Although over a dozen states have legalized marijuana for medical ...

[ghost!]

Although over a dozen states have legalized marijuana for medical purposes, especially to
  alleviate the severe pain and discomfort of serious illness and chemotherapy, most states have
  not. The U.S. courts have rejected efforts by patients to claim a right to use medical marijuana
  in those other states. The federal government continues to list marijuana as a prohibited
  substance.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Whether or not embryonic stem cell research should be permitted at all has been discussed in
  the text. Even if it is accepted as ethical and government funding for the research continues,
  additional issues remain.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

[nguyenhoanhat]

Answer to Question 1

1. Should seriously ill patients have a right to use medical marijuana, regardless of where
they live? What are the ethical arguments in favor of and against this right?
2. This issue is moving very quickly in the U.S. Additional states continue to legalize
medical marijuana, most recently Massachusetts. The states of Washington and
Colorado voted to legalize recreational marijuana use through ballot measures in
November 2012. Some cities had already voted to decriminalize marijuana use, making
the offense on a par with a traffic violation. Research the state of the law in your own
state at this time. If efforts are underway to legalize medical or recreational use of
marijuana, examine the arguments in favor of and against the proposals to identify the
ethical concerns on both sides of this issue. How do ethical arguments differ when
considering medical uses versus recreational uses?

Answer to Question 2

1. One of the current restrictions on stem cell research is that donor couples cannot be
paid for donating unneeded fertilized eggs. Only stem cells resulting from IVF
procedures with excess fertilized eggs may be used. Researchers complain that they are
unable to obtain sufficient quantities of these eggs to complete their research. Could you
frame an ethical justification for allowing compensation to the donors that would alleviate
this shortage? If permitted, what restrictions would you place on payment, if any? What
arguments support the view that compensation should remain prohibited?
2. Women may be compensated for providing unfertilized eggs for IVF treatments, but not
for use in stem cell research. The state of New York in 2009 changed its laws to permit
compensation for these research purposes. Women are paid up to 10,000 for this
process, which can be risky and painful. Previously, researchers could only use eggs
discarded as of poor quality during the IVF process. Note that these are unfertilized
eggs. Bioethicist Arthur Caplan has raised concerns that poor women will feel coerced to
undertake this risky procedure just to earn money. Identify ethical arguments in favor of
this payment, as well as ethical arguments opposed to it.
3. Imagine that a member of Congress who has consistently voted against permitting such
research has a young child suffering from a disease which can now be effectively treated
because of the research on these stem cells. Would it be ethical for this member of
Congress to utilize this treatment for his child, despite his efforts to prohibit such
research in the first place? Would it be more consistently ethical to refuse treatment for
his child in this situation, even at the cost of the child's health and perhaps life?

[ghost!]

Excellent

[at]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it