Write covid19 patient Moral Argument Paper assignment by having you identify possible objections to your argument and think about how to defend your argument against them. You will type up a brief report explaining some possible objections that you might address in your paper.

Instructions:

The argument you choose to defend can be one from your Argument Overview, or it could be a modified version of one of those arguments or a new argument you've identified after more thinking. Just be sure you put the argument into standard form clearly and precisely. Be sure also to make it clear which part of your argument each objection is targeting. Try to think of the best possible objections to you argument rather than the weakest or silliest ones. (You don't have to try to defend your argument against them in this assignment - you'll be talking about how to do that in class to help you think about what to say in your final draft.)

After you complete the assignment, upload a copy into the appropriate D2L Brightspace Assignments folder.

Your Main Argument in Standard Form:

[premise 1]

[premise 2]

So, [conclusion]

Objections: [clearly and concisely explain each objection in a short paragraph]

Objection 1: Premise is false because

Objection 2: Premise is false because

write defense argument choose yes or no argument as stander from

Disclosing Names of COVID-19 Patients

Introduction

An institution's member tests positive for COVID-19, and the institution's president notifies the students and staff about the case. Contact tracing begins to find the individuals who came interacted with the sick institution's member. A professor of the institution appeals that they need to identify the sick patient's identity to safeguard themselves better. Revealing the staff member's name would break the confidentiality with the individual and open him or her up to encounter discrimination as a COVID-19 victim. I argue that the institution member's name should not be revealed for it will be a breach of confidentiality, and the control of the virus is better achieved while maintaining the confidentiality of patients who have tested positive. Also, a counterargument is provided arguing that it is better to reveal the patient's name to keep the community and those close to the member safe since failure to warn people about an impending danger to their health would make be a regrettable mistake.

A Prestigious University has graduate and undergraduate colleges, a medical school, a university hospital, and a law school, all in a single premise (Sulmasy & Veatch). The vast private institution called back students to take their belongings during spring break and initiate their classes online. After a week, the institution's president sent an email to the staff, students, and faculty informing them of a member of the University Staff who had contracted COVID-19 during the transition week (Sulmasy & Veatch). The University staff member was on campus during that week, and contact tracing protocol had begun to identify the individuals that had come to close contact with the patient. Those identified in the close contact list would self-quarantine for fourteen days to observe any COVID-19 symptoms (Sulmasy & Veatch). A Philosophy Department's professor posed the question of whether the staff member's name should be revealed to the community to help control the virus's spread (Sulmasy & Veatch).

"Yes" Argument

The first premise of supporting the identification of the COVID-19 positive patient is that Specific circumstances require patient's revelation of their sickness to the community if the community people are at risk of getting the infection. The action would save other people's lives as they would exercise caution wherever they are situated. Other people in the public and the community are at risk of getting infected from the ill faculty member. A lack of information about an immediate threat to their lives would be their greatest undoing.

The second premise is that revealing the staff member's name would benefit the efforts of contact tracing. Few people would be identified through contact tracing as the individual may not recall or know all the persons they came in contact with in the past week. Thus, the staff member should consent to make their identification public to trace more people and protect the rest of the faculty, staff, and community members. A tough decision would have to be made if consent is not provided. The decision would depend on the exposure risk involved for individuals to exercise more caution and the estimated number of persons that could have been affected. Such a decision would best be arrived at with the advice and presence of a physician. The duty to protect the public could balance off with confidentiality ethics. So, it's morally permissible for the university to reveal the identity of the COVID-positive employee.

"No" Argument

The first premise of supporting public naming of the COVID-19 positive patient is wrong because it will result in a confidentiality breach. Revealing COVID-19 positive patient's names does little to control the virus's spread. Besides Physicians are directed by professional ethics, convincing them not to disclose the medical history to the public. Even when requested by the patients themselves that being very rare, healthcare workers have a lower possibility to breach patient confidentiality. Suggesting that COVID-19 positive patients should reveal themselves would suggest that healthcare workers should boycott bioethics, which is very unprofessional.

The second premise is wrong because the virus not only spreads by personal contact but also contact with contaminated surfaces. Such cases of virus spread are difficult to identify with contact tracing. Also, in such a case, public naming would benefit little to curb the disease spread. Firstly, people may not remember if they saw such a person within their vicinity, bearing in mind the large number of people that could be present in a large Prestigious University. Secondly, it is not easy to identify a contaminated surface or the person in contact with such a surface at any given time. Even if the names are made known to the public, the virus spread from contaminated surfaces may not be addressed. So, it's morally wrong for the university to reveal the identity of the COVID-positive employee.

Conclusion

The decision to reveal the faculty member's name is dependent on safeguarding the patient's confidentiality and the community member's safety. The held argument suggests that that public naming is beneficial for the community's protection and safety from contracting the deadly virus from the patient. A counterargument presents that revealing the faculty member's name would breach patient's confidentiality and contact tracing would not help in controlling the virus spread through touching contaminated surfaces. Any decision chosen amongst the two would require compromises that are either accepted or unwelcomed by different factions. The burden of making such a decision lies with the physician and the infected University staff member.

pur-new-sol

Related Questions