{"id":27761,"date":"2023-08-10T04:31:52","date_gmt":"2023-08-10T04:31:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/unethical-medical-studies-and-vulnerable-populations-trauma-mistrust-and-the-path-to-ethical-patient-care\/"},"modified":"2023-08-10T04:31:52","modified_gmt":"2023-08-10T04:31:52","slug":"unethical-medical-studies-and-vulnerable-populations-trauma-mistrust-and-the-path-to-ethical-patient-care","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/unethical-medical-studies-and-vulnerable-populations-trauma-mistrust-and-the-path-to-ethical-patient-care\/","title":{"rendered":"Unethical Medical Studies and Vulnerable Populations: Trauma, Mistrust, and the Path to Ethical Patient Care"},"content":{"rendered":"

– 6 pages (but my draft is only 5 so can you edit what i have and expand to make it 6 pages) <\/p>\n

– i really want the essay to argue that these marginalized groups have the right to be skeptics and that their feelings are natural <\/div>\n
– please use the sources i hve provided below in th references and please use the these 2 sources:<\/div>\n
          – Leason, J., \u201cForced and coerced sterilization of Indigenous women: Strengths to build upon.\u201d <\/span>Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien<\/span> vol. 67,7 (2021): 525-527. doi:10.46747\/cfp.6707525<\/span><\/div>\n
          – <\/span>Scharff, Darcell P. et al. More than Tuskegee: Understanding Mistrust about Research Participation. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 21, no. 3, 2010, pp. 879-97. DOI: 10.1353\/hpu.0.0323. (especially this one asi have not used it yet) <\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n
the assesment: <\/span><\/div>\n
1.<\/span> <\/span>Did you<\/span> <\/span>properly<\/span> <\/span>identify and<\/span> <\/span>reconstruct<\/span> <\/span>the relevant positions?<\/span>
2.<\/span> <\/span>Do you provide<\/span> <\/span>reasoned<\/span> <\/span>arguments<\/span> <\/span>and evidence<\/span> <\/span>for your position?<\/span>
3.<\/span> <\/span>Do you construct a plausible<\/span> <\/span>counter<\/span>–<\/span>argument<\/span> <\/span>to your position, and defend you<\/span>r<\/span> <\/font><\/span>position against likely critiques? (Please see the \u201cGuide for Writing a Philosophy Paper\u201d<\/span> <\/font><\/span>
4.<\/span> <\/span>D<\/span>id<\/span> <\/span>you<\/span> <\/span>use<\/span> <\/span>relevant course m<\/span>aterial<\/span>? Did you<\/span> <\/span>choose<\/span> <\/span>relevant<\/span> <\/span>and useful<\/span> <\/span>external<\/span> <\/font><\/span>sources<\/span> <\/span>and<\/span> <\/span>utilize<\/span> <\/span>them<\/span> <\/span>well?<\/span>
5.<\/span> <\/span>Is the<\/span> <\/span>essay<\/span> <\/span>structurally and stylistically sound<\/span>, including referencing style<\/span>? (Only<\/span> <\/font><\/span>papers<\/span> <\/span>with perfect or nearly perfect grammar<\/span>, clear prose,<\/span> <\/span>and paragraph structure will<\/span> <\/font><\/span>be considered for A or A+ grades.<\/span>
<\/span><\/div>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n
Guide for writing a philosophy paper<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
\n
Argument<\/span>
Arguments are<\/span> <\/span>distinct from assertions. An assertion, such as \u201cPlato was wise,\u201d stands or falls on<\/span> <\/font><\/span>its own. It may be true or false, but it is NOT an argument. Arguments require premises that<\/span> <\/span>rationally support an assertion as a conclusion. Think of your premises as re<\/span>asons why a reader<\/span>
would have to agree with your conclusion. This implies that arguments have a<\/span> <\/span>certain structure:<\/span> <\/span>more precisely<\/span>, they are collections of premises that reasonably support conclusions (and maybe<\/span> <\/span>some sub<\/span>–<\/span>conclusions along the way). An argument is N<\/span>OT a collection of facts, each standing<\/span> <\/span>on its own. (This is often acceptable in social science papers, but NOT in philosophy.)<\/span>

<\/span><\/div>\n
Thesis<\/span>
Any good paper will have a clearly demarcated centre of argument. It will be a specific point for<\/span> <\/span>which you will argue.<\/span> <\/span>As such, your thesis gives structure to the rest of your paper. It succinctly<\/span> <\/span>tells the reader what to expect, and sets up the rest of the paper as an argument<\/span> <\/span>\u2013<\/span> <\/span>an argument <\/span>whose end goal is to give support to your main point, stated explicitly in the the<\/span>sis. It is perfectly<\/span> <\/span>acceptable<\/span>\u2014<\/span>in<\/span> <\/span>fact,<\/span> <\/span>clear and concise<\/span>!<\/span>\u2014<\/span>to flag<\/span> <\/span>the<\/span> <\/span>thesis with<\/span> <\/span>turns of phrase like the<\/span> <\/span>following<\/span>:<\/span>
I will argue that….<\/span>
It is my thesis that…<\/span>
It is my contention that… etc.<\/span>
1.<\/span> <\/span>Your thesis should be at the beginning of the paper, in t<\/span>he introduction.<\/span>
2.<\/span> <\/span>Do not make your thesis overly complex. Especially in short papers, it is best to have a<\/span> <\/span>focussed<\/span> <\/span>thesis.<\/span> <\/span>The best papers usually stick to arguing for one point. Do not spread<\/span> <\/span>yourself too thin!<\/span> <\/span>(Avoid \u201cthree prong\u201d theses<\/span> <\/span>like you were taught in<\/span> <\/span>secondary<\/span> <\/span>school<\/span>.)<\/span>
3.<\/span> <\/span>Make sure your<\/span> <\/span>thesis is at least somewhat contentious, i.e. something that others<\/span> <\/span>c<\/span>ould<\/span> <\/span>reasonably disagree with. \u201cI will argue that the French Revolution began in 1789,\u201d or \u201cIt<\/span> <\/span>is my thesis that there is a difference between rationalism and empiricism,\u201d are boring<\/span>
the<\/span>ses. They cannot possibly lead to interesting papers.<\/span>
4.<\/span> <\/span>Following from the previous point, a<\/span>void what is called the \u201cSo what?\u201d problem. You do<\/span>
NOT want to hand in a<\/span> <\/span>nicely<\/span> <\/span>written<\/span> <\/span>paper that supports a<\/span> <\/span>view that no body finds<\/span> <\/span>interesting<\/span>.<\/span> <\/span>Find b<\/span>alance between a point you can argue for and<\/span> <\/span>one<\/span> <\/span>that will turn heads.<\/span>
Bad thesis<\/span>: \u201cIn this paper I will show that same sex marriage is a contentious issue.\u201d<\/span>
Better thesis<\/span>: \u201cThe controversy surrounding gay marriage is telling of a deep<\/span>–<\/span>seat<\/span>ed heterosexism<\/span> <\/span>in North<\/span>–<\/span>American society.\u201d<\/span>
Even better thesis<\/span>: \u201cSince it has been shown that serious same<\/span>–<\/span>sex relationships last longer than<\/span> <\/span>serious<\/span> <\/span>straight relationships, and since marriage is considered an immensely important<\/span> <\/span>institution in North America, I will argue that these premises lead one to conclude that<\/span> <\/span>allowing same<\/span>–<\/span>sex marriage is necessary for the salvation of the institution of marria<\/span>ge.\u201d<\/span> <\/span>(Now that\u2019s a thesis that will turn some heads!)<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
Introductions<\/span> <\/span>Avoid meandering at the beginning of papers, which is a very common mistake. Your<\/span> <\/span>secondary<\/span> <\/span>school teachers might have told you to start with the general, and move to the specific in your<\/span> <\/span>intr<\/span>o, but this is a<\/span> <\/span>bad<\/span> <\/span>idea. Here are examples of bad and better starts to the paper:<\/span>
Bad start<\/span>: \u201cSince the beginning of time, mankind has…\u201d<\/span>
Still b<\/span>ad start<\/span>: \u201cKant was born in…\u201d<\/span>
Better start<\/span>: \u201cIn the<\/span> <\/span>\u201cTranscendental Doctrine of Elements<\/span>\u201d<\/span> <\/span>in<\/span> <\/span>his<\/span> <\/span>Critique of<\/span> <\/span>Pure Reason<\/span>, Kant<\/span>
argues that…\u201d<\/span> <\/span>The idea is that you should jump right in. Avoid excessive stage<\/span>–<\/span>setting. Make your aims and<\/span> <\/span>claims clear, and justify them without too much hot air.<\/span> <\/span>Your introduction should do 3 things:<\/span>
1.<\/span> <\/span>Clearly state the issue\/controvers<\/span>y\/problem your essay will address.<\/span>
2.<\/span> <\/span>Mention the range of current views on the<\/span> <\/span>issue<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>but leave the bulk of the details as<\/span> <\/span>regards these<\/span> <\/span>views for the bo<\/span>dy of the paper<\/span>.<\/span>
3.<\/span> <\/span>State your thesis<\/span>,<\/span> <\/span>i.e. your position within a debate, or your take on the problem and<\/span> <\/span>how<\/span> <\/span>it should be solved, etc.; again, leave most of the details for the paper!<\/span>
Body and Structure<\/span> <\/span>The paper should have an organic structure. The sooner you drop the classical \u201c5 paragraph<\/span> <\/span>paper\u201d from<\/span> <\/span>secondary<\/span> <\/span>school, the better. Arguments are not served by being forced into a<\/span> <\/span>mechanical<\/span> <\/span>writing<\/span> <\/span>procedure<\/span> <\/span>or artificial structure.<\/span> <\/span>Most<\/span> <\/span>papers progress like this<\/span>:<\/span>
1.<\/span> <\/span>Intro<\/span>: g<\/span>ood papers usually start off with<\/span> <\/span>introductions<\/span> <\/span>that motivate the discussion to<\/span> <\/font><\/span>come. If there is a major point you are addressing in the paper, it should be in the<\/span>
introduction. The reader<\/span> <\/span>should know what is coming<\/span> <\/span>in the paper after reading your<\/span> <\/span>intro<\/span>!<\/span> <\/span>For other specifics, see above.<\/span>
2.<\/span> <\/span>Definitions<\/span>:<\/span> <\/span>After your introduction, you<\/span> <\/span>can<\/span> <\/span>take a paragraph or two to define ke<\/span>y<\/span> <\/span>technical terms if your essay<\/span> <\/span>contains a number of such terms. If it does<\/span> <\/span>not, then<\/span> <\/span>do not<\/span> <\/span>include a definitions section<\/span>. Also, try NOT to use overly technical language. Sometimes<\/span> <\/span>it is necessary, but plai<\/span>n English is always preferred.<\/span>
3.<\/span> <\/span>Exegesis\/Exposition<\/span>:<\/span> <\/span>This is where you offer your charitable reconstructions (or<\/span> <\/span>interpretati<\/span>ons) of the other positions<\/span> <\/span>you\u2019re addressing<\/span>, e.g. from course<\/span> <\/span>au<\/span>th<\/span>o<\/span>rs or your<\/span> <\/span>own independent research.<\/span> <\/span>Stick to only those parts of each author\u2019s position that you<\/span> <\/span>will be addressing in the critical part of your paper.<\/span>
4.<\/span> <\/span>Critical Argument:<\/span> <\/span>finally, the bulk of your paper should be devoted to a critical<\/span> <\/span>discussion of the various points in the debate, giving the reader reasons why he or she<\/span> <\/span>should agree with your thesis, and not the positions of those<\/span> <\/span>with<\/span> <\/span>whom you disagree. If<\/span> <\/span>you have done a<\/span> <\/span>good job characterising their arguments, then you can now point to any<\/span> <\/span>inadequacies<\/span> <\/span>with<\/span> <\/span>those arguments. Are any of the essential premises false? Is the<\/span> <\/span>argument poorly structured,<\/span> <\/span>so<\/span> <\/span>that even true premises do not support the conclusion? Is<\/span> <\/span>the argume<\/span>nt relevant to the debate? Etc<\/span>
5.<\/span> <\/span>Counter Argument:<\/span> <\/span>Because philosophy papers never let the facts speak for themselves,<\/span>there may be more than one<\/span> <\/span>plausible<\/span> <\/span>argument that<\/span> <\/span>is consistent<\/span> <\/span>with the facts. The best<\/span> <\/span>philosophy paper<\/span>s<\/span> <\/span>will address<\/span> <\/span>not only the poss<\/span>ible flaws in other positions,<\/span> <\/span>but possible<\/span> <\/span>flaws in your own argument!<\/span> <\/span>If you can address these possible probles, and show your<\/span> <\/span>reader how your argument can<\/span> <\/span>ultimately<\/span> <\/span>handle them, this<\/span> <\/span>greatly<\/span> <\/span>strengthens the paper.<\/span>
6.<\/span> <\/span>Conclusions:<\/span> <\/span>over<\/span>–<\/span>rated, and best avoided in most paper<\/span>s<\/span>. If you have nothing else of<\/span> <\/span>substance to say after you discharge counter<\/span>–<\/span>arguments, then<\/span> <\/span>just end it there.<\/span><\/p>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n



<\/span><\/div>\n



<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

– 6 pages (but my draft is only 5 so can you edit what i have and expand to make it 6 pages)  – i really want the essay to argue that these marginalized groups have the right to be skeptics and that their feelings are natural  – please use the sources i hve provided […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[702],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/27761"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27761"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/27761\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27761"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=27761"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=27761"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=27761"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}