Do you agree with Feinberg's assertion that you have to draw the line somewhere?
4. Do you agree with Feinberg's decision rule? His expectation is that there be a signature physical injury is consistent with tort law. Does that affect your answer?
5. Feinberg does not have jurisdiction over claims by states and municipalities. Do you believe his assessment of the place of mental health damages should apply to their claims as well?
6. If you were responsible for determining the validity of claims, what would you do? How would you explain your reasoning? What ethical concepts or principles would guide your thinking??