Question 1) Do you feel more threatened or optimistic about all the new possibilities opened up by neuroscience? Where would you draw the line - if at all? 

Do you believe that "human nature" will change considerably in the future?

question 2:

What do you think is a reasonable role for professional bioethicists in health care settings? Explain.

1.

Neuroscience is the multidisciplinary science branch that deals with anatomy, molecular biology, biochemistry, and the physiology of neural circuits in humans. Basically, with the scope still broadening with every research, neuroscience can be used to study the cellular, development, molecular, evolutionary, computational, medical and psychological aspects of the human nervous system.

Neuroscience has enabled us to understand human nervous system working and thus enabling a fusion between man and machine, for example, bionic limbs, restoring sense of tough or vision, etc. thus I believe that neuroscience has opened up new possibilities for humans and thus I am more optimistic about neuroscience than threatened. Though there should be a line to which this can be used, and the usage should respect the individual's right to chose for being a party to neuroscience use on one's body and mind or not.

It has potential advantages for business world also, where it can be used to predict what the customer will buy, whether a product will be liked by the customer, etc. based on his/her brain activity. Thus neuroscience if put to right use can be used in a number of ways but there will be concerns like privacy which will have to be considered.

"Action follows Being" is the idea natural law rests on, and natural law have been considered static in the past, but the scope of human action is expanding and thus due to technology, the human nature is changing both biologically and culturally. Hence, I believe that human nature will change considerably in the future and thus natural law has to exist with a dynamic nature and we need to formulate a natural law ethic to guide human actions when being is no longer static as was considered.

2.

Over the last three decades, American bioethics has strongly emphasized patient autonomy as its prevailing value. Other bioethical principles, such as beneficence and non-maleficence, have received somewhat less emphasis, while the principle of justice has been reserved for discussion of macro-allocation of resources and rarely invoked in individual cases. In the past, bioethics has emphasized the moral agency of individuals through emphasis on autonomous choice as a means of eschewing the endorsement of a particular value system in a pluralistic society. The emphasis of bioethics on impersonal, rights-based obligations and individual entitlements may reflect the reliance on case law for implementation of bioethics policy in many jurisdictions or reflect prevailing contractarian philosophical theories. This individualistic, contractarian approach probably helped prepare the terrain for the industrialization of medical practice. By constricting the domain of clinical moral authority while elevating individual choice, it left open a realm of macro-level policy decisions that business enterprises could claim as their domain.

Bioethics has been instrumental in implementing the policies of informed consent for both clinical and research purposes. Although practice often falls short of the stated objectives, the emphasis on disclosure in health care decisions and involvement of patients in the decisions affecting them stands in contrast to some common business practices. For instance, some health care plans restrict their providers' discussions of more costly alternative care approaches, creating policies in direct conflict with the fiduciary responsibility of the clinician to disclose options. The uproar, both public and professional, over "gag" clauses has led to a number of organizational and legislative initiatives to abolish such clauses. However, the chilling effect of the health plans' interests persists as long as physicians can be dropped without cause. The development of a substantive code of organizational conduct for health care plans will need to limit excessive discretionary authority. Accountability between plan and provider must flow bidirectionally. Business ethics can contribute to the development and implementation of such a code as well as inform the process with its experience of problematic aspects of corporate codes.

Step-by-step explanation

The answer above describes how I feel optimistic about all the new possibilities opened up by neuroscience where I draw the line and also describes if I believe that human nature will change considerably in future.

My thought on the reasonable role for professional bioethics in health care settings is explained above also and expounded below;

The concept of bioethics took proper shape during 1970s, when law and legal profession's role in US was expanding to bring social change in society. The technological advances in medicine and healthcare raised several new questions related to moral and social issues pertaining to patient care and healthcare services. Through bioethics they tried to fill this gap and dilemmas of patient rights and cares. They also helped in forming guidelines for healthcare practitioners and hospitals related to ethical issues governance. So the role of bioethicist is primarily to promote, support and monitor the behaviors and way of thinking that care professionals show not only towards the patients, families but also among themselves as well in relation to patient care and services. For example, bioethicists can help in protecting confidentiality of the patients' healthcare information, also ensure that patients/families are given the opportunity to voice or share opinions in decision making, and create a care atmosphere that promotes their dignity and comfort. And also recognizing the ways or mechanisms in healthcare setting to provide confidential access of bioethical counsel and guidance to staff, patients and families in making difficult healthcare decisions. Bioethicist can also provide teaching services to healthcare professional and students, facilitate discussion forums to talk ethical issue in news or in medical centers, promote collaboration, more participation in policy development and review.