Questions 1-3. From Chapter Intro

1. In the chapter introduction, we're told of Maria's case (involving Wilson's disease). There is a suggestion that she and/or her physician has a duty to warn her siblings. In what way(s) is this case similar and/or different from the Tarasoff case?

2. Why is somatic-cell therapy (with proper oversight) considered morally permissible, while germ-line therapy is not?

3. What is the distinction between negative eugenics and positive eugenics?

Questions 4-6. From Davis article and my lecture

4. Davis argues that the 'principles conflict' in 'non-directive' genetic counseling cannot be resolved.

(a) Which principles are typically in conflict and why does she think they cannot be ranked, especially in the case involving the Deaf parents who desire a Deaf child?

(b) What path of argument does she take instead?

5. Davis concedes a problem with her assertion that the state should intervene to protect a child's right to an open future. In the Amish case, the problem is that 'an education which gave a child this array of choices would quite possibly make it impossible for her to choose to remain Old Order Amish" (p. 580). How would this same problem apply in the Deaf child case?

6. In my lecture on this topic, I discuss Davis's compromise to the Liberal Democracy Paradox (23:00) and suggest that the compromise doesn't solve the paradox and that Davis ends up ranking principles, which she claims at the outset cannot be done. Respond to my criticism of Davis's compromise by

(a) giving your own argument for whether, or to what extent, the government should intervene to prohibit Amish parents from ending their children's schooling at the 8^th grade.

(b) Do you think Wisconsin v. Yoder is an apt analogy to use for the Deaf child case, or do you think there are dissimilarities between cases that weaken Davis's argument?