Did John Hopkins have the right to take Henrietta Lack's cells?

Date

Title of Paper

Introduction to your discussion topic and what you are going to cover.

Identification of Ethical Dilemmas

Identify the ethical dilemmas two in the story of Henrietta Lacks. Explain why these result in ethical dilemmas.

Defending Johns Hopkins

You have tasked in defending the actions of Johns Hopkins supporting your discussion with two ethical theories in their use of the HeLa cells.

The Family

Explain why the family should not receive compensation for the HeLa cells and support with an (one) ethical theory discussion.

Your Opinion

Despite your assigned stance for the paper provide your opinion on the case and support your discussion with two ethical theories not already used in your paper.

Conclusion

Provide a conclusion to your discussion.

References

Anderson, Charles & Johnson (2003). The impressive psychology paper. Chicago: Lucerne Publishing.

Smith, M. (2001). Writing a successful paper. The Trey Research Monthly, 53, 149-150.

Entries are organized alphabetically by surnames of first authors and are formatted with a hanging indent. Most reference entries have three components:

Authors: Authors are listed in the same order as specified in the source, using surnames and initials. Commas separate all authors. When there are seven or more authors, list the first six and then use “et al.” for remaining authors. If no author is identified, the title of the document begins the reference.

Year of Publication: In parenthesis following authors, with a period following the closing parenthesis. If no publication date is identified, use “n.d.” in parenthesis following the authors.

Source Reference: Includes title, journal, volume, pages (for journal article) or title, city of publication, publisher (for book).

References that are Not Considered Scholarly, Reputable, or Reliable

1. Wikipedia.

2. The White House, The U.S. Congress (House or Senate), Democratic Party, Republican Party, Other political groups.

3. PowerPoint® presentations found on Web sites.

4. Blogs from Web sites.

5. Commercial Web sites.

5. Partisan think tanks.

6. Pre-Print Server of Open Access Journals (authors can post articles prior to being accepted by an editor for publication for comment from the public)

References that are Considered Scholarly, Reputable, or Reliable

Scholarly

1. Peer-reviewed journals (preferred).

2. Text books.

3. Sources, which are retrievable from a database in the library, such as PubMed, Web of Science, Ebsco Host, CINHAL, Cochrane Database.

4. Web sites and reports from governmental agencies (i.e., CDC, NIH, WHO, UN, CIA, FDA, Institute of Medicine).

5. Non-partisan, research organizations (i.e., The Kaiser Family Foundation, The Rand Corporation, Pew Charitable Trusts, Congressional Budget Office, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation).

These are considered the best sources for the writing of scholarly papers. The first three sources can be found in the library. The last two are usually found on Web sites.

Reputable and/or Reliable, but not Necessarily Scholarly

6. Symposia.

7. Web sites from professional organizations and societies (i.e., American Diabetic Association, American Cancer Society, Society for Assisted Reproduction).

8. Newspapers.

9. Newsletters.

10. WebMD.

11. University Web sites.

12. Dissertations.