Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 9:1109-1117.

Hunt, Charles W. 1988. “Africa and AIDS:” Dependent Development, Sexism, and Racism” Monthly Review. 39(9):10-22.

McKusick, L., ed. 1986. What to Do about AIDS: Physicians and Mental Health Professionals Discuss the Issues. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Murphy, T.F. 1991. No Time for an AIDS Backlash. The Hastings Center Report 21(2): 7-11.

Musto, D. 1986. “Quarantine and the Problem of AIDS,” MMFQ. 64(Suppl.1):97-117.

Nelkin, D., D.P. Willis and S.V. Parris (Eds.). 1991. A Disease of Society: Cultural and Institutional Responses to AIDS. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Nelkin, D. and L. Tancredi. 1989. Dangerous Diagnostics: The Social Power of Biological Information. NY: Basic Books.

Panem, S. 1988. The AIDS Bureaucracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pierce, C. and D. Van DeVeer, eds. 1988. AIDS: Ethics and Public Policy. Belmont, A: Wadsworth.

Pitot, P. 1988. “AIDS: An International Perspective.” Science. 239:573-579.

Pleck, J.H. et al. 1988. “Contact with AIDS and AIDS-Related Job Stress in Hospital Workers”. Journal of Homosexuality. 15:41-54.

Quimby, E. and S.R. Friedman. 1989. “Dynamics of Black Mobilization Against AIDS in New York City.” Social Problems. 36:403-415.

Rogers, D.E. and E. Ginzberg, eds. 1989. Public and Professional Attitudes Toward AIDS Patients: A National Dilemma. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Rosenberg, Charles E. 1988. “The Definition and Control of Disease - An Introduction,” Social Research. 55(3):327-330.

Shuelman, Lawrence C. and Joanne E. Manell, 1988. “The AIDS Crisis: A United States Health Care Perspective,” Social Science and Medicine. 26(10):979-988.

Siegel, K. et al. 1989. “Te Motives of Gay Men for Taking or Not Taking the HIV Antibody Test.” Social Problems. 36:368-383.

Vernon, I. 2001. Killing Us Quietly: Native American and HIV/AIDS. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Wood, Gary James. 1987. “The Politics of AIDS Testing,” Aids and Public Policy Journal. 2(4):35-49.

B. Drug Addiction

Bacman, J.G. et al. 1991. “Racial Ethnic Differences in Smoking, Drinking, and Illicit Drugs Use Among American High School Seniors, 1967-89.” AJPH. 81:372-377.

Duster, T. 1970. The Legislation of Morality: Law, Drugs, and Moral Judgment. NY: The Free Press, Collier-Macmillan.

Fuller, J. and M.J. LaFountain. 1988. “Illegal Steroid Use Among Fifty Weight Lifters,” Sociology and Social Research. 13(1):19-21.

Gawin, F.H. and E.H. Ellinwood, Jr. 1988. “Cocaine and Other Stimulants: Actions, Abuse, and Treatment,” The New England Journal of Medicine. 318(18):1173-1182.

Goldstein, A. and H. Kalant. 1990. “Drug Policy: Striking the right Balance.” Science. 249:1513-1521.

Gostin, L. 2001. The Rights of Pregnant Women: The Supreme Court and Drug Testing. The Hastings Center Report 31(5):8-9. Case Study.

Hanna, K. 2002. Aid to Fetuses with Dependent Mothers. The Hastings Center Report 32(2):8-9.

Hubbard, E.L. et al. Drug Abuse Treatment: A National Study of Effectiveness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1987. National Trends in Drug Use and Related Factors among American High School Students and Young Adults 1975-1986.

Jarvik, M.E. 1990. “The Drug Dilemma: Manipulating the Demand.” Science, 240:387-392.

Lipton, Hene L. and Philip R. Lee. 1988. Drugs and the Elderly: Clinical, Social and Policy Perspectives. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

McKim, William A. and Brian L. Mishara. 1987. Drugs and Aging. Toronto: Butterworths.

Mack, A. and Joy, J. 2001. Marijuana as Medicine? The Science Beyond the Controversy. New York: Public Affairs/Persus Books Group.

Miller, R.L. 1991. The Case for Legalizing Drugs. NY: Praeger Publishers.

Morse, Robert M. 1988. “Substance Abuse Among the elderly,” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 52(3):259-268.

Newcomb, Michael D. and Peter M. Bentler. 1987. “Changes in Drug Use from High School to young Adulthood: Effects of Living Arrangement and current Life Pursuit,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology. 8(3):221-246.

Rothstein, M.A. 1989. Medical Screening and the Employee Health Cost Crisis. Washington, DC: BNA Books.

Swadi, Hareth and Harry Zeitlin. 1988. “Peer Influence and Adolescent Substance Abuse,” British Journal of Addiction. 83(2):153-157.

C. Alcoholism

Beauchamp, D. 1975. “The Alcohol Alibi: Blaming Alcoholics.” Society. 12:12-17.

Beaucham, D. 1980. Beyond Alcoholism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Blum, J.C. and P.M. Roman. 1985. “Social Transformation of Alcohol Intervention,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 26:365-378.

Cherpital, Cheryl and J. Stephens. 1988. “Alcohol Consumption and Causalities: A comparison of Two Emergency Room Populations.” British Journal of Addiction. 83(11):1295-1307.

Conroy, Robert W. 1988. “The Many Facets of Adolescent Drinking.” Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 52 (3):229-245.

Fingarett, Herbert. 1988. “Alcoholism: The Mythical Disease.” The Public Interest. 91:3-22.

Kissis, B. and H. Begleiter, eds. 1976. Social Aspects of Alcoholism. NY: Plenum Press.

McCord, Joan. 1988. “Alcoholism: toward Understanding Genetic and Social Factors. Psychiatry. 51(2):131-141.

Roman, Paul M. 1988. “The Disease Concept of Alcoholism: Sociocultural and Organizational Bases of Support.” Drugs and Society. 2:5-32.

Rice, Dorothy P. 1985. The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse and Mental Health. U. S. Dept of Health and Human Services.

Schneider, J. 1978. “Deviant Drinking as Disease: Alcoholism as a Social Accomplishment.” Social Problems. 25:361-372.

Weiner, C. 1981. The Politics of Alcoholism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

West, L. J. 1984. Alcoholism and Related Problems: Issues for the American Public. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

5. Social Control of Human Reproduction

A. Abortion

Chandari, A. 1989. “Abortion: Medical Practitioners’ Point of View,” The Journal of Sociological .Studies. 8:158-167.

Devereux, G. 1976. A Study of Abortion in Primitive Societies. NY: International Universities Press.

Hilger, T.W. et al. 1981. New Perspectives on Human Abortion. Frederick, MD: University Publication of America.

Keown, J. 1988. Abortion, Doctors and the Law: Some Aspects of Abortion in England from 1803-1982. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lee, E. 2003. Abortion, Motherhood and Mental Health: Medicalizing Reproduction in the United States and Great Britain. Aldine de Gruyter. .

Luker, K. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Marmon, S. and H.A. Palley, 1986. “The Decade after Roe versus Wade: Ideology, Political Cleavages and the Policy Process.” Research in Politics and Society. 2:181-209.

Rogers, J.L. et al. 1991. “Impact of the Minnesota Parental Notification Law on Abortion and Birth,” AJPH. 81:294-298.

Smith, S.H. “The Abortion of Defective Fetuses; Some Moral Considerations,” in No Rush to Judgment: Essays on Medical Ethics. Ed. D.H. Smith and L.M. Benstein. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Zimmerman, M.K. “The Abortion Clinic: Another Look at the Management of Stigma,” in Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, 2^nd ed. Ed. G. Stone and H. Farberman. NY: John Wiley.

Zimmerman, M.K. 1977. Passage Through Abortion: The Personal, and Social Reality of Women’s Experiences. Praeger.

B. Reproductive Technologies

Annas, G.J. 1991. Crazy Making: Embroys and Gestational Mothers. The Hastings Center Report 21(1): 35-38.

Bahde, J. 1994. Fetuses and Violins. The Hastings Center Report 24(6): 38-39.

Bayles, M.D. 1984. Reproductive Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-hall Series in the Philosophy of Medicine.

Bartels, D.M. et al. 1990. Beyond Baby M: Ethical Issues in New Reproductive Techniques. Clinton, NJ: Humana Press.

Boling, P.. “Mandating treatment for pregnant substance abusers is the wrong focus for Public Discussion.” Politics and Life Sciences, (Mar 96) pp51-2.

Daniels, C. “A million (missing) men: A commentary on Mathieu’s compromise on pregnancy and substance abuse.” Politics and Life Sciences, v.15 (Mar 96) pp. 54-56.

Cahill, L. 2001. Genetics, Commodification and Social Justice in the Globalization Era. The Hastings Center Report 11(3):221-238.

Capron, Alexander Morgan. “Punishing Mothers.” The Hastings Center Report, v.28 (Jan/Feb 98) pp. 31-3.

Cefalo, R.C. 1991. Eggs, Embroys, and Ethics. The Hastings Center Report 21(5): 41.

Cohen, C. 2001. Banning Human Cloning – Then What? The Hastings Center Report 11(2):205-210.

Cohen, J. 1999. In God’s Garden: Creation and Cloning in Jewish Thought. The Hastings Center Report 29(4):7-12.

D’Adano, A.F. 1988. Embryos, Ethics and Women’s Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies. NY: Haworth Press.

Davis, D.S. 2001. Genetic Dilemmas: Reproductive Technology, Parental Choices, and Children's Futures. New York: Routeledge.

Eickler, Margot. 1989. “Reflections on Motherhood, Apple Pie, the New Reproductive Technologies, and the Role of Sociologists in Society.” Society-Societe, 13:1-5.

Fogg-Davis, H. 2001. Navigating Race in the Market for Human Gametes. The Hastings Center Report 31(5):13—21,

Fost, N. 1994. The Baby in the Body. The Hastings Center Report 24(1): 31-32.

Geron Ethics Advisory Board. 1999. Human Primordial Stem Cells: Research with Human Embryonic Stem Cells: Ethical Considerations. The Hastings Center Report 29(2):30-48.

Gomez, L.E. Misconceiving Mothers. PA: Temple University Press, 1999.

Grobstein, C. 1981. From the Change to Purpose: An Appraisal of External Human Fertilization. Reading, MD: Addison-Wesley.

Grobstein, C. 1982. “The Moral Use of Spare Embryos.” The Hastings Center Report. 12:5-6.

Gustavsson, Nora S., MacEachron, AE. “Criminalizing Women’s Behavior.” Journal of Drug Issues, v.27 (Summer 97) pp.673-87.

Harris, J., Holm S. (eds.). 1998. The Future of Human Reproduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Holland, S. 2001. Contested Commodities at Both Ends of Life: Buying and Selling Gametes, Embryos and Body Tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11(3):263-284.

Human Embryo Research. 1986. NY: The CIBA Foundation.

Keane, N.P. 1981. The Surrogate Mother. NY: Everest House Publishers.

Kearney, W., Vawter, D.E., and Gervais, K. 1991. Fetal Tissue Research and the Misread Compromise. The Hastings Center Report 21(5): 7-12.

Kearney, W., and Vawter,D. 1991. Tissue Research and the Misread Compromise. The Hastings Center Report 21(5): 7-12.

Kinlaw, K., and Strong, C. 1991. Maternal Rights, Fetal Harms. The Hastings Center Report 21(3): 21-23. (CASE STUDY)

Klotzko, J. 1998. Medical Miracle or Medical Mischeif? The Saga of the McCaughey Septuplets. The Hastings Center Report 28(3): 5-8.

Kolata, G.B. 1999. The Baby Doctors: Probing the Limits of Fetal Medicine.

Kolker A. and Burke, B. M. 1994. Prenatal Testing. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Lorber, Judith. 1987. “In vitro Fertilization and Gender Politics.” Women and Health. 13: 1170-133.

McGee. 2000. The Perfect Baby. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

Macklin, R. 1991. “Artificial Means of Reproduction and Our Understanding of the Family.” Hastings Center Report. 21: 5-11.

Macer, D., et al. 1991. New Creations? The Hastings Center Report 21(1): 21-23. (CASE STUDY)

Meilaender, G. 2001. The Point of a Ban. Or, How to Think About Stem Cell Research. The Hastings Center Report. 31(1):9-15.

Meyer, M. and Nelson, L. 2001. Respecting What We Destroy: Reflections on Human Embryo Research. The Hastings Center Report 31(1):16-23.

Mitford,, J. 1992. The American Way of Birth. New York: Dutton.

Moss, Kathryn E. 1988. “New Reproductive Technologies: Concerns of Feminists and Researchers. Affilia 3(4): 38-50.

Overall, C. 1987. Ethics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis. Boston: Allen and Unwin.

Parens E. and Knowles L.P. 2003. ‘Reprogenetics and Public Policy,” The Hastings Center Report 33(4): Special Supplement.

Parker, P. 1983. “Surrogate Mothers’ Motivations: Initial Findings.” American Journal of Psychiatry. 140: 117-118.

Potter, Ann E. and Patrick K. Knaub. 1988. “Single Motherhood by Choice: A Parenting Alternative.” Lifestyles. 9(3): 240-249.

Robertson, J.A. 1989. Resolving Disputes Over Frozen Embroys. The Hastings Center Report 19(3): 7-12.

Rothman. B.K. “The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future of Motherhood.” Carol Mann Agency, 1986. In P. Brown: pp. 425-448.

Rowland, R. Reproductive Technology: Advocacy and Critique. The Hastings Center Report 19(3): 40-42.

Schuker, Eleanor. 1987. “Psychological Effects of the New Reproductive Technologies.” 13:141-147.

Silberner, J. 1998. Seeding the Cloning Debate. The Hastings Center Report 28(2).

Snowden, R. and G.D., Mitchell. 1981. The Artificial Family: A Consideration of Artificial Insemination by Donor. London: George Allen and Unwind.

Spallone, P. and D.L., Steinberg, eds. 1987. Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. NY: Pergamon Press.

Walters, L. 1979. “Human In Vitro Fertilization: A Review of the Ethical Literature.” The Hastings Center Report. 9:23-43

Walters, W. and P., Singer, Eds. 1982. Test-Tube Babies. NY: Oxford University Press.

Warren, Mary Anne. 1988. “IVF and Women’s Interests: An Analysis of Feminist Concerns.” Bioethics. 2(1): 37-57.

Whiteford, L.M. 1988. New Approaches to Human Reproduction: Social and Ethical Dimensions. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

C. Adolescent Pregnancy

Carnegie Foundation. “Adolescent Pregnancy: Testing Prevention Strategies.” Carnegie Quarterly. 21:1-7.

Franklin, Sonna H. 1988. “Race, Class, and Adolescent Pregnancy: An Ecological Analysis.” American Journal Ortho-Psychiatry. 58(3): 339-354.

Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. 1986. Crises of Adolescence, Teenage Pregnancy: Impact on Development. New York: Brunner.

Hayes, Cheryl D., Eds. 1987. Risking the Future Adolescent Sexuality, Pregnancy and Child-Bearing. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Jones, D.J. ed. 1989. Teenage Pregnancy: Developing Strategies for the Change in the Twenty-first Century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Teti, Douglas M. and Michael E. Lamb. 1989. “Socioeconomic and Marital Outcomes of Adolescent Marriage, Adolescent Childbirth and Their Co-occurrence.” Journal of Marriage and Family. 51(1): 203-212.

Williams. L.B. and W.F. Pratt. 1990. “Wanted and Unwanted Childbearing in the United States: 1973-88.” Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics. No 189. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

6. Quality of Life Issues

A. Death, Dying, and Euthanasia

Berger, A.S. and J. Berger. 1991. To Die or Not to Die? Cross-Disciplinary, Cultural and Legal Perspectives on the Right to Choose Death. Praeger.

Bernat, J.L. 1998. A Defense of the Whole-Brain Concept of Death. The Hastings Center Report 28(2): 14-23.

Books: Review Symposium on Euthanasia and Physician Assisted Suicide. 2000. Journal of Health Politiocs, Policy and Law. 25(2):377-430.

Calahan, D. 1993. Pursuing a Peaceful Death. The Hastings Center Report 23(4): 33-38.

Cowart, D., and Burt, R. 1998. Confronting Death: Who Chooses, Who Controls? The Hastings Center Report 28(1): 14-24.

Degner, L.F. 1987. Life-Death Decisions in Health Care. NY: Hemisphere Publishing.

Dixon, N. 1998. On the Difference Between Physician-Assisted Suicide and Active Euthanasia. The Hastings Center Report 28(5): 25-29.

Doudera, A.E. and J.D. Peters. 1982. Legal and Ethical Aspects of Terminating Criticaly and Terminally Ill Patients. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.

Dunne, T. 2001. Spiritual Care at the End of Life. The Hastings Center Report 31(2):22-26.

Dwyer, J. et al. 2000. Ignore the Law. The Hastings Center Report 30(4):22-23. Case Study.

Emanuel. E. 1988. “A Review of the Ethical and Legal Aspects of Terminating Medical Care.” The American Journal of Medicine. 894:291-301.

Euthanasia. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999.

Fletcher, Joseph. 1987-88. “The Courts and Euthanasia.” Law, Medicine, and Health Care. 15(4): 231-241.

Gunderson, M. and Mayo, D. 2000. Restricting Physician Assisted Death to the Terminally Ill. The Hastings Center Report 30(6):17-23.

Hastings Center. 1989. “Mercy, Murder, and Morality: Perspective on Euthanasia.” Special Supplement. The Hastings Center Report. 19: 1-32.

Horan, D.J. and D. Mall, eds. 1980. Death, Dying, and Euthanasia. Frederick, M.D.: University Publications of America.

Jackson, D.L. and S. Younger. 1979. “Patient Autonomy and ‘Death with Dignity’: Some Clinical Caveats.” NEJM. 301: 404-408.

Kamisar, Y. 1993. Are Laws Against Assisted Suicide Unconstitutional? The Hastings Center Report 23(3): 32-41.

Kass, L.R. 1993. Is There a Right to Die? The Hastings Center Report 23(1): 34-43.

Ladd, J. ed. 1979. Ethical Issues Relating to Life and Death. NY: Oxford University Press.

Lynn, J., ed. 1986. By No Extraordinary Means. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Lynn, J. and J.F. Childless. 1983. “Must Patients Always be Given Food and Water?” The Hastings Center Report. 13:17-21.

McMillan, R.C. et a. 1987. Euthanasia and the Newborn. Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Macklin, R. 1977. “Consent, Coercion, and Conflict of Rights.” Perspective in Biology and Medicine. 20: 360-371.

Mahowald, M.B. 1989. Letting Go of the "Brain Dead." The Hastings Center Report 19(1): 44.

May, W.F. 1978. “The Right to Die and the Obligation to Care: Allowing To Die, Killing for Mercy and Suicide.” In No Rush to Judgment: Essays on Medical Ethics. Ed. David H. Smith and Linda M. Bernstein. Bloomington: Indiana University.

Morioka, M. 2001. Reconsidering Brain Death: A Lesson from Japan’s Fifteen Years of Experience. The Hastings Center Report 31(3):41-46.

Palmer, L.I. 2000. Endings and Beginnings: Law, Medicine and Society in Assisted Life and Death. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Panicola, M. 2001. Catholic Teaching on Prolonging Life: Setting the Record Straight. The Hastings Center Report 31(6):14-25.

Parks, J. 2000. Why Gender Matters to the Euthanasia Debate: Our Decisional Capacity and the Rejection of Women’s Death Requests. The Hastings Center Report 30(1):30-36.

Post, S. 2001. Tube Feeding and Advanced Progressive Dementia. The Hastings Center Report 31(1):36-42.

Potts, M., Byrne, P.A., and Nigels, R.G. 2000. Beyond Brain Death: The Case Against Brain Based Criteria for Human Death. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical, and Behavioral Research. 1983. Deciding to Forego Life-Sustaining Treatment. Washington, D.C.: GPO.

Robinson, Wade L. and Michael S, Pritchard. 1979. Medical Responsibility: Paternalism, Informed Consents, and Euthanasia. Clifton, New Jersey: Human Press.

Russell, O.F. 1987. Freedom to Die: Moral and Legal Aspects of Euthanasia. (Revised) NY: Human Sciences Press.

Safranek, J.P. 1998. Automony and Assisted Suicide: The Execution of Freedom. The Hastings Center Report. 28(4):32-36.

Salem, T. 1999. Physician Assisted Suicide: Promoting Autonomy – Or Medicalizing Suicide? The Hastings Center Report 29(3):30-36.

Sedler, R.A. 1993. Constitution and Hasteting Inevitable. The Hastings Center Report. 23(5):22-25.

Shalinsky, Audrey and Anthony Glascock. 1988. “Killing Infants and the Aged in Non-industrial Societies: Removing the Liminal.” The Social Science Journal. 25(3): 277-287.

Sherlock, R. 1980. “Selective Non-Treatment of Defective Newborns: A Critique.” Ethics in Science Medicine. 7: 111-117.

Sullivan, M.D., Ganzini, L., and Younger, S.J. 1998. Should Physicians Serve as Gatekeepers for Physician-Assisted Suicide? The Hastings Center Report. 28(4):24-31.

Thomasma, David C. and Glenn C. Graber. 1990. Euthanasia: Toward an Ethical Social Policy. New York: Continuum.

Veatch, R.M. 1993. From Forgoing Life Support to Aid-in-Dying. The Hastings Center Report 23(6): S7-S8.

Veatch, R.M. 1993. The Impending Collapse of the Whole-Brain Definition of Death. The Hastings Center Report 23(4): 18-24.

Woolfrey, J. 1998. What Happens Now? Oregon and Physician-Assisted Suicide. The Hastings Center Report 28(3): 9-17.

B. Organ Transplants

Caplan, A.L. 1987. “Equity in Selection of Recipients for Cardiac Transplants.” Circulation. 75: 10-19.

Caplan, A. L. and Coelho, D. H. ed. 1998. The Ethics of Organ Transplants. New York: Prometheus Books.

Childress, J. 2001. The Failure to Give: Reducing Barriers to Organ Donation. The Kennedy Institute for Ethics Journal 11(1):1-16.

Cohen, C. 2002. Public Policy and the Sale of Human Organs. The Hastings Center Report 12(1):47-64.

Cowan, D.H. et al. 1987. Human Organ Transplantation: Societal, Medial-Legal, regulatory and Reimbursement Issues. Ann Arbor, MI: Health Administration Press.

Feldman, Eric A. 1988. “Deferring Death: Organ Transplants, Tradition, and Technology in Japan.” Social Science and Medicine. 26(4): 339-343.

Fox, R.J. and J.D. Swaney. 1992. Spare Parts: Organ Replacement in American Society. The Acadia Institute: Oxford University Press.

Gill, M. and Sade, R. 2002. Paying for Kidneys: The Case against Prohibition. The Hastings Center Report 12(1):17-46.

Hastillo, A. and M.L. Hess. 1989. “Who is a suitable recipient for Cardiac Transplantation?” Journal of Critical Illness. 4: 34-44.

Lauritzen, P. et al. 2001. The Gift of Life and the Common Good: The Need for a Communal Approach to Organ Procurement. The Hastings Center Report 31(1):29-53.

Lock, M. 1989. “Reaching Consensus About Death: Heart Transplants and Cultural Identity in Japan.” Society-Societe. 13(1):15-26.

Lock, M. 2002. Twice Dead: Organ Transplants and the Reinvention of Death. Berkeley, CA: University Press of California.

Meinkoff, J. 1999. Organ Swapping. The Hastings Center Report 29(6):28-33.

Plough, A.L. 1986. Borrowed Time: Artificial Organs and the Politics and Extending Lives. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Prottas, J.M. and H.L. Batten. 1991. “The Willingness to Give: The Public and the Supply of Transplantable Organs.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law. Vol. 16, No.1.

Resnick D. 2003. “The Jesica Santillan Tragedy: Lessons Learned,” The Hastings Center Report 33(4):15-20.

Rosen, E.J. 1990. Families Facing Death: Family Dynamics of Terminal Illness. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Ryan, J., and Clair, J. 2001. Organ Farm: Pig to Human Transplants Medical Miracle or Genetic Time Bomb? London, England: Carlton Books.

Shannon, T. 2001. The Kindness of Strangers: Organ Transplants in a Capitalist Age. The Hastings Center Report 11(3):285-304.

Siminoff, L. and Chillag, K. 1999. The Fallacy of the ‘Gift of Life.’ The Hastings Center Report 29(6):34-41.

Simmons, R.G. Gift of Life: The Effect of Organ Transplantation on Individual, Family, and Societal Dynamics.

Special Issue on Organ Donation 2003. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(1).

Spital A. 2003. “Conscription of Cadaveric Organs for Transplantation,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(2):169-174.

Stein, Alan. 1995. “Organ Transplantation: Approaching the Donor’s Family.” British Medical Journal. 310: 1149-1150.

Teo, B.1991. Organs for Transplantation: The Singapore Experience. The Hastings Center Report 21(6): 10-13.

The Ethics and Social Impact Committee. 1988. “Anecephalic Infants as Sources of Transplantable Organs.” The Hastings Center Report. 18: 28-30.

Younger, SJ and Arnold, RM. 1993. “Ethical, Psychological and Public Policy Implications for Procuring Organs from Non-Heart Beating Cadaver Donor’s.” JAMA. 269: 2769-2775.

7. Doctor-Patient Relations

Abidi, S.S., Han, C.Y., and Abidi, S.R. 2001. Patient Empowerment via ‘Pushed’ Delivery of Personalized Healthcare Educational Content Over the Internet. Proceedings of the 10^th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Pp. 1425-1429.

Alpert, S. 1993. Smart Cards, Smarter Policy: Medical Records, Privacy and Health Care Reform. The Hastings Center Report 23(6): 13-23.

Anderson, J.G. 2001. How the Internet is Transforming the Physician-Patient Relationship. Medscape TechMed 1(3).

Anderson, J.G. 2001. CyberHealthcare: Reshaping the Physician-Patient Relationship. MD Computing. 18(1):21-22.

Baker, S. 1998. Managing Patient Expectations: The Art of Finding and Keeping Loyal Patients. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Barry, M.J. 1999. Involving Patients in Medical Decisions. Journal of the American Medical Association 282(24):2356-2358.

Baur, C. Limiting Factors on the Transformative Powers of E-Mail in Patient-Physician Relationships: A Critical Analysis. Health Communication 12(3):239-259.

Bergsma, J., and Thomasina, D.C. 2000. Autonomy and Clinical Medicine: Renewing the Health Professional Relationship with the Patient. Boston.

Breggin, P. et al. 2002. Dimensions of Empathic Therapy. New York: Springer Publishing Co.

Chin, R. 2000. The Internet: Another facet to the paradigm shift in healthcare. Singapore Medical Journal 41(9):426-429.

Cohen, C. et al. 2001. Walking a Fine Line: Physician Inquiries into Patients’ Religious and Spiritual Beliefs. The Hastings Center Report 31(5):29-39.

Cohen, C. et al. 2000. Prayer as Therapy: A Challenge to Both Religious Belief and Professional Ethics. The Hastings Center Report 30(3):40-47.

Coiera, E. 2000. When Conversation Is Better Than Computation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 7:277-286.

Eysenbach, G. and Jaded, A.R. 2001. Evidence Based Patient Choice and Consumer Health Informatics in the Internet Age. Journal of Medical Internet Research 3(2).

Ferguson, T. 1998. Digital Doctoring- Opportunities and Challenges in Electronic Patient-Physician Communication. 280(15): 1361-1362.

Ferguson, T. 2000. Online Patient-Helpers and Physicians Working Together: A New Partnership for High Quality Health Care. British Medical Journal 321: 1129-1132.

Friedewald, V.E. 2000. The Internet’s Influence on the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Health Management Technology 21(110:79-80.

Gerber, B.A, and Eiser A.R. 2001. The Patient-Physician Relationship in the Internet Age: Future Prospects and the Research Agenda. Journal of Medical Internet Research 3(2): e15.

Goldberg, H.S., et al. 2001. Reinventing Patient-Centered Computing for the Twenty-First Century. Proceedings of the 10^th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Pp. 1455-1458.

Goold, S. 2001. Trust and the Ethics of Health Care Institutions. The Hastings Center Report 31(6):26-33.

Gunderman, R. 2000. Illness as Failure: Blaming Patients. The Hastings Center Report 30(4):7-11.

Hanford, J. 2002. Bioethics From a Faith Perspective: Ethics in Health Care for the Twenty First Century. New York: Haworth Pastoral Press.

Jadad, A.R. 1999. Promoting Partnerships: Challenges for the Internet Age. British Medical Journal 319:761-764.

Jones, R.B., et al. 2001. The Accessibility of Computer-Based Health Information for Patients: Kiosks and the Web. Proceedings of the 10^th World Congress on Medical Informatics. Pp. 1469-1473.

Katz, S.J., and Stern, D.T. 1999-2001. The Effect of Enhanced Patient E-Mail Access on Patient-Physician Communication and Satisfaction. Research Protocol.

Kritek, P. 2002. Negotiating at an Uneven Table: Developing Moral Courage in Resolving Our Own Conflicts. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McLaughlin, C.P. and Kaluzny, A.D. 2002. Missing the Middleman: Disintermediation challenges to doctor-patient relationships. MGMA Connexion 2(4):48-52.

Mackler, A. 2001. Jewish and Roman Catholic Approaches to Access to Health Care and Rationing. The Hastings Center Report 11(4):317-336.

May, W. 2000. The Physician’s Covenant: Images of the Healer in Medical Ethics. Louisville, KY: Westminster Press.

Morreim, E.H. 1993. Am I My Brother's Warden? The Hastings Center Report 23(3): 19-27.

Moyer, C.A., Stern, D.T., Dobias, K., Cox, D., and Katz, S.J. 2001. Bridging the Electronic Divide: Patient and Provider Perspectives on E-Mail Communication in Primary Care. Society for General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, May 2-5, San Diego, CA.

Moyer, C.A., Stern, D.T., Katz, S.J., and Fendrick, A.M. 1999. We Got Mail: Electronic Communication Between Physicians and Patients. Journal of Managed Care 5:1513-1522.

Neill, R.A., Mainous, A.G., Clark, J.R., and Hagen, M.D. 1994. The Utility of Electronic Mail as a Medium for Patient-Physician Communication. Archives of Family Medicine 3:268-271.

Niemira, D. 1993. Life on the Slippery Slope: A Bedside View of Treating Incompetent Elderly Patients. The Hastings Center Report 23(3): 14-17.

Pal, B. 1999. E-Mail Contact Between Doctor and Patient. British Medical Journal 318:1428.

Pal, B. 2000. Internet Helps Communication Between Doctors and Patients. British Medical Journal 320: 59.

Parker, J. and Coiera, E. 2000. Improving Clinical Communication: A View from Psychology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 7:453-461.

Reener, R.E. 2000. Patient-Doctor Digital Divide – online but uncommunicative? Health Management Technology 21(1):36-38.

Sastry, S. and Caroll, P. 2002. Doctors, Patients and the Internet: Time to grasp the nettle. Clinica Medica 2(2):131-133.

Shepperd, S., Charnock, D., and Gann, B. 1999. Helping Patients Access High Quality Health Information. British Medical Journal 319: 764-766.

Taylor, H., and Leitman, R. 2002. Patient/Physician Online Communication: Many Patients Want It, Would Pay for It, and It Would Influence Their Choice of Doctors and Health Plans. Harris Interactive 2(8): 1-4.

Waitzkin, H. Patient-Doctor Relations in the Era of Managed Care. In Adler, PA and Adler, P. (Eds) Sociological Odyssey: Contemporary Readings in Sociology. Wadsworth.

no author cited. 2001. Destruction of the Doctor-Patient Relationship. Available at wysiwyg://2/http://www.heartdisease.about…th/heartdisease/library/hcs/blhcsbp02.htm

no author cited. 2001. Understanding and Surviving the American Health Care System. Available at wysiwyg://2/http://www.yourdoctorinthefamily. com/default.htm

Journals

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal

Journal of Medical Ethics

The Hastings Center Report

Websites

http//:www.asa-asn.org

http//:www.med.penn.edu/~bioethics library

http//:www.cdc.gov

http//:www.nih.gov

http//:www.gen.emory.edu/MEDWEB/

http//:www.ama-assn.org

http//:www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed

http//:www.ovid.lib.purdue/ovid

http//:www.lib.purdue.edu/library_info/electronic/indexes.html (go to Ageline)