1. In my lecture for topic #1, Principles in Bioethics, I say that the principle of non-maleficence is a prima facie principle because sometimes t is not possible to avoid harm when treating patients. (4:20) In the textbook, it says that "implicit in the principle of non-maleficence is the notion that health professionals must exercise 'due care' (p. 10)."

(a) Explain what it means for a principle to be prima facie.

(b) Give an original example (real or fictional) of a case in which, during the course of treatment, a foreseen harm will come to a patient, but it is morally justified by an overriding principle.

(c) What would constitute 'due care' in a example. Be specific.

2. In my lecture for topic #1, I refer to a case involving Ramon Baker, the computer geologist seeking a liver transplant, his physician Dr. Eldon, and the medical director, Dr. Callawaywho reviewed Mr. Baker's appeal. (6:45) Dr. Eldon has an ethical duty to do what he thinks will benefit his patient, and in this case, he determined that the transplant would not be 'medically indicated.' Dr. Callaway denied Baker's appeal because the survival rate for patients in Baker's condition is low, and because livers available for transplant are very scarce.

(a) Explain how the principle of utility might support Dr. Eldon's judgment.

(b) Explain how the principle of justice might support Dr. Callaway's judgment.

(c) Give an argument for the decision that should have been made.

3. In my lecture for topic #1, I refer to a case involving Luke Craddock, the accountant who is obese according to the NIH and the DSM-5. I say that this is an example to show the difference between assessing harms and benefits from an act-utilitarian perspective versus a rule-utilitarian perspective. (13:20)

(a) Give an act-utilitarian justification from Mr. Craddock's perspective that would defend his decision not to comply with his physician's recommendation to lose weight. (Remember what it means to do the 'utilitarian calculation.' In the answer, specifically identify the projected good and bad consequences of Braddock's decision and say why the 'net balance' of those considerations favor his decision.)

(b) Give a rule-utilitarian justification for why the NIH and the APA would have the standards that they do for classifying obesity as they do. (For this one, remember that rule-utilitarianism emphasizes following a rule that tends to bring about the best value-based consequences over the long-term.)

(c) How might the conflict between these two applications of utilitarianism be resolved in Mr. Craddock's case? (Is there a different principle that might override this one?)