Discussion Guidelines - General Education Purpose Thr 137782

Discussion Guidelines - General Education Purpose Threaded discussions are designed to promote dialogue between faculty and students, and students and their peers

Discussion guidelines for general education courses emphasize active participation through threaded discussions aimed at fostering dialogue between faculty and students, as well as among students. Students are expected to demonstrate an understanding of weekly concepts, integrate scholarly resources, engage meaningfully with classmates, and express opinions clearly and professionally. Participation requires posting at least two substantive contributions per graded discussion, including an initial post and a follow-up, spaced on different days from Monday through Sunday. Specific deadlines vary, with Week 1-7 discussions due by Sunday 11:59 p.m. Mountain Time, and Week 8 discussions by Saturday 11:59 p.m. MT. Credited sources must be cited, including specific articles, texts, or lessons, excluding Wikipedia, wikis, commercial websites, or blogs. Assigned readings are specified on the syllabus, and scholarly sources should be peer-reviewed or professionally reviewed publications.

Students are encouraged to read LaFollette’s "Writing a Philosophy Paper" from Ethics in Practice for guidance. The course includes a writing assignment where students defend their own perspective on an applied ethics topic. This involves briefly explaining the topic, stating a clear thesis, and supporting their position with two or three reasons. The paper should be 1-2 pages long, include an introduction, body paragraphs for reasons, and a conclusion. It is not a research paper, but outside sources may be used and must be cited properly. Proper formatting and mechanics are essential, with emphasis on clarity and originality. The assignment is graded based on content, structure, language, and critical thinking.

Paper For Above instruction

In exploring the realm of applied ethics, I have chosen to focus on the moral implications of artificial intelligence (AI) in decision-making processes, particularly in healthcare. This topic is increasingly relevant as AI technologies become more integrated into medical diagnostics, treatment planning, and patient care. My stance is that, while AI offers significant benefits, its deployment must be carefully regulated to ensure ethical responsibility, protect patient rights, and maintain human oversight. The core of my position is that AI should serve as an aid to human professionals rather than replacing them entirely, thereby safeguarding ethical standards and accountability.

The primary reason supporting my view is the importance of maintaining human oversight in ethical decision-making within healthcare. AI systems, despite their computational power, lack moral consciousness and contextual understanding that human clinicians possess. For example, complex cases often involve emotional, cultural, and moral considerations that AI cannot adequately interpret or respond to. Relying solely on AI could result in morally questionable decisions or neglect of individual patient needs. Human oversight ensures that ethical principles such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice are upheld. A study by Topol (2019) emphasizes that AI tools should complement rather than replace clinicians to preserve ethical responsibility.

A second supporting reason concerns accountability and transparency. When AI systems are involved in healthcare decisions, it is crucial to understand how decisions are made. Currently, many AI algorithms operate as "black boxes," making it difficult to trace the reasoning behind their outputs. This opacity complicates accountability if errors or adverse outcomes occur. To prevent blame-shifting or untraceable malpractice, human oversight ensures clear lines of responsibility. The European Commission’s guidelines on trustworthy AI stress the need for transparency and human oversight to maintain ethical standards (European Commission, 2021).

Finally, safeguarding patient autonomy and rights should be a priority. Patients have the right to informed consent, which requires understanding how decisions affecting their health are made. Fully autonomous AI systems may diminish this understanding if patients are unaware of how algorithms influence their care. Involving human professionals in the decision-making process helps clarify information, facilitates dialogue, and respects patient autonomy. According to Floridi et al. (2018), ethical AI deployment must prioritize human agency and informed participation.

In conclusion, while AI has the potential to revolutionize healthcare by increasing efficiency and accuracy, its use must be carefully regulated to preserve ethical standards. Human oversight ensures moral responsibility, accountability, transparency, and respect for patient autonomy. Therefore, AI should support healthcare professionals rather than replace them entirely, securing an ethical framework within the rapidly evolving landscape of medical technology. This balanced approach aligns with the broader goals of medical ethics to protect patient welfare and uphold societal values in technological advancement.

References

  • European Commission. (2021). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
  • Floridi, L., Cowls, J., King, T., & Chia, L. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689-707.
  • Topol, E. (2019). Deep medicine: How artificial intelligence can make healthcare human again. Basic Books.

Related Assignments