Case Analysis III

Instructions

Format

Hardcopy of the following Case Analysis, assigned Thursday 4/11, is due in class Thursday 4/18 as described below. As before, I do not mind students working on the case analyses in groups--it is, in fact, encouraged--but your case analysis must be your own. Be sure that your case analysis is as complete, well-expressed, clear, and precise as you can make it. This means in particular that you anticipate and meet any objections in the analysis. This case analysis is worth 150 points, as per the syllabus. If you have any question, puzzle, or require clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me (berkich@gmail.com; 3976, 944-2756). Finally, the following maximums and minimums must be scrupulously observed:

• No less than 10pt font.
• No less than 1.5 line spacing.
• No less than 1 inch margins on all sides.
• No more than two pages, one-side per page.
• Multiple pages must be stapled.
• The case analysis number and your name must appear at the top of the first page (there is no need for a title page, however.)

Note that these are maximums and minimums only. You may, for instance, write less than two pages or use greater than a 10pt font. That said, failure to observe these requirements will result in a score of 0 for the assignment.

Writing Advice

In light of the above admittedly serious constraints on the space available for your case analysis, it is extremely important that you excise any and all extraneous or redundant material. For example, the phrases "It can be argued that", "I claim that", "I think that", or their kin preceding a sentence add absolutely nothing to the sentence, take up valuable space, and are in fact wholly redundant. Of course it can be argued that, claimed that, or thought that, or you would never have written it!

Every word must count for answering the question. Philosophical writing is thus austere, but terribly precise. Such is its virtue. That said, writing philosophy can be jarring at first, especially for those who have labored and suffered under the delusional five-paragraph essay regime.

For additional advice on writing philosophy, I encourage you to study some of the advice linked from the Writing Philosophy page. Not all of the advice applies directly to these case analyses, to be sure. Nevertheless, there is much sound and helpful advice to be had about writing in general and writing philosophy in particular.

Above all, bear in mind that in a good case analysis,

• Arguments are clearly stated in such a way that the conclusion and assumptions would be obvious to any student not taking this course.
• Assumptions are clearly justified whenever they are controversial.
• Theoretical assumptions (your theory of choice, typically) are stated explicitly and the resulting argument does not deviate from these assumptions.
• Steps taken in the course of an argument are clear in such a way that any student not taking this course would be able to follow them.
• Wherever applicable, the arguments found in the various texts we have read should be utilized but should be restated in such a way that anyone not taking the course could understand the argument.

A few further comments may help.

First, the requirement that you clearly state the arguments does not imply that you should put them into the formally-valid-numbered-lines form that we adopt in class. Of course, that is absolutely the clearest way to state an argument. Yet it is also rather difficult to do for people who have not had a course in logic. So for these cases we strongly recommend that you write your arguments in paragraph form in such a way that the steps taken in the argument from the assumptions to the conclusion are clear.

Second, if you take as your theoretical assumption Hedonic Act Utilitarianism, say, it is mandatory that you not suddenly start arguing about the unhappy consequences of an action as if you had assumed Eudaimonic Act Utilitarianism. In other words, stick to the theory or theories you've assumed (or been assigned, as the case may be.)

Third, you should strive to write as clearly as possible. Try to avoid confusing your reader with complicated sentences and disconnected thoughts. Remember, you are gaining skills you will someday have to use. One of those skills is the ability to express your ideas in such a way that anyone can understand them. This does not mean that you will be graded on grammar per se. You should nevertheless strive as far as possible to express yourself clearly and effectively. If, in grading these cases, we are unable to understand what it is you are trying to say, you will not be given the benefit of the doubt. We will not read between the lines or otherwise assume you meant something more astute than what you actually wrote.

Fourth, it is important that your understanding of the issues as they are spelled out in the articles be reflected in your own arguments. Some very smart people have thought long and hard about these problems, and you should learn to rely--critically, of course--on what they have to say.

Putting all of the above together, it is simply not possible to do a good job on a case analysis in less than the space permitted. It could well be argued that even the space permitted hardly suffices, and such an argument would have considerable merit. Suffice it to say that a single paragraph on half a page in a 14pt font (as we've seen) hardly counts as meeting the above admittedly high expectations--this said in full recognition that those who could most benefit from appreciating and respecting the point are also unlikely to bother with reading the point in the first place. We can but try.

Death Algorithm*

In May, 2018, Google's Medical Brain team published a paper in Nature announcing a new health care initiative, an Artificial Intelligence algorithm designed to predict patient outcomes, duration of hospitalization, even the likelihood of death during hospitalization. A great deal of attention is being paid to mortality statistics, or the death algorithm, which has been used in two instances. In the first case, at Hospital A, the algorithm was 95 percent accurate in predicting death; in the second case, at Hospital B, it was 93 percent accurate. In both of these cases, the AI algorithm preformed significantly better than the more traditional models or techniques of predicting patient outcomes.

Google researchers believe the algorithm will reduce health care cost, increase patient-physician face time, and reduce the burden of current data systems which rely heavily on cumbersome and labor-intensive data mining techniques. The AI algorithm is based on very large amounts of anonymous patient data (one previous algorithm used forty-six billion pieces of data), for which use patients and hospitals had consented and approved. Proper safeguards on data security, privacy, and various other HIPPA concerns are a major issue, especially in light of data privacy concerns with companies in the past such as Facebook.

This technology may also be exciting for health insurance companies. Insurance companies love data because it allows them to better estimate the cost of covering an individual. The AI algorithm is the first of its kind due the large amount of data it uses, and promises to become one of the most effective tools for predicting health care cost and outcomes.

There are, however, many unknowns. How will this new AI affect health insurance and patient treatment? Will health insurance companies have access to the data? How will accessibility and affordability of health insurance change if there is reason to believe an individual has increased risk factors for disease progression, hospitalization, or death? Will physicians still use due diligence for medical diagnoses or will they simply rely on the AI outcomes? What will happen when the algorithm and a physician disagree?

*From the 2019 National Ethics Bowl

Cases prepared by:

Robert Boyd Skipper: Chair, Case Preparation Committee
Robert A. Currie
Ellen Hunt (cases from AARP)
Cynthia Jones
Heather Pease
Jane McNichol

Consider the proposition,

Hospitals should use the 'Death Algorithm' to provide profiles of likely outcomes for patients to their physicians so as to better manage medical expectations, outcomes, and scarce medical resources.

Using specific examples and with the aid of the Principle of Moral Analogy, explain i) how an Ideal Rule Utilitarian might argue in favor of the proposition, ii) how a Kantian might argue against it, and iii) the conditions a Contractarian might argue must morally be met before the proposition could be endorsed under that framework.