JCU bioethics 5: Is super hearing good for humanity?
Thu, Oct 22, 2026 · Week 9 · Genetics of Disease (Medical Interventions)
Today's goal: Argue an assigned side of this question: Is super hearing, as offered by the Clarity Implant, a net positive for humanity?
This is a model of the work you should turn in today. Use it to check your own: match the structure and the level of detail, do not copy it. Your data and wording should be your own.
Parallel case, not today's prompt: A company offers permanent night-vision contact lenses to healthy adults, improving low-light vision but carrying an uncertain long-term risk of retinal damage.
Claim: The lenses should be limited to monitored research until long-term retinal safety and unequal-access effects are known.
Evidence: Early trials show better low-light performance, but follow-up lasts only six months and includes few participants. The lens changes how much light reaches retinal cells, so a rare injury might not appear in a small, short study.
Reasoning: An enhancement offers optional benefit rather than treatment of disease, so accepting an irreversible or poorly measured risk requires stronger safety evidence. Monitoring also shows whether access creates unfair advantages in work or public safety roles.
Strongest opposing point and response: Supporters may argue that informed adults should choose any enhancement. Consent matters, but a person cannot evaluate a long-term risk that has not been measured, so completing the safety evidence is a condition for meaningful choice.
My position after the debate: I support the claim only with the limits named above. A strong ethics argument states the value being protected, uses evidence rather than preference, answers the best counterargument, and names the condition that could change the decision.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A complete debate worksheet that names the assigned side, gives three evidence-based arguments, answers the strongest opposing point, and ends with the student's own position.
- Write one defensible claim.
- Choose specific evidence that supports the claim.
- Explain the scientific rule that connects the evidence to the claim.
Keep the structure. Replace the question, facts, measurements, and evidence. Then recheck units, vocabulary, and whether the conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
Also due today: Submit one debate worksheet PDF in Schoology before the end of the block.
Turn in: Worked debate worksheet on a parallel case: night-vision contact lenses for healthy adults
Go to Schoology to turn this in.
Submit one PDF. Put your first and last name in the document header. Name the file: FirstName LastName - Assignment Title - YYYY-MM-DD.pdf.
Open Schoology PDF upload helpIf you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
Claim ceiling: Today's evidence supports a classroom claim about today's lesson. It cannot prove causation, diagnose a real patient, or justify action outside this room.
One exam-style question that uses exactly what you practiced today. Try it before you reveal the answer, then read why each choice is right or wrong.
Tap an answer to see the full explanation. Nothing is recorded or graded.
It builds this reusable test skill: Selecting evidence that directly tests an ethical claim.
- Name the concept or data pattern being tested.
- Cross out choices that violate that rule or the evidence.
- Justify the best remaining choice before checking the answer.