Macrina: Intellectual Property
9.1 Rose does have copyright over the computer program that she created for the content. However, the content provided by her
instructor, the textbook, and the course website, is not hers. Rose could charge for the program itself, however, not for the content.
According to Macrina (2014), “current copyright law provides that fair use of copyrighted material will not constitute an act of
infringement.” What constitutes as fair use? Criticism, news reporting, teaching, or research/scholarship. Moreover, “an individual
may copy from a protected work as long as the value of the work is not diminished, and such activity is nonprofit in nature.” So, Rose
cannot charge for the content in her program, because the charge is diminishing the value of the work content itself, an act of
infringement on the intellectual property of her professors.
Furthermore, the State University claim intellectual property rights to Rose’s program because the program was not “directlycannot
asked or specifically assigned” to her for completion (Macrina, 2014).
9.3 I don’t think there are any illegal or unethical implications for Theo buying the software package from an online vendor instead of
the university bookstore. However, I do think there were an academic honor code and copyright violation. Like you, Kiaya, since Lana
and Theo are utilizing the same serial code, the professor will assume they are cheating, if he submits the project from her program.
My question, is that if he deletes her copy of the software when the new version arrives, wouldn’t all of his information be deleted?
So, if he “started over” with the new program, there would be no evidence that he used Lana’s program.
9.4 In Macrina (2014), the author describes a similar situation as stated in the case study, “consider a review article that contains
numerous previously published tables and figures from the literature, along with the derivative author’s original text interpreting,
explaining, or discussing the published literature. Copyright permission would have to be sought and granted to use the figures and
tables, but as expressed in your manuscript they would be covered by the copyright protecting your review article…This is not a
copyright infringement. [Any] new written expression of their ideas enjoys its copyright protection.” Based on this text, the coauthors
could just ask for permission to use the figure in their article, and all problems are solved!
Although the figure’s aesthetic would be altered, the data used to make the figure is not. I do think the altering of the figure is
considered copyright infringement. Proverbs 11:3 (New International Version) states, the integrity of the upright guides them, but the
unfaithful are destroyed in their duplicity."
9.5 Since Dawson Publishing holds the chapter copyright and has granted permission to use any and all original content, Dr. Mondello
would not win a legal case against Dr. Saleem. The case study states, “she [Dr. Mondello] signed a property transfer agreement
assigning the copyright for her manuscript to the publishing company.” Therefore, Dr. Mondello does not own the chapter. However, I
do think that Dr. Cook should mention Dr. Mondello as a contributor. Zach made a great analogy comparing contribution and
ownership!
9.8 Dr. Gopal was directorship of the course. However, according to Macrina (2014), since Dr. Gopal was not “directly askedassigned
or specifically assigned” to write the laboratory syllabus, the does belong to her unless otherwise stated in a contract. I copyright
understand Dr. Gopal’s frustration; I do believe that Dr. Gopal did what she thought was best for her property. However, ownership of
any material should’ve been discussed at the beginning and end of Dr. Gopal’s employment. There was a fault in both Dr. Gopal’s and
Dr. Latrell’s actions, and as a result, a lawyer may have to be involved. If I was in this situation, on either side, I would remind myself
of the words written by James in his letter. Chapter 1 verse 19 (New International Version) exhorts, “my dear brothers and sisters, take
note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.” Dr. Gopal should’ve been considerate of
her previous employment; Dr. Latrell should’ve been considerate of Dr. Gopal’s stance in claiming ownership of the laboratory
manual.
9.10 I do not think the company and the scientists acted legally or ethically. The case study states that the company has “first right of
refusal to license the compound pending Susan’s results.” However, the company cloned the genes and determined the pathway of
synthesis of the compound. The company doing this has full ownership (patent rights) of the operon because it falls their company. In
this way, no matter Susan’s results, the company already determined the genetic and mechanistic properties of the microorganism, and
Susan’s results are just the icing on the cake. I would encourage Susan to speak to legal personnel regarding the manner at hand.
Wagner
Points of View
1. Regulated sale of organs for transplant is ethical (Cherry, 2008)
6,000 people die a year while waiting for an organ transplant
Remedy: the regulated sell of organs
oCan help save lives and can help a family best lifted from poverty
oIllicit trading shouldn’t be a problem since it is possible to set a minimum legal price for organs to ensure that
sellers are properly compensated.
oCustomer satisfaction and professionalism within legal trade leads to profits
oThe market would increase the number of organs, making transplant more readily available, and reduce queuing
time. Therefore, both the rich and poor can receive transplants.
2. The sale of organs for transplant is unethical (Meilaender, 2008)
Problematic self-mutilation
Prolongs death
The limited supply of organs is due to thoughtlessness, selfishness, fear, or simply limited altruism
The body isn’t a collection of separable parts
oResults in bodily harm of one’s own body in order to do good for another. Therefore…
Gift keeps a donor a person, not a commodity. Selling shouldn’t be an option.
3. The current system of allocating organs is fair and ethical (United Network for Organ Sharing, 2008)
Maximize patient and graft survival is affected by…
oMedical compatibility: tissue antigens of the recipient
oThe waiting list patient’s medical condition before the transplant.
oDecreasing repeat transplantation
Minimize disparities in waiting times and deaths while waiting
oPRA levels
Maximize opportunity for patients with biological or medical disadvantages
oChildren
oPatients with high HLA
oRace
Minimize effects related to geography
Allow convenient access to transplantation
4. The current system of allocating organs is unfair and unethical (Undis, 2008)
Registering as an organ donor would give the donor a better chance of getting an organ if needed.
oServing registered organ donors first is a simple matter of justice.
20,000 more organs per year would be needed to eliminate most death, reduce the size of the waiting list, and
shorten waiting times for people still on the list.
It is a behavioral change that needs to occur.
UNOS does not need congressional approval to make this change.
5. Novel ways to increase the organ supply should be considered (Crowe & Cohen, 2008)
Expand education programs
Remove disincentives for living donations (the financial cost a potential donor might incur furing the process of a
living donation).
The use of expanded-criteria donors
The promotion of organ exchanges
Presumed consent
Organ conscription
New rewards or incentives for organ donation.
6. Novel ways to increase the organ supply are ethically unsound (University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics, 2008)
Increase the number of cadaveric donors
oBy choice of the donor; mandated choice policy
Incentives
oGive assistance to families of a donor with funeral costs
oDonate to a charity in the deceased person’s name if organs are donated
oOffer recognition and gratitude incentives like plaque or memorial
oProvide financial or payments
Take organs of prisoners who are put to death
Concerns about living organ donations
oHealth consequences
oPsychological consequences
oPressure
oNo donor advocates
Opposition to buying and selling organs
oIndian study of people selling their kidneys
Objections to alternative organ sources
oAnimal organs
oArtificial organs
oStem cell
oAborted fetuses
7. Animal-to-human organ transplantation is ethical (Smetanka & Cooper, 2008)
Xenotransplantation, or the transplantation of organs, tissues, or cells from one species to another, has the potential to
fulfill the demand for transplantable organs, tissues, and cells to alleviate diseases and save lives.
oXenotransplantation would render obsolete the numerous ethical questions relating to human
allotransplantation.
oOrgans from a porcine donor will be retrieved from a pig whose health status has been thoroughly monitored
and is fully known, unlike a human organ donor.
oThose who breed pigs for organ donation will be regulated by various government bodies to ensure that the
animals receive proper care and housing.
Transgenic pigs that have been genetically engineered can play a key role in the success of xenotransplantation.
This topic was personal to me. My older sister passed-away before I was born due to heart disease at almost four
years old. She had pulmonary atresia, Tetralogy of Fallot, and a hole in her heart. As a result, she had undergone
many surgeries. The last surgery that was done on her was to input a porcine pulmonary artery. Based on my mother’s
understanding, the pulmonary artery was to be inputted so that the smaller arteries would receive blood and grow
stronger. However, the strain of the surgery and pneumonia was what unfortunately caused my sister’s death. This
was in 1993. Now, I see that pig and heart valves have been successfully used in animal-to-human transplants and
have been treated to avoid human rejection. I think patients with heart diseases now can benefit from animal-to-
human transplantation with less risk. With the advancement in three-dimensional bioprinting, perhaps animal organs
can be printed and utilized in tissue engineering/regeneration. According to Ventola (2014), the application of 3D
printing in medicine can provide many benefits including the customization and personalization of medical products,
drugs, and equipment; cost-effectiveness; increased productivity; the democratization of design and manufacturing;
and enhanced collaboration.
8. Animal-to-human organ transplantation is unethical (Purdy, 2008)
Animal rights and welfare
oPain with surgery and symptoms with drugs
Assent by the recipient/candidates
oReligious beliefs
oRisks and benefits of Xeno
Risk of disease transmission
Alternatives to Xeno
oIncrease donation rates
oDevelop new donations
oBetter existing treatments
oPrevention
Extra Research (Organdonor.gov, 2020)
According to organdonor.gov (2020), 112,000 plus men, women, and children are on the national transplant waiting list as of
March 2020. Last year, about 40,000 transplants were performed in 2019 and 20 people die each day waiting for an organ transplant.
These numbers are scary. It is unscrupulous for 90% of U.S. adults to support organ donation, but only 60% are actually signed up as
donor.
Savior Siblings
When I think of “Savior Siblings,” I think of the movie My Sister’s Keeper. Savior siblings are children that are born to provide
an organ or cell transplant to a sibling that has a fatal disease. I don’t think a child should be born to be donated parts for another
sibling. Of course, siblings, if all possible, should consider (with their ) donating to their sick sibling; however, their existence consent
shouldn’t be premeditated as the only source for their sibling. According to Taylor-Sands (2015), although a savior sibling may well
benefit from a successful donation, “a failed donation can be traumatic for a sibling donor.” Furthermore, the uncertainty on the
outcome can affect the family unit: the savior sibling may attribute their sense of self-worth based on retrospective altruism and
indirect psychological benefit. Additionally, there are risks to selective reproduction: the risk associated with the savior siblings
identity and the risk of harm associated with the selection process itself, which involves biopsy of an “otherwise apparently healthy
embryo to facilitate preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)” (Taylor-Sands, 2015). According to Rubeis & Steger (2019), the
American Academy of Pediatrics formulated five criteria according to which the donation by a minor is ethically permissible: there is
no compatible adult donor, donor and recipient must be emotionally and personally related, a health benefit for the recipient must be
likely, clinical, emotional, and psychological risks to the donor must be minimized and outweigh by benefits, and parents must agree
to the procedure and the child must assent.
Dr. Waldron, you made a great comment about noninvasive cord blood and placenta transplantation. While searching for information
on the topic, I was surprised to read that any woman can choose to donate their umbilical cord and placenta! According to the Health
Resources & Services Administration (2019), after a baby is born, the umbilical cord and placenta are usually thrown away; however,
if a woman chooses to donate, the cord blood that meets standards for transplant will be stored at a public cord blood bank until
needed by a patient. At the bank, the cord blood is checked for contamination, registered under Be the Match program, frozen in liquid
nitrogen, and stored. There may not be matches for everyone, but this program may substitute for the need of Savior Siblings.
Anencephalic baby organ donation.
I would first mention that donating organs from a baby is a difficult decision and at times like those, it is difficult to trust in
God. I would encourage any woman and man who are struggling with this diagnosis to continue having a relationship with God
because truly he is the only one that can give us peace and consolation in times of suffering. Isaiah 59:8-9 (Common English Bible)
states, “My plans aren’t your plans, nor are your ways my ways, says the Lord. Just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my
ways higher than your ways, and my plans than your plans.”
This question reminds me of the questions we had in week 2. In the PVS case, the individual was irreversibly unconscious.
Therefore, based on theological evidence, the individual’s spirit was with the Lord the moment she entered a PVS state although her
physical body, because of the functioning brain stem, had a heartbeat, could give breaths, and had somewhat functioning organs. I had
mentioned to the daughter to remove mechanically administered food and hydration and to physically give her mother’s body food and
hydration and care for any outwardly wounds as a closure for her (the daughter) that she nourished her mother until her physical last
breath.
According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (2019), “a baby born with anencephaly is usually
blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain [because of the undeveloped forebrain]…reflex actions such as breathing and
responses to sound or touch may occur [because of the rudimentary brain stem].” I would suggest the mother speak with her husband
and they both agree to deliver the baby and like the PVS case, try to get closure and know that both did what they could for the baby’s
body, although his/her spirit is with the Lord. I do think donation of the organs would help a struggling infant in need.
Prisoners and Organ Donation
There is some controversy on whether prisoners should be organ donors/recipients. There was an episode of Grey’s Anatomy, in
which two doctors had to operate on a man with a swastika tattoo. Although, they didn’t want to personally, their duty is to the patient.
The same applies to prisoners; they should be placed on the transplant waiting list and should have the opportunity to receive an organ.
Is it fair? Probably not, but it is humane.
Additionally, I found the article on personality changes after heart surgery intriguing. It’s fascinating how microscopic cells can
retain “memory.”
Capital Punishment
Geisler (Geisler, 2010) and Clark & Rakestraw (Clark & Rakestraw, 2004)
**all sins need to be punished. This chapter is referring to the death penalty. “forgiven or not, there are social and physical
consequences of sin. A Christian who commits a capital crime can receive forgiveness but should not expect to avoid the
appropriate penalty.”
Rehabilitationism
oOpposes capital punishment for any crime
Reconstructionism
oInsists on capital punishment for all major crimes, whether moral or religious (based on Mosaic Law)
oHowever, Paul says we are no longer under the law; ten commandments have faded away; Christ is the end of the
Law; the Law was given to Israel
Retributionsism
oCapital punishment for certain crimes: capital offenses
oCapital punishment is reaffirmed in the NT; Acts 25:1-12, Romans 13:1-5
Three biblical objections
oFinality of capital punishment: death ends all hope of profound evangelism
oThe nature of capital offenses: does not exist outside of the Mosaic Law
oMeans of execution:
Case Studies
1. Murderer turns evangelist
All sins need to be punished: “forgiven or not, there are social and physical consequences of sin. A Christian who commits a capital
crime can receive forgiveness but should not expect to avoid the appropriate penalty” (Geisler, 2010). C.S. Lewis states, “to be
punished, however severely, because we deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better,’ is to be treated as a human person
made in God’s image.” Cases of genuinely repentant murderer should not be treated differently from those who show no remorse.
They were punished for their actions, not their religious status. However, I do think God is a merciful God and can lessen the amount
of years in jail or reverse the idea of death penalty to the jury. He loves all of us and will always love us despite what we’ve done. But
like any loving parent, there are consequences when their children break the rules. Both repentant murderers and the ones that don’t
should be held responsible for their actions, despite what they believe; although the punishment may differ between the two because of
the repentance.
There was an abundance of information for and against the death penalty according to the Word and contemporary standards. I do
not think the death penalty should be mandatory for every case; there are economic repercussions that need to be mentioned, and
ultimately the decision is up to the jury. I think the death penalty should be permissible but optional; however, I am struggling with
that answer. Since I am pro-life, I don’t think the killing of a fetus is morally correct; how should that differ from killing an adult
through the death penalty? I understand the difference between a fetus and adult who committed a capital crime, is the fact that the
fetus is innocent, and the adult committed a heinous crime. I do think life is sacred and God should be the only one to give and take
life (Deut. 39:13), but what if chooses the death penalty as his mode of action?
Honestly, this question was difficult for me to come to a concrete answer. Any comments are encouraged.
2. Wrongful convictions
I think wrongful convictions give great evidence against the death penalty. The innocent man would’ve died. This case study
reminds me of the Steven Avery case. The show Making a Murderer is about his case. Avery was wrongfully convicted for the rape
and attempted murder of Penny Beerntsen for 32 years; he was in jail for over a decade and was exonerated after DNA evidence was
found.
I agree with Anna that Jesus conquered death. 1 Corinthians 15:55 (New International Version) states, “O’ death, where is your
victory? O’ death, where is your sting?” Although capital punishment was mentioned in the Old Testament, I don’t think it is directly
mentioned in the New Testament. I do think sins should be punished, but there are other ways to do it.
Additional Questions:
Should we freeze people until cures are found for their diseases?
Absolutely not. There are numerous ethical considerations that need to be verified. For example, what would be used to freeze
these individuals? How will these individuals be brought back to “life?” Will their bodies continue to age during the freeze? What if
cures for their diseases are never discovered?
According to Hugo (2017), Russian cryonics company KrioRus, is the first Eurasian company to preserve people and pets-as of yet,
they have only worked with people that are considered legally dead. Cryonics is an unregulated, controversial, and unproven to work.
Additionally, the humans that have been revived via this procedure were human embryos.
Moreover, medical advancement would not succeed without the testing and employment of new drugs on the affected individuals. A
person shouldn’t waste their life with their families and children at the (microscopic) chance of being cured years, maybe decades
later.
Proverbs 3:5 (New International Version) states, “trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.”
Would you ever consider getting a face transplant?
For cosmetic (not medical) reasons, no. I understand that many people are not satisfied with their outer appearance. I was
extremely insecure with my outer appearance during my teenage years; however, my reasons were psychologically based, and I knew
that I was beautifully and wonderfully made (Psalms 139:13) despite those thoughts.
There are medical reasons why individuals consider a face transplants including burns, tumors, and traumatic accidents. I think
under these circumstances, those individuals should consider a face transplant for medicinal purposes.
References:
Cherry, M. (2008). The regulated sale of organs for transplant is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
(pp. 140–144). GreenHaven Press.
Clark, D., & Rakestraw, R. (Eds.). (2004). Capital Punishment. In Reading in christian ethics, vol 2: Issues and applications (8th ed.,
pp. 451–486). Baker Books.
Crowe, S., & Cohen, E. (2008). Novel ways to increase the organ supply should be considered. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing
viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 168–174). GreenHaven Press.
Donating umbilical cord blood to a public bank. (2019).
Geisler, N. (2010). Capital Punishment. In (2nd ed., pp. 199–219). Baker Academic.Christian ethics: Contemporary issues & options
Hugo, K. (2017). Humans could be frozen alive and thawed to continue living, says Russian company.
Macrina, F., & Mays, T. (2014). Research data and intellectual property. In F. Macrina (Ed.), Scientific integrity: Text and cases in
responsible conduct of research (4th ed., pp. 287–328).
Meilaender, G. (2008). The sale of organs for transplant is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), (pp. Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
145–152). GreenHaven Press.
National Institue of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. (2019). Anencephaly information page.
Organdonor.gov. (2020). Organ donation statistics.
Purdy, L. (2008). Animal-to-human organ transplantation is unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
(pp. 190–196). GreenHaven Press.
Rubeis, G., & Steger, F. (2019). Saving whom? The ethical challenges of harvesting tissue from savior siblings. European Journal of
Haematology 103, (5), 478–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13313
Smetanka, C., & Cooper, D. (2008). Animal-to-human organt ransplantation is ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints:
Biomedical ethics (pp. 183–189). GreenHaven Press.
Taylor-Sands, M. (2015). Saviour Siblings: Reply to critics. , (12), 933–934. Journal of Medical Ethics 41
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2014-102607
Undis, D. (2008). The current system of allocating organs is unfair and unethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing viewpoints:
Biomedical ethics (pp. 161–167). GreenHaven Press.
United Network for Organ Sharing. (2008). The current system of allocating organs is fair and ethical. In V. Wagner (Ed.), Opposing
viewpoints: Biomedical ethics (pp. 153–160). GreenHaven Press.
University of Minnesota’s Center for Bioethics. (2008). Novel ways to increase the organ supply are ethically unsound. In V. Wagner
(Ed.), (pp. 175–182). GreenHaven Press.Opposing viewpoints: Biomedical ethics
Ventola, C. (2014). Medical applications for 3D printing: Current and projected uses. , (10), 704–711.P and T 39
(“Donating umbilical cord blood to a public bank,” 2019; Hugo, 2017; Macrina & Mays, 2014; National Institue of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke, 2019; Rubeis & Steger, 2019; Ventola, 2014)
