1. Leroy died suddenly, leaving behind him Margret, his wife, who was suffering from atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) of the brain, for whom he had cared devotedly because she was practically an invalid. In his will, he left his substantial estate to her, to go upon her death to his side of the family. He had actually earned all the money because Margret had never gone to work. Margret’s sister, Anne, and her husband Eric an attorney agreed to take care of her, putting her into a skilled nursing facility near their home for which all expenses were paid from Leroy’s estate. While she was still alive, they changed Margret’s will, splitting the estate 40/60 in favor of her side of the family. They had a doctor certify that she was mentally competent to make such a change, but Leroy’s family, who had visited her, noticed that she was capable of very little in the way of decision-making. As longtime friend of Anne and Eric, they had trusted them not to do anything improper. When they learned that Anne and Eric had changed Leroy’s will under what they felt to be very shady circumstances, they accused them of stealing.  Do you believe that what Anne and Eric did was theft? Why or why not? If they felt their side of family had been wronged, was there anything that Anne and Eric could have done differently to rectify the problem? 2. A psychologist wants to videotape some of his patients during their therapy sessions, partly as a study he is doing and partly as a teaching device for advanced psychology students. He feels that if the patients know they are being taped, they won’t act naturally, which will both taint his study and diminish the film’s value as a teaching device. For this reason, he feels that the patients should not know that they are being taped even though what they do or say on the tape may reveal certain aspects of their private feelings and lives. What should the psychologist do? Should he tell the patients he is taping them, or should he just go ahead and tape without their permission, assuming that he is just going to use the tapes for his own research and as a teaching device? Are there any other alternatives you can think of for the psychologist to follow? 3. Laura, a 19 years old woman, fell into a coma because of an overdose of drugs and alcohol. She was given emergency treatment at a hospital and was placed on a respirator, which stabilized her breathing. She remained in a deep coma, and when she was tested by neurologists; and neurosurgeons it was discovered that about 70 percent of her brain was irretrievably damaged. She was not brain dead, however: she reacted to pain, her eyes sometimes would open and her pupils contract, she would at times thrash about and her EEG showed some brain activity. She was in a PVS. Because she could not be pronounced dead in any medical or legal sense, the hospital and doctors refused to take her off the respirator or to stop any other treatments they were giving her. At one p ...

1. 1. Leroy died suddenly, leaving behind him Margret, his wife,
who was suffering from atherosclerosis (hardening of the
arteries) of the brain, for whom he had cared devotedly because
she was practically an invalid. In his will, he left his substantial
estate to her, to go upon her death to his side of the family. He
had actually earned all the money because Margret had never
gone to work. Margret’s sister, Anne, and her husband Eric an
attorney agreed to take care of her, putting her into a skilled
nursing facility near their home for which all expenses were
paid from Leroy’s estate. While she was still alive, they
changed Margret’s will, splitting the estate 40/60 in favor of her
side of the family. They had a doctor certify that she was
mentally competent to make such a change, but Leroy’s family,
who had visited her, noticed that she was capable of very little
in the way of decision-making. As longtime friend of Anne and
Eric, they had trusted them not to do anything improper. When
they learned that Anne and Eric had changed Leroy’s will under
what they felt to be very shady circumstances, they accused
them of stealing.
Do you believe that what Anne and Eric did was theft? Why or
why not? If they felt their side of family had been wronged, was
there anything that Anne and Eric could have done differently
to rectify the problem?
2. A psychologist wants to videotape some of his patients
during their therapy sessions, partly as a study he is doing and
partly as a teaching device for advanced psychology students.
He feels that if the patients know they are being taped, they
won’t act naturally, which will both taint his study and diminish
the film’s value as a teaching device. For this reason, he feels
that the patients should not know that they are being taped even
though what they do or say on the tape may reveal certain

2. aspects of their private feelings and lives.
What should the psychologist do? Should he tell the patients he
is taping them, or should he just go ahead and tape without
their permission, assuming that he is just going to use the tapes
for his own research and as a teaching device? Are there any
other alternatives you can think of for the psychologist to
follow?
3. Laura, a 19 years old woman, fell into a coma because of an
overdose of drugs and alcohol. She was given emergency
treatment at a hospital and was placed on a respirator, which
stabilized her breathing. She remained in a deep coma, and
when she was tested by neurologists; and neurosurgeons it was
discovered that about 70 percent of her brain was irretrievably
damaged. She was not brain dead, however: she reacted to pain,
her eyes sometimes would open and her pupils contract, she
would at times thrash about and her EEG showed some brain
activity. She was in a PVS. Because she could not be
pronounced dead in any medical or legal sense, the hospital and
doctors refused to take her off the respirator or to stop any other
treatments they were giving her. At one point Laura’s sister was
alone in the room with her and, thinking that Laura wouldn’t
want to live on in this way, she disconnected the respirator and
caused her sister death.
Discuss in detail your reactions to the sister’s decision.
4. Leonard 25, and Rachel 23, discovered that they are Tay-
Sachs carriers after Rachel has become pregnant, and the doctor
informs that they have a one-in-four chance of bearing a Tay-
Sachs child. Tay-Sachs is a fatal disease that is both
degenerative and particularly horrible. They decided to wait
until the fourth month of Rachel’s pregnancy to have an
amniocentesis performed. The results, which they received in

3. Rachel’s fifth month of pregnancy, show that she will indeed
give birth to a child with Tay-Sachs.
What should they do? And why?
5. Analyze Dr. Kevorkian’s case in regards to mercy death, do
you agree or disagree with his actions and why.
6. As a young college student, Jerry has found himself behind
on several important bills. Faced with the reality of living
without electricity, water and gas, Jerry decided that drastic
measures were required to settle debt and establish economic
stability until he finishes his college degree. Three months
earlier Jerry’s kidneys were tested for donor compatibility to
save the life of his ailing father. Unfortunately, neither he nor
anyone else on the donor lists matched. One month later, Jerry
lost his father and his financial security. With his current
financial crises and knowledge of both his blood and tissue
type, Jerry decided to sell his kidney through an ad on
Craigslist for $25,000. Within hours, his inbox was full of
requests from potential buyers who were desperate for a
transplant. Unfortunately for Jerry, he was informed that it was
illegal for individuals to sell their own organs.
Why do you think such a law was needed? Do you believe
people have just as much right to profit from selling personal
organs as the medical industry?
7. Define Capital punishment. Evaluate Retributive, Utilitarian
and Restitution theory of punishment.
8. A doctor-researcher in residence at a private institution for
mentally retarded children discovers that the children in one of
the dormitories have dysentery, whereas those in the other
dormitories do not. She decides to experiment with the children,
both to see what had caused this phenomenon and to study the

4. effects of dysentery and its various cures upon children in
general. She sets up a scientific study with control groups (in
which some students receive medication and some do not), and
part of her experiment involves infecting healthy children with
dysentery germs. The institution for which she works has a long
waiting list, and the doctor takes advantage of this, admitting
only those children whose parents will sign a release allowing
her to conduct experiments upon them .
What are the ethical implications of what the doctor is doing?
Should such experimentation be allowed? Why or why not?