Bioethics: bone donation and 3D parts
Open your materials, follow the steps, then turn in your work.
Debate whether 3D-printed and donor bone implants should be prioritized by ability to pay, then post a CER.
1. Open your materials
Use the materials named in the first step below. Open lesson resources.
2. Start the work
Read the prompt: when bone-graft material is scarce, who should receive it first?
Show all 5 required steps
- Read the prompt: when bone-graft material is scarce, who should receive it first?
- List two fair allocation rules and one risk of each.
- Choose a side and write a one-sentence claim with your reasoning.
- Debate in your class bioethics group and record the strongest counterpoint.
- Post a CER response defending your allocation principle.
Lost your place? Lost your place? If you have not written a claim yet, do step 2 now: list two allocation rules and one risk of each. If you have a claim, jump to step 4 and record your group's strongest counterpoint, then post your CER.
Check your work before submitting
- You can propose and defend an allocation rule for scarce grafts.
- You can respond to a fairness counter-argument.
3. Turn in your work
DueCheck Schoology- Hand in
- One-paragraph CER defending a specific allocation principle for scarce bone-graft material.
How to submit and name your file
Post your one-paragraph CER to the class board, then submit the CER and a screenshot of that post together in one final PDF to your section's Schoology assignment.
In Schoology, open your course and the assignment for this lesson. Attach your file, select Submit, and check that it appears in the submission.
PDF upload helpYou get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
Choose your Schoology section. Open only one assignment.
Check the section number beside Human Anatomy and Physiology in Schoology.
Assignment: Wk4 CER: Bioethics: bone donation and 3D parts
Link will not open? Open Schoology, choose your section, and find the assignment title above.
How this lesson connects
Keep using what you learned last class: Locate first. Explain only what the evidence supports. Today: Because grafts are scarce, society must pick an allocation principle, and each principle helps one group of patients only by moving another group further back in line.
Unit 1 guide: what to keep and use nextOptional: listen or watch a unit review▸
Need help? Warm-up, timing, and directions▸
💡 Big idea: Because grafts are scarce, society must pick an allocation principle, and each principle helps one group of patients only by moving another group further back in line.
- 0-5Intro: graft types and scarcity framing
- 5-20Independent reading and two fair-rule list with risks
- 20-40Class bioethics debate
- 40-55Draft claim and strongest evidence
- 55-75Write and post CER
- 75-80Class share: which allocation principle came up most?
- • This week we go deep into the skeletal system: bone cells, fractures, and how bone heals.
- • Before we do that, here is the ethical puzzle this technology creates. Bone grafts are not unlimited. When supply runs short, who decides who gets one?
- • Today you build a principled argument for one allocation rule. Your CER must name a specific rule and defend it against the best objection.
- • This is also vocabulary building day. Listen for the terms autograft, allograft, and alloplast. They will appear on the WebXam.
- • Bone grafts can come from the patient (autograft), a donor (allograft), or synthetic/3D-printed materials (alloplast).
- • Allocation ethics asks whether decisions should be based on medical urgency, likelihood of benefit, or waiting-list order.
- • Pathologies like osteoporosis, osteosarcoma, and avascular necrosis may require bone grafts, making graft access a real clinical issue.
PLTW connection and today's work
Open Project 1.1.6 Break a Leg (Lesson 1.1 Beginning With Bones) in myPLTW and complete the introductory imaging task; use one fact about fracture repair options in your bone-allocation CER.
Today's stopping point: You finished the anatomy-organization week; this begins the bone-biology content inside Lesson 1.1, and the task should be checked off today.
PLTW activity titles identify the course connection. If your account will not open, use the posted materials for today and tell Mr. Mendoza. Do not mark an online activity complete unless you completed it.
Course connection
- Project 1.1.6 Break a Leg
Use the turn-in directions at the top of this page. Do not create a second submission unless your teacher asks for one.
Show another explanation or a smaller first step
Need help? Choose a starting point
Lesson resources: reading, slides, and vocabulary▸
The deck carries the prior idea forward, lets you inspect an analogy, maps the rule to biology, and ends with the same evidence decision and exit ticket used on this page.
Generated from this lesson's canonical data with a red-team citation check.
Locate first. Explain only what the evidence supports.
Because grafts are scarce, society must pick an allocation principle, and each principle helps one group of patients only by moving another group further back in line.
A review board sorts scientific evidence, stakeholder needs, possible benefits, possible burdens, and uncertainty before choosing a policy.
- Which statements are scientific evidence?
- Which statements express a value or priority?
- Who receives the benefit and who carries the burden?
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
- • Evidence cards map to source-backed findings.
- • Stakeholder cards map to affected people and priorities.
- • The recommendation maps to an explicit tradeoff with a named uncertainty.
Driving question: One donor bone graft, three patients who need it (a teen with osteosarcoma, a grandmother with an osteoporotic hip , a construction worker with avascular necrosis). Should the 3D-printed and donor implants go to whoever can pay, or should something else decide?
What you already know: Locate first. Explain only what the evidence supports.
New idea: Because grafts are scarce, society must pick an allocation principle, and each principle helps one group of patients only by moving another group further back in line.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Bioethics: bone donation and 3D parts. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled structure, movement, or system relationship that connects form to function.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in today's lesson.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: One donor bone graft, three patients who need it (a teen with osteosarcoma, a grandmother with an osteoporotic hip , a construction worker with avascular necrosis). Should the 3D-printed and donor implants go to whoever can pay, or should something else decide?
What the evidence supports: E1-E3 and F1 support the daily take-home when the response meets the stated success criteria.
What it cannot prove: The package does not support claims beyond this lesson's or any real patient diagnosis.
- • : A bone-building cell that produces and lays down new bone matrix, helping bones grow, heal, and stay strong.
- • : A large bone cell that breaks down and removes old bone , helping the body remodel bone and release stored calcium.
- • : The dense, hard outer layer of bone, built from tightly packed cylindrical units, that gives the skeleton most of its strength and protection.
- • : The lightweight inner bone made of a lattice of bony struts called trabeculae, often filled with marrow and found at the ends of long bones.
- • : A break or crack in a bone, ranging from a thin hairline crack to a complete break into separate pieces.
- • : The place where two or more bones meet, often allowing movement, with and ligaments holding the bones together.
- • : A tough band of that connects bone to bone, holding joints together and keeping them stable.
Use it now: Choose one decision option. Cite E1 and E3, then explain how the rule connects the evidence to your choice.
Go further, optional: The source links below are optional enrichment. Every fact required for today's local evidence decision appears in this lesson package.
A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
Limit: Scientific evidence can inform the options and likely consequences, but it cannot choose a single value-neutral answer.
Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
Limit: A review-board model organizes reasoning but does not make one ethical principle automatically outweigh every other principle.
You can propose and defend an allocation rule for scarce grafts.
Limit: E3 defines the classroom product or success criterion. It is not independent scientific evidence and cannot justify a clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-HAP-2027-02-11 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: anatomy and physiology consultant
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
- • Request each patient's urgency and expected benefit, because the three diagnoses alone cannot rank them.
- • Pick one allocation principle, defend it, and state which patients it moves further back in line.
- • Give the graft to whoever joined the list first, because treating everyone identically is the fair rule.
Response: State one choice, cite at least two evidence IDs, explain the rule that connects them, and add one limitation. Submit it as the claim-evidence-reasoning response.
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.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from today's lesson supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on today's page.
Context: Scarcity forces a choice of allocation principle, and every principle helps some patients by putting others further back in line, so the ethics live in the tradeoff, not in one 'fair' answer.
- • T1: Read the prompt: when bone-graft material is scarce, who should receive it first?
- • T2: List two fair allocation rules and one risk of each.
- • T3: Choose a side and write a one-sentence claim with your reasoning.
- • T4: Debate in your class bioethics group and record the strongest counterpoint.
- • T5: Post a CER response defending your allocation principle.
- • E1: A defensible biomedical decision separates scientific evidence from value judgments, identifies who may benefit or be burdened, and states the uncertainty and tradeoffs that remain.
- • E2: Use science to estimate consequences, then state the value judgment and tradeoff that determine the decision.
- • E3: You can propose and defend an allocation rule for scarce grafts.
Measurements: Use only the measurements, units, graph, or counts supplied in today's task. No additional patient measurement is implied.
Figure finding: Teaching diagram for Bioethics: bone donation and 3D parts. Trace the labeled structure, movement, or system relationship that connects form to function. This is a teaching model, not patient or experimental data.
Uncertainty: This is a composite classroom scenario. Missing history, measurements, or confirmation tests remain unknown and limit the conclusion.
Mean = sum of values / number of values. Median = middle ordered value. Range = maximum - minimum.
For 2, 4, 4, and 10: mean = 20 / 4 = 5, median = 4, and range = 10 - 2 = 8.
Mean, median, and range keep the measurement unit. Order the values before finding the median.
Calculate the requested summary for today's supplied values, then write what it reveals and what it hides.
Students often think Students assume 'fair' means treating everyone identically, so a first-come-first-served waiting list must be the fair rule.. The trap: A pure waiting list ignores medical urgency and likelihood of benefit, so it can hand the graft to a stable patient while someone who would benefit far more waits, because identical treatment of unequal cases is not the same as a just outcome. That is the trap: 'equal' and 'fair' are not synonyms.
Parallel case (not today's prompt): One donor kidney becomes available, and several patients on dialysis are waiting for it. Should the kidney go to whoever can pay the most, or should something else decide?\n\nClaim: When a donor kidney is scarce, it should be allocated by a combination of medical need and likelihood of a successful transplant, not by ability to pay.\nEvidence: Kidneys for transplant can come from a living donor or a deceased donor, and many people with end-stage kidney disease depend on dialysis while they wait. Waiting lists are long because demand for donor kidneys is much greater than supply. Matching factors such as blood type, tissue compatibility, and how long a patient has waited affect whether a transplant is likely to work.\nReasoning: Allocating by medical need and likelihood of success sends the scarce kidney to a patient who both needs it and is likely to keep it working, which produces the most benefit from one organ. Allocating by ability to pay would let wealth decide who gets off dialysis, which is unfair because it ignores medical need and treats healing as something only the rich can buy.\nCounter-argument I heard and my response: A classmate said the youngest patient should always go first, since they have the most years of life ahead. That is a fair concern, but age alone can overlook a young patient who is a poor tissue match and an older patient who is a strong match. A better rule weighs need and likelihood of success together, and can consider age as one factor among several rather than as the only rule.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A short claim-evidence-reasoning post that proposes and defends a principle for allocating a scarce medical resource, shown on a parallel case (donor kidney allocation) so it models the format and depth without answering the bone-graft prompt.
- 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: Post to the class board and screenshot for your evidence packet.
- CER:
- Claim, Evidence, Reasoning: make a claim, back it with evidence, explain your reasoning.
- SOP:
- Standard Operating Procedure, the exact steps to follow (especially in a lab).
- Tracker:
- Your PLTW progress log where you record completed evidence.
- myPLTW:
- The PLTW course site where you do the online activities. Find it in Clever with your Microsoft sign-in, right next to Schoology.
Tap the speaker to hear a term. Add two of these to your notebook glossary with a definition and an example in your own words.
Pick just 2 or 3 words from today and make them yours: write what each one means in your own words, name the context clue or evidence that helped, then give one example from what you actually did in Bioethics: bone donation and 3D parts. Try your own words first; the glossary is there if you get stuck. This is voluntary and counts as extra credit, so keep it short.
Saved on this device. Show Mr. Mendoza or add these to your notebook glossary to claim the extra credit.
Hand-picked readings, videos, and interactives for this lesson, all free and from authoritative open organizations (NIH, CDC, OpenStax, Khan Academy, PhET, HHMI, and more).
A fillable, Cornell-style notebook for Unit 1: Road to Rehabilitation. Type your notes, cues, and summaries right in the PDF, or print it and write by hand. Each lesson page has a cue column, a notes column, and a summary box, plus dated lab-record pages you can turn in.
HBS Unit 1 notebook: Road to Rehabilitation Fillable PDFCornell notes + lab recordsOpenVetted readings and references for this unit. Use them to prepare, to catch up if you were absent, or to go deeper on today's target.
Practice: try a question, then check your answer▸
Claim ceiling for this check: 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.
A committee decides bone grafts strictly by 'likelihood of medical benefit.' Name one patient group this rule could systematically push to the back of the line, and why.
Write an answer and pick a confidence to unlock the key.
Fast retrieval with instant answers, not the commit-then-reveal check above. Try each from memory first: write what you remember about the earlier units, then check yourself here.
Missed class or ready for more?▸
You do not need to turn in the pre-lab simulation (Fracture Analysis, for next class).
What today's skills lead to. These are real health-science careers this course builds toward. Tap one to see, on the US Department of Labor's O*NET site, what the job actually involves, what it pays, and how fast it is growing.
Read the linked overview on bone health, then post a written CER on how scarce bone-graft material should be allocated, citing one fact from the resource.
MedlinePlus: Bone diseasesPost your one-paragraph CER to the class board, then submit the CER and a screenshot of that post together in one final PDF to your section's Schoology assignment.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
MedlinePlus: Bone Diseases and Fractures- CompleteEvery required part of the artifact is present, nothing left blank.
- AccurateThe science and the data are correct and match the evidence.
- Scientific reasoningYou explain your claim with evidence and reasoning (CER), not just an answer.
- Professional communicationClear, organized, labeled, and written the way a clinician or scientist would.
- SubmittedGo 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. If you cannot get in, see Mr. Mendoza. Do not skip the work.
This week
My Progress dashboard