By: P. Carter

Harry S Truman High School

Living Environment

“How much can they make you give?”

Problem:

Can parents make children donate vital organs?

Introduction:

Jon is a 15 year old sophomore in high school. He is an extremely talented soccer player, a straight A student who enjoys life and seems to have a promising future. Jon has an older sister Amy who is a senior in High School. Amy and Jon are the best of friends.

Jon’s physical for soccer detects a problem with his kidney function. Further tests determine that the problem is degenerative and that his kidney will cease to function. Jon is assured that he will be okay with one kidney; that is until his parents confess that he only has one kidney left. They had him in order to donate a kidney to Amy who needed a kidney as a baby. With one deteriorating kidney Jon is going to die if he can not find a matching donor. In his anger, he considers taking his parents to court and suing them for ruining his life. Did they have the right to have him for the purpose of donating one of his kidneys?

Your class will simulate this case and you will have an integral part in a team of lawyers and medical experts representing both Jon and his parents. We will actually have a trial where the most competent lawyers will sway the jury to side with their client. The result of your trial will be posted on a website so that it is accessible to parents who might be faced with this decision.

Your class will be divided into three groups. One group will serve as the attorneys for Jon. You will try to prove that his rights have been violated and that he deserves damages. The second group will serve as attorneys for the parents and they will try to prove that the parents had every right to use their child as they saw fit – for the benefit of their other child. And the last group will act as the medical experts who will be called to testify for both parties as needed.

Individually, you must act as researchers to find as much information to support your position as possible. Each team of lawyers must submit their legal brief prior to the start of the trial. Each brief will be a compilation of the contributions from all of the members. Your copy of the same brief will be used to make your points during the trial.

The trial will be videotaped and later critiqued by the class and an impartial judge – the teacher.

Process:

The team will formulate their case based on the six steps of the Science Public Policy Steps, see link

http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/ppindex.html

As very important background for your brief, each team must complete the worksheet from each of the steps.

Step 1: Define the Problem: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet1.html

Step 2: Gather evidence: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet2.html

Step 3: Identify the cause: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet2.html

Step 4: Evaluate a policy: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet4.html

Step 5: Develop solutions: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet5.html

Step 6: Select the best solution: http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/worksheet6.html

If at any point, you find that you need clarification on any of these steps just click on this website http://www.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/ppas/welcome.html and then click on the step in question.

Once your worksheets are completed the individuals from the group should be assigned their tasks.

The teams will, as a group, decide what points they want to make to the audience. They will divide the points to be researched among the members and then work individually.

Finally they will reassemble and organize their information into a case that smoothly flows in an intelligible progression from beginning to end.

Resources:

References: You will use the Internet to research information to complete the worksheets and your assignment. Here are some links that will help you in your search for information. Feel free to add your own links to further strengthen your points.

http://www3.azwestern.edu/psy/dgershaw/lol/DonorBabies.html

http://humansubjects.stanford.edu/manual/chapters/ch2_2c_ethics.html

http://160.94.9.156/ahc_news/100900/The%20ethics%20of%20having%20a%20baby%20for%20another%20childs%20benefit.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=8001

http://www.cbhd.org/resources/genetics/sutton_2002-08-21.htm

http://www.med.howard.edu/ethics/handouts/code_transplant.htm (see 2.166)

http://www.bioethics.net/er/erbioethics.php?task=view&articleID=436

http://www.ualberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/41_2/05_TXT.htm (see

I. Background A. Procedure and effects…)

http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/BJC.3.html

http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/003988.html

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/05-31-2004/insider/stemcell.htm

To further assist your search you may try www.google.com, www.yahoo.com, and www.askjeeves.com.

Evaluation:

You will be graded as follows, based on the number of points you achieve in your score:

A = 20-24

B = 16-19

C = 12-15

D = 8-11

Any score less than 8 will fail this assignment

Objectives	Low Performance	Average	Exemplary Performance	Earned Points
Use of SPPA objectives and worksheets (Group grade is transferred to the individuals in the group).	2 points Group has completed less than 75% of the SPPA worksheets required by the webquest.	4 points Group has completed more than 75% but less than 95% of the SPPA worksheets required by the webquest.	6 points Group has completed more than 95% of the SPPA worksheets required by the webquest.
Effective use of websites for research.	2 points Websites used have little or nothing to do with the team's objective - as demonstrated in the trial situation.	4 points Websites used are not completely effective in supporting the team's objective - as demonstrated in the trial situation.	6 points Websites used are very effective in supporting the team's objective - as demonstrated in the trial situation.
Organization of Presentation	2 points Written brief and arguements during trial are unorganized and unconvincing.	4 points Written brief and arguements during trial are somewhat organized and somewhat convincing.	6 points Written brief and arguements during trial are very organized and very convincing.
Display of communication skills during presentation: courteous,respectful,helpful,persuasive	2 points Student is not on task with the team, contributions minimal, and distracting.	4 points Student is not always on task, sometimes distracting from the group, and contributions are questionable.	6 points Student is always on task, is a integral part of the group dynamics, and has clearly contributed his share of effort.
	points	points	points
			Score:

Conclusion:

As a result of participating in this project, the student will develop skills of critical thinking based of his own research. The student will practice listening to and appreciating the thoughts and expertise of other students. And the student will become more proficient in incorporating his ideas with the ideas of others to develop a more conclusive summation of the available information. Students can use these acquired skills to research and debate other ethic issues.

Standards:

ELA standard 3: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for critical analysis and evaluation.

ELA standard 4: Students will read, write, listen, and speak for social interaction.

Science Standard 1:    Analysis, Inquiry, and Design: Students will use mathematical analysis, scientific inquiry, and engineering design, as appropriate, to pose questions, seek answers, and develop solutions.

Standard 7:   Interdisciplinary Problem Solving: Students will apply the knowledge and thinking skills of mathematics, science, and technology to address real-life problems and make informed decisions.