Liberty University
Ethics in Health Science
MSCI 640
Journal Assignment Entry 6
Organ Transplant
Assignment
Organ Transplant Assignment
This week’s discussion assignment around organ transplants was not as tough for me to
opinionate on as the other weeks. The only concept that was hard to gather opinions on would
be animal-to-human transplants in which I never really thought about ethically.
In the first case study that was assigned, I do think that Rose is in the wrong however not
in terms of copyright issues since she was careful to cite her sources. When it comes to making
money off of the program that she created off the authors, I think crosses the line because she
is making money off of their work. I understand that nowadays, in college of highschool that
some students will sell their notes from previous classes to help out other students. I also
understand where Rose is coming from since she did to put in the work into her program to help
her succeed, in all she seems to have an entrepreneur mindset. However when it comes to
making profit off of someone elses work is where I see she is at fault with. Though, I question
where this line plays into college or highschool education because even though professors cite
their sources, Rose did as well for educational purposes. One of my classmates stated that they
did not see a default in
her actions because she did cite her sources however she did with the information in which I
partially agree with. It would be a different scenario if another classmate stole her work and
progra, and started to sell it themselves because Rose did put work into it.
In this next cases study, I think that Theo should not have claimed the software as his
own rather than giving the credits to the company. One classmate wrote that buying the
software from a third-party vendor at half price, that there is no infringement taking place. The
fellow classmate stated examples that students do this now by using Chegg, and Amazon.
People are even doing this by dropshipping products that are not theirs however it is legally
done because
the creator of the products give them permission. However, in this case, Theo’s actions went
against the user agreements of the software because software usually prohibits two parties
using the same serial number. Lana should know this when she agreed to purchase the
software so it is safe to say that she is also in violation of copyrights. Both Lana and Theo are in
violation of the software agreement.
Copy infringement occurs when original work is reproduced, publicly displayed,
distributed, and made derivative work without the authors permission. In this next scenario,
copyright infringement occurred because they only changed the font of the script however
kept the original manuscript. They did not change the data and seems like they did not do their
own research. Classmates felt different about this saying that they did their own individual
work and that they indicated that the graph is from the initial monograph article.
In the next case study, there were many different opinions when readin gmy classmates
responses. Some of the believe that Dr. Mondello does not have a well enough basis to file
scientific misconduct against Dr. Saleem as Dr. Mondello was paid for the chapter as well as
signing a property transfer agreement. My classmates also believed that the copyrights belong
to the publishing company for the original content. My classmates also advised Dr. Mondello to
proceed. On the other hand, I states that Dr. Mondello should file a scientific misconduct
against Dr. Cook for publishing her ideas while they are protected by the research constitution.
The next cases study, the group that did not print the journals for the use of research is in
the wrong. I believe that Dr. Hefner’s policy stays in the line of ethical standards because she
is using it for educational purposes and is not making a profit off of anything. Since she is the
only subscriber to the scientific publication and sharing it with others, I do not think there was
a case of copy infringement because she is sharing it with the group for educational purposes.
Dr.Hefner could also grant access to other students without copyright infringing if she asked the
school of where she works to purchase the liscense.
I do not think that Dr. Gopal’s actions were ethical in this next scenario. Dr. Gopal had
decided to take her work with her after it was released from the academic post which in turn
presents that she is claiming ownership of the university. Dr. Gopal was not working diligently
even though she owns the copyright to the work she had developed. I would say that my
classmates and I had the same viewpoint in this scenario about Dr. Gopal. I believe that Dr.
Gopal losing her job was validated, she was acting selfishly however will remain as the owner of
the copyrights.
Susan Barnes, in this scenario holds the rights because she is the one who discovered
potent anti-apoptotic activity in eukaryotic cells. Susan has the rights and according to Macrina,
the person who invents or discovers something holds patent rights. I think that the scientific
committee was acting unethically.
The next discussion is from Rakestraw and Clark, the discussion is about murders. I think majority
of my classamates and I had the same viewpoint of where a murderer who feels genuine
sorrow about what they had done should get different treatment than murderers who feel no
empathy and committed the murder intentionally. I believe that murderers who commit
intenitonally and have it planned out or humans that get angry to a point where they commit a
murder should be put into the death penalty. People who especually act out of anger or “road
rage” and kills someone should get the death penatly. Compared to a person who accidentally
murders someone should not. There are people in this world who commit a murder however will
act affected by this action but not mean it, and it is hard to distinguish when someone is telling the
truth. One of my classmates stated that if they show that they are genuinely sorry, do the
time, and try to turn their life around should not be put to the death penalty. When a dog acts out,
and attacks a human, the dog is automatically put down. I would assume that humans decide to
put the dog down because they fear what else the dog may do later on, hence attack another
human in which I believe the same concept should be applied to humans. Humans know better
and have a conscious. I know that humans should not be compared to dogs in actions however i
expect more from humans than dogs. Dogs are meant to be in the wild and have a killer instinct
where humans know how to be civilized and act appropriately. Forgiveness is a hard thing to do
when it comes to vcomiting murder. I think that we should try to forgive others as God forigives
us everyday.
It is very unfortunate that innocent people go to jail for wrongful conviction. These
people get put into jail when they do not commit any murder for 10 years until proven innocent.
There a peace in mind when people get put into jail when they comt murder and I guess it is like
a scenario where the sayong is “it is better safe than sorry” when putting innocent people in jail
but it is not right and the justice system did not serve them any justice.
The next discussion question is about organs and animal-to human transplants. This
discussion was the most difficult in my opinion because I never thought it to be an ethical
problem. People have their opinions that animal-to-human organ transplants dehumanized people
and tampers with what being a human is. It implies that humans are automatically superior than
animals in which I would not agree with completely. Yes, humans are diligent, smarter, and can
contain instincts that animals cannot, but I think the God made us all to love one another and I do
not think He meant for this world to have a hierarchy. I do not understand why having an organ
transplant from an animal is morally wrong to humans, I would think that it is morally wrong to
animals because what makes animals less deserving of life? Mathew 6:26 states, “Look at the
birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father
feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?”. I think that we should treat animals with
respect and not look down upon them, God created all things as we should respect all things.
I do not think that we should freeze people until a cure is found for their disease because
it interrupts the circle of life. I do not think that we should try to avoid death yet try to be like
God when it comes to immortality. Jesus dies on the cross for us and I think that we should try to
avoid ir escape death. Jesus passign away is what gave Him immortality from God, if we do not
pass away then there is no heaven to go to implying that living on earth is better than going to
Heavan. I do not think that we should freeze people until a cure is found for their disease.
I would not contemplate getting a face transplant because I love the face that God created
for me, God is an artist and I do not think that He makes any mistakes. All my life I wanted to
look different and change hwo my nose looked but I do not think that God made a mistake. I
have learned to come into terms with the face God gave me and not change his masterpiece.
Each and everyone of us is made unique.
References
1. Clark, D. K., & Rakestraw, R. V. (1996). Readings in Christian ethics volume 2: Issues and
applications.
2. Macrina, F. L. (2014). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research
(4th ed.). Washington
3. Trinitarian Bible Society. (2010).The holy bible:Containing the old and new testaments.
4. Wagner, V. (Ed.). (2008). Biomedical ethics: Opposing viewpoints (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Greenhaven Press.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
