SV Kennis Blok 9
Literature & notes
*SV&LD: mandatory literature and notes have been summarised.
*x: mandatory literature or notes have not been summarised due to irrelevance or absence.
1.1C Not relevant for the exam x
1.3TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
1.4C Lecture notes SV&LD
Common morality theory Beauchamp & Childress chapters 1 ( p. SV&LD
1-25) and 10 (p. 425-428; 433-439; 444-445).
1.5TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
2.1C Preparatory videos SV&LD
Lecture notes SV&LD
2.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Beauchamp & Childress 8th edition: chapter 4 (p. 99-106, SV&LD
112-115, 136-143), 5 (p. 155-161; 171-181; 197-202) and 6 (p. 217
- 224; 228-239; 243-257).
Tan DYB, ter Meulen BC, Molewijk A, et al, Moral case
SV&LD
deliberation. Practical Neurology 2018;18:181-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2017-001740
(Links to an external site.)
Pols, J. Althoff B., Bransen E. 2017 The Limits of Autonomy: Ideals
SV&LD
in Care for People with Learning Disabilities, Medical Anthropology,
36(8), 772-785
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/29935651/_14_11_2018_The_Limits.pdf
Verkerk MA. The care perspective and autonomy. Med Health Care
Philos. 2001;4(3):289-94. doi: 10.1023/a:1012048907443. PMID: SV&LD
11760228.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012048907443
(Links to an external site.)
2.3C Prepatory videos SV&LD
Lecture notes SV&LD
2.4TG Beauchamp & Childress chapter 7 Justice (pp. 267-314). SV&LD
Tutorial group notes SV&LD
3.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
1
,3.2TG Beauchamp & Childress chapter 9: pp. 385-409. SV&LD
Avci E. 2018. Should Physicians Tell the Truth Without Taking SV&LD
Social Complications Into Account? A Striking Case. Med Health
Care Philos , 21 (1), 23-30 (Links to an external site.)
Tutorial Group notes SV&LD
3.3C Lecture notes SV&LD
3.4TG Held 2006 The ethics of care: personal, political and global, SV&LD
chapter 1, p.9-p.28 (full chapter): The Ethics of Care as Moral
Theory. The e-book is available at the University Library see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/65178063
(Links to an external site.)
Mol et al 2010 Care in Practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and SV&LD
farms, chapter 1 p. 7-14, chapter care and its values p. 215-230,
the e-book is available at the University Library see :
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1010505675
Tutorial Group notes SV&LD
4.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
4.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Aristoteles, Ethica Nicomachea, vertaald, ingeleid en van SV&LD
aantekeningen voorzien door Christine Pannier en Jean
Verhaeghe, Historische Uitgeverij, Groningen 1999, p. 55-72
Scan_Aristoteles20201211-141214_1929_001.pdf
Download Scan_Aristoteles20201211-141214_1929_001.pdf SV&LD
Held 2006 The ethics of care: personal, political and global, week 3
chapter 1, p.9-p.28 (full chapter): The Ethics of Care as Moral
Theory. The e-book is available at the University Library to see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/65178063
Beauchamp & Childress chapter 2 (full chapter, 18 pp.) and
chapter 9 p. 409-416, 5 pp.). SV&LD
4.3C Lecture notes
4.4TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
J. Weber, 2001, Business Ethics in Healthcare: Beyond SV&LD
Compliance, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, chapters 1
and 2, p. 3-22.
D. Gracia, 2003, Ethical case deliberation and decision making. SV&LD
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 227-233.
Gracia2003_Article_EthicalCaseDeliberationAndDeci.pdf
Download
M. Heerings et al., 2021, Tinkering as Collective Practice: A SV&LD
Qualitative Study on Handling Ethical Tensions in Supporting
People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities. Ethics and
Social Welfare (15 pp. )
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17496535.2021.1954
223 (Links to an external site.)
W. Seekles et al., 2016, Evaluation of moral case deliberation at SV&LD
the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate: a pilot study. BMC Medical
Ethics 17;31, p. 1-11 Seekles 2016 Evaluation of MCD at the
DHCI.pdf
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
2
, Gracia2003_Article_EthicalCaseDeliberationAndDeci.pdf SV&LD
Mol et al 2010 Care in Practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes, and week 3
farms, chapter 1 p. 7-14, chapter care and its values p. 215-230,
the e-book is available at the University Library to see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1010505675
5.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
5.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Stone, D., 2012 Policy Paradox: the art of political decision making, SV&LD
Norton & Company, New York, London, Introduction p.1-13
StoneH1.pdf Download StoneH1.pdf
6.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
1.3TG Moral questions related to corona
Recognize the moral dimension of a problem.
Vaccinations for children: plans and twist points
1. What is the moral question?
Should children from age 5-12 be obligated to get vaccinated?
2. Which moral arguments are made?
+ Most of the infections of the coronavirus are spread among children;
+ According to the present studies, no dangerous side effects are found;
+ Vaccinating children can lower the number of cases among adults;
+ The potential side effects outweigh the risk of getting the coronavirus for children
with underlying disease;
+ Getting vaccinated allows children to engage and participate in out-of-school
activities without being at risk to get infected (indirect effects);
- A small number of children end up in the hospital due to the coronavirus;
- The effect of vaccination is not researched enough among children;
- Vaccinating children can not be used as a solution for the problem that too few
adults are getting vaccinated.
3. Who are the relevant stakeholders?
- Children
- Their parents
- Doctors specialized in child-care
- European Union
- Society
- Politicians
- Vaccination manufacturers
4. How would you weigh and balance the different moral arguments?
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
3
, It could be argued that children should have the free choice to get vaccinated to reduce the
spread of infections. Because there haven’t been any dangerous side-effects reported, the
potential side-effects outweigh the freedom children get when lockdown-measurers aren’t
taken. This is not only important for the children, but also for society as a whole.
On the other hand, it could be argued that there are only a few children who get seriously ill
from the coronavirus, but not in a life-threatening way. Therefore, it could be unnecessary to
take the risk of vaccinating children, not knowing about all the side effects. The argument
that children shouldn’t be a solution for a problem among adults is in line with this statement.
Code black: who gets to be treated in the ICU?
1. What is the moral question?
Who gets to be treated in the ICU when all hospital beds are full (‘code black’)?
2. Which moral arguments are made?
● The person with the shortest length of stay to be expected can be treated first so
more lives can be saved.
● If the expected length of stay is the same, younger people will be treated first.
● If the expected length of stay and age is around the same, fate decides.
● Other options:
○ If the expected health gains are greater in terms of years or quality of life,
this patient should be treated first.
○ The patient could be asked about their opinion: do they want to be treated if
they know who not gets to be treated.
■ But when is someone healthy enough to express a proper opinion?
○ The socio-economic status or job could be taken into account: but who gets
to decide? → practical argument.
○ People who are responsible for their own illness, should not be treated first.
But how and by who is this judged?
■ If this is being applied during the covid-pandemic, will the same
measures be applied to people who for example smoke or use drugs
and end up sick because of it after this pandemic?
○ No variables like age, health, or length of stay should be included, it should
be decided through random selection.
3. Who are the relevant stakeholders?
- Hospitals
- Society
- Doctors
- Landelijk Coördinatiecentrum Patiënten Spreiding
- Team ethische kwesties covid-19
4. How would you weigh and balance the different moral arguments?
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
4
Literature & notes
*SV&LD: mandatory literature and notes have been summarised.
*x: mandatory literature or notes have not been summarised due to irrelevance or absence.
1.1C Not relevant for the exam x
1.3TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
1.4C Lecture notes SV&LD
Common morality theory Beauchamp & Childress chapters 1 ( p. SV&LD
1-25) and 10 (p. 425-428; 433-439; 444-445).
1.5TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
2.1C Preparatory videos SV&LD
Lecture notes SV&LD
2.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Beauchamp & Childress 8th edition: chapter 4 (p. 99-106, SV&LD
112-115, 136-143), 5 (p. 155-161; 171-181; 197-202) and 6 (p. 217
- 224; 228-239; 243-257).
Tan DYB, ter Meulen BC, Molewijk A, et al, Moral case
SV&LD
deliberation. Practical Neurology 2018;18:181-186.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2017-001740
(Links to an external site.)
Pols, J. Althoff B., Bransen E. 2017 The Limits of Autonomy: Ideals
SV&LD
in Care for People with Learning Disabilities, Medical Anthropology,
36(8), 772-785
https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/29935651/_14_11_2018_The_Limits.pdf
Verkerk MA. The care perspective and autonomy. Med Health Care
Philos. 2001;4(3):289-94. doi: 10.1023/a:1012048907443. PMID: SV&LD
11760228.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012048907443
(Links to an external site.)
2.3C Prepatory videos SV&LD
Lecture notes SV&LD
2.4TG Beauchamp & Childress chapter 7 Justice (pp. 267-314). SV&LD
Tutorial group notes SV&LD
3.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
1
,3.2TG Beauchamp & Childress chapter 9: pp. 385-409. SV&LD
Avci E. 2018. Should Physicians Tell the Truth Without Taking SV&LD
Social Complications Into Account? A Striking Case. Med Health
Care Philos , 21 (1), 23-30 (Links to an external site.)
Tutorial Group notes SV&LD
3.3C Lecture notes SV&LD
3.4TG Held 2006 The ethics of care: personal, political and global, SV&LD
chapter 1, p.9-p.28 (full chapter): The Ethics of Care as Moral
Theory. The e-book is available at the University Library see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/65178063
(Links to an external site.)
Mol et al 2010 Care in Practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes and SV&LD
farms, chapter 1 p. 7-14, chapter care and its values p. 215-230,
the e-book is available at the University Library see :
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1010505675
Tutorial Group notes SV&LD
4.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
4.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Aristoteles, Ethica Nicomachea, vertaald, ingeleid en van SV&LD
aantekeningen voorzien door Christine Pannier en Jean
Verhaeghe, Historische Uitgeverij, Groningen 1999, p. 55-72
Scan_Aristoteles20201211-141214_1929_001.pdf
Download Scan_Aristoteles20201211-141214_1929_001.pdf SV&LD
Held 2006 The ethics of care: personal, political and global, week 3
chapter 1, p.9-p.28 (full chapter): The Ethics of Care as Moral
Theory. The e-book is available at the University Library to see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/65178063
Beauchamp & Childress chapter 2 (full chapter, 18 pp.) and
chapter 9 p. 409-416, 5 pp.). SV&LD
4.3C Lecture notes
4.4TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
J. Weber, 2001, Business Ethics in Healthcare: Beyond SV&LD
Compliance, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, chapters 1
and 2, p. 3-22.
D. Gracia, 2003, Ethical case deliberation and decision making. SV&LD
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6: 227-233.
Gracia2003_Article_EthicalCaseDeliberationAndDeci.pdf
Download
M. Heerings et al., 2021, Tinkering as Collective Practice: A SV&LD
Qualitative Study on Handling Ethical Tensions in Supporting
People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities. Ethics and
Social Welfare (15 pp. )
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17496535.2021.1954
223 (Links to an external site.)
W. Seekles et al., 2016, Evaluation of moral case deliberation at SV&LD
the Dutch Health Care Inspectorate: a pilot study. BMC Medical
Ethics 17;31, p. 1-11 Seekles 2016 Evaluation of MCD at the
DHCI.pdf
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
2
, Gracia2003_Article_EthicalCaseDeliberationAndDeci.pdf SV&LD
Mol et al 2010 Care in Practice. On tinkering in clinics, homes, and week 3
farms, chapter 1 p. 7-14, chapter care and its values p. 215-230,
the e-book is available at the University Library to see:
https://eur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/1010505675
5.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
5.2TG Tutorial group notes SV&LD
Stone, D., 2012 Policy Paradox: the art of political decision making, SV&LD
Norton & Company, New York, London, Introduction p.1-13
StoneH1.pdf Download StoneH1.pdf
6.1C Lecture notes SV&LD
1.3TG Moral questions related to corona
Recognize the moral dimension of a problem.
Vaccinations for children: plans and twist points
1. What is the moral question?
Should children from age 5-12 be obligated to get vaccinated?
2. Which moral arguments are made?
+ Most of the infections of the coronavirus are spread among children;
+ According to the present studies, no dangerous side effects are found;
+ Vaccinating children can lower the number of cases among adults;
+ The potential side effects outweigh the risk of getting the coronavirus for children
with underlying disease;
+ Getting vaccinated allows children to engage and participate in out-of-school
activities without being at risk to get infected (indirect effects);
- A small number of children end up in the hospital due to the coronavirus;
- The effect of vaccination is not researched enough among children;
- Vaccinating children can not be used as a solution for the problem that too few
adults are getting vaccinated.
3. Who are the relevant stakeholders?
- Children
- Their parents
- Doctors specialized in child-care
- European Union
- Society
- Politicians
- Vaccination manufacturers
4. How would you weigh and balance the different moral arguments?
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
3
, It could be argued that children should have the free choice to get vaccinated to reduce the
spread of infections. Because there haven’t been any dangerous side-effects reported, the
potential side-effects outweigh the freedom children get when lockdown-measurers aren’t
taken. This is not only important for the children, but also for society as a whole.
On the other hand, it could be argued that there are only a few children who get seriously ill
from the coronavirus, but not in a life-threatening way. Therefore, it could be unnecessary to
take the risk of vaccinating children, not knowing about all the side effects. The argument
that children shouldn’t be a solution for a problem among adults is in line with this statement.
Code black: who gets to be treated in the ICU?
1. What is the moral question?
Who gets to be treated in the ICU when all hospital beds are full (‘code black’)?
2. Which moral arguments are made?
● The person with the shortest length of stay to be expected can be treated first so
more lives can be saved.
● If the expected length of stay is the same, younger people will be treated first.
● If the expected length of stay and age is around the same, fate decides.
● Other options:
○ If the expected health gains are greater in terms of years or quality of life,
this patient should be treated first.
○ The patient could be asked about their opinion: do they want to be treated if
they know who not gets to be treated.
■ But when is someone healthy enough to express a proper opinion?
○ The socio-economic status or job could be taken into account: but who gets
to decide? → practical argument.
○ People who are responsible for their own illness, should not be treated first.
But how and by who is this judged?
■ If this is being applied during the covid-pandemic, will the same
measures be applied to people who for example smoke or use drugs
and end up sick because of it after this pandemic?
○ No variables like age, health, or length of stay should be included, it should
be decided through random selection.
3. Who are the relevant stakeholders?
- Hospitals
- Society
- Doctors
- Landelijk Coördinatiecentrum Patiënten Spreiding
- Team ethische kwesties covid-19
4. How would you weigh and balance the different moral arguments?
Louise Beuze - Gezondheidswetenschappen Bachelor 3 EUR 2021-2022
4
