Human Body Systems · 2027-01-28 · 80 minutes

Wk2 CER: Bioethics: who owns a body?

Your goal: Defend a bounded position on studying donated bodies using supplied facts, a reason, and a fair counterargument.

One product: One CER paragraph with a counterargument and response.

If the assignment will not open, keep your paper or saved paragraph and tell Mr. Mendoza what is blocked. No separate board post or screenshot is required by this original discussion.

Start the work

An honest starting record helps you choose a useful next step.

Read the definitions and three supplied evidence cards.
Read the fictional program proposal and the separate worked example.
Plan a claim, evidence, reasoning, and counterargument.
Write one paragraph and check that it answers the actual proposal.
Submit one response in the named HBS Schoology assignment.

Show the 80-minute plan

0 to 8 minutes. Read the target and choose written or discussion participation.
8 to 23 minutes. Identify one program fact and one limit.
23 to 35 minutes. Mark the claim, evidence, reasoning, objection, and response.
35 to 48 minutes. Complete the first two planning fields.
48 to 60 minutes. Write a fair objection and response.
60 to 73 minutes. Combine the argument into one paragraph.
73 to 80 minutes. Check evidence, revise, and submit or retain a copy if blocked.

Open your materials

Use the reading, word guide, and worked example below. Keep your answers on paper or in one document.

Printable lesson and response record (PDF). This packet contains the same required reading and work.

Question: Under what conditions would you support a teaching program using donated bodies?

Words you will use

anatomy: The study of body structures.
specimen: A material examined in study; here, donated human remains.
body donation: Providing a body after death for a program’s stated uses.
authorization: Permission through the process that applies to the program.
informed consent: Agreement based on understanding the proposed use and its conditions.
dignity: Respect owed to a person, including how their remains are treated.
ethical claim: A position about what should be done and why.
evidence: A supplied fact used to support or challenge a claim.
reasoning: An explanation of how the evidence supports the claim.
counterargument: A serious reason someone could give against your claim.
CER: Claim, evidence, and reasoning, three parts of an argument.
benefit: A useful result or advantage that a choice may provide.

Read facts and values separately

A fact describes what a source says or what a scenario supplies. An ethical judgment explains what should be done. Two readers can agree on a fact and give different weight to its consequences.

For this task, weigh learning benefit, meaningful permission, and respect for the donor and family. These are the discussion criteria. They are not a legal checklist.

The next cards summarize one real program’s public FAQ. They do not describe every body-donation program or prove that donated bodies teach better than models.

Evidence card E1: educational purpose

UCSF describes body donation as supporting medical education and scientific research. This states the program’s purpose. It supplies no comparison of learning outcomes from bodies and models.

Evidence card E2: permission process

UCSF permits adults to register before death. If someone dies without registration, its FAQ allows the stated representative or legal next of kin to sign the forms. It also describes a donor’s written request to withdraw a gift. These are UCSF program details.

Evidence card E3: what families can expect

UCSF says it cremates remains and scatters them at sea after study. It does not return remains or provide families with reports of medical findings or study details. These conditions are relevant to a decision about participation.

Scenario S1: a fictional program proposal

A fictional anatomy program proposes using donated bodies alongside models. Its proposal includes supervised, respectful handling and a clear explanation of planned use and what happens afterward. It would check authorization through its own approved process before accepting a body.

No results comparing the two teaching methods are supplied. No actual donor or family appears in this scenario. Decide whether you support this proposal, oppose it, or would wait for specific information.

You may use E1 to E3 to explain which questions matter. Do not assume that the fictional program has UCSF’s exact rules. Separate the scenario’s promises from facts about UCSF.

A counterargument you can use independently

Possible objection: Models avoid using human remains, so the program should show why adding donated bodies is worth its costs and concerns.

Possible reply to a blanket rejection: The proposal includes permission checks and respectful handling; rejecting every use may overlook a properly authorized educational purpose.

Choose the objection that most seriously challenges your own position. You may write quietly using these statements. No partner, public speech, personal donation choice, or family story is required.

Worked example: a different teaching decision

This invented example concerns paper anatomy models, not body donation. A school has a reusable paper torso model. A worksheet asks learners to show where its parts fit. The model has no texture or movement.

Claim: Use the paper model for the placement task. Evidence: The worksheet asks where parts fit, and the model shows those positions. Reasoning: The model represents the information needed for this task.

Counterargument: It cannot show tissue texture. Response: That limit matters for a texture task, but this worksheet asks only about placement.

Notice the method: match evidence to the actual claim and answer a real limitation. Use this method for your own decision; do not copy its conclusion.

Try the decision

S1 proposes donated bodies alongside models, with permission checks and respectful handling. No comparison of learning outcomes is supplied. Which statement offers a bounded position?

Support the proposal conditionally, while checking its permission and handling commitments in practice.
Endorse any use of a donated body because a donation removes all further concerns.
Oppose every use because models have been proved to teach equally well.

Explain your choice using the reading. Discuss it or say it to yourself. This practice does not add another submission.

Your response record

Use these labels on paper or in your document. The space below also works when this page is printed.

Claim for the proposal

State whether you support S1, oppose it, or need more information. Name the condition or concern that matters most.

Make a claim about the fictional program, not about your own body or every program.

Evidence and its limit

Select one fact from E1, E2, or E3 and one detail from S1. Record their labels. Explain what each contributes and what neither proves.

The cards are about UCSF; S1 is a fictional proposal. Neither provides a measured comparison of learning outcomes.

Counterargument and response

Write the strongest objection to your claim and a response that addresses it.

Use one of the supplied objections if working alone. Acknowledge a valid limit instead of dismissing the other position.

Your CER paragraph

Combine your claim, labelled evidence, reasoning, counterargument, and response into one paragraph.

Explain why the condition you chose matters. If you would wait, name the missing information and how it could change your decision.

Check your product

Answer the fictional proposal with a clear position.
Use a labelled source fact and a scenario detail accurately.
Explain why that evidence matters to the claim.
Address a serious counterargument and keep the conclusion within the evidence.

This is an original course discussion. It cannot determine universal law, prove one teaching method is better, authorize body use, or complete an official PLTW activity.

Turn in your work

Wk2 CER: Bioethics: who owns a body?

Submit your one CER paragraph in Wk2 CER: Bioethics: who owns a body? in your HBS Schoology section. Include the counterargument and response in that paragraph.

If the assignment will not open, keep your paper or saved paragraph and tell Mr. Mendoza what is blocked. No separate board post or screenshot is required by this original discussion.

Connection to PLTW

Original course ethics discussion; no official PLTW activity completion.

These references locate related course material. Complete only the official work and stopping point your teacher assigns. This local preparation does not establish completion of an online activity.

Activity 1.1.1 Meet the Patients

Optional practice and examples

Use these resources to practice related skills. Follow the required work and evidence limits above. A simulation does not authorize a live experiment or add another submission.

The Glove That Failed

Slides and optional notes

Use the first three fields to plan. Submit only your final CER paragraph, including the counterargument and response. Guided notes are optional and do not add a second submission.

Download PPTX Optional guided notes (PDF)

Sources and optional reading

Frequently Asked Questions: Willed Body Program · UCSF Medical Education

Keep going

If you were absent or lost your place, read the word guide and reading first. Try the example, then complete the first unfinished response.

No partner is required. Read your response aloud to yourself and check it against the product checklist.

Take home: State the benefit, check the conditions, and answer the strongest objection.

Keep claims tied to evidence when you explain how a body system works. Which observation would support your explanation of how the system works?