Human Body Systems · 2027-02-25 · 80 minutes
Wk6 CER: Bioethics: wearable data privacy
Your goal: Debate whether employers should access workers' wearable motion and fatigue data, then post a CER.
One product: One-paragraph CER taking a position on whether employers should access wearable physiological data from workers.
If the board or assignment is unavailable, save the paragraph and tell the teacher. Use the solo counterpoint to develop your argument. When access works, post your work, capture your own screenshot and check that Schoology shows Submitted.
Start the work
Prior muscle work does not establish what an unspecified wearable measures. All inputs for the original policy argument are supplied here.
- Define wearable and autonomy; read E1–E3 and S1.
- List two proposed safety benefits and two possible privacy harms.
- Choose a position using the mandatory E1 fact and scenario evidence.
- Answer the strongest actual counterpoint or labeled C1 alternative.
- Post the CER to the teacher's board and save a screenshot of your own post. If access fails, save the CER and tell the teacher.
Show the 80-minute plan
- 0 to 5 minutes. Complete the two-word warmup.
- 5 to 20 minutes. Make the two-benefit/two-harm table.
- 20 to 40 minutes. Defend a side and answer the strongest counterpoint.
- 40 to 55 minutes. Draft a claim and reasoning with device limits.
- 55 to 75 minutes. Write/revise the paragraph; post and capture screenshot if access exists.
- 75 to 80 minutes. Check the packet and your own post.
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: Should an employer access named wearable records when proposed safety value and privacy risks remain uncertain?
Words you will use
- wearable
- A device worn on the body that can contain sensors.
- autonomy
- A person’s ability to make choices about their body and information.
- sensor
- A device that detects a physical signal.
- physiological
- Related to how the body functions.
- fatigue
- Reduced ability to sustain a task; a device alert alone does not establish it.
- EMG
- Electromyography, an examination of muscle electrical activity.
- personal health record
- Health information a person gathers and keeps for their own use.
- HIPAA
- A US law with rules governing specified health information and entities.
- covered entity
- An organization or provider meeting HIPAA’s defined coverage rules.
- business associate
- An entity carrying out specified work involving protected health information for a covered entity.
- privacy harm
- Loss of control, inappropriate use or exposure of personal information.
- validation
- Testing whether a method performs as claimed for its intended use.
- retention
- How long information is kept.
- counterpoint
- A strong reason that challenges or limits a position.
- CER
- Claim, evidence and reasoning.
E1: personal health records
MedlinePlus explains that medical records can be paper or electronic and that people may keep a personal health record to bring information together. Such a record can include test results and health history. This shows why health-related information can be sensitive. It does not show that an employer needs the information or that a wearable estimate is accurate. Use an E1 fact in your CER.
E2: HIPAA depends on the holder and record
HHS distinguishes employment records from medical or health-plan records. The Privacy Rule generally does not govern employers’ actions or protect their employment records, even if health-related. It does govern specified disclosures by covered health providers or plans. Covered entities and their business associates have defined HIPAA obligations. “Collected outside a clinic” alone does not settle coverage. This summary does not establish that any actual employer disclosure is legal.
E3: a signal is not a fatigue verdict
MedlinePlus describes EMG as examining muscle electrical signals. That clinical overview does not verify a workplace wearable, its accuracy, or a fatigue threshold. No device model, validation study or sensor output is supplied here. The proposed fatigue alert in S1 has not been shown to measure fatigue. Ask for the device-specific evidence and the official sensor-task fact; do not equate an alert with fatigue, unsafe work or proven injury prevention.
S1: fictional workplace proposal
A fictional warehouse proposes wrist-worn devices during shifts. A vendor claims that motion information can produce a fatigue alert; no test results are provided. The company asks to view each worker’s named alert history. Its proposed benefits are prompting a check-in about rest needs and finding tasks that deserve a safety review. These are goals, not measured improvements. Possible privacy harms are using alerts to judge job performance and copying records beyond the intended safety staff. The company proposes access limited to its safety team, no disciplinary use, and deletion after review. Those safeguards have not been evaluated. Should the employer receive these records, under what conditions, or should access be refused? This is an invented policy case, with no actual worker information.
C1: opposing points for independent work
If you support access, consider whether workers can freely decline when their employer controls assignments. If you oppose access, consider whether a narrowly limited review could reveal a task worth making safer. If you would wait, identify exactly what evidence would allow a decision. Use the strongest actual group counterpoint if available; otherwise label one of these as a solo counterpoint. Do not invent a classmate’s words.
Optional extension: a policy and its loophole
Draft company-policy language specifying purpose, allowed viewers, prohibited uses, retention and a way to challenge misuse. Explain the intended safety value, then identify one loophole a manager could abuse. For example, a rule against discipline may still leave informal assignment decisions unclear. Your rule is a proposal for S1, not legal advice or proof that privacy harm disappears.
Recovery and next actions
If absent, use S1 to make a two-benefit/two-harm table. Name both sides, choose a position, and use E1 plus a C1 counterpoint to finish the same CER. All required original reading is supplied.
Post the paragraph to the teacher-confirmed board and keep a screenshot of your own post in the evidence packet. If access fails, save your work and tell the teacher. Capture your own post after the board opens. Ask for the separate official Activity 1.2.4 introductory sensor task and its required device fact.
Before this class, also spend 25 minutes on Submit muscle evidence in Class Records. Check the teacher-confirmed instructions and your actual evidence. This CER does not complete that separate submission. Ask your teacher for missing materials or the correct assignment before using them.
Worked argument: access to a tool log
Parallel example: a fictional workshop records when shared tools leave a storage cabinet. The stated goal is locating missing tools; the proposal would also let supervisors publish rankings of who borrows most. No body information or health inference is involved.
Claim: permit a tool-location log but exclude public borrower rankings. Evidence: the supplied proposal has a location goal and a separate ranking use. Reasoning: access should serve the stated purpose, while ranking could judge workers without knowing why they needed tools. Counterpoint: broad access may help find tools faster. Response: test whether limited access serves that goal before extending it.
Transfer the claim, evidence, reasoning and response pattern. Tool records differ from physiological information; this example cannot prove that wearable monitoring is safe or useful.
Try the decision
Which statement fits E1–E3 and S1 without inventing device results?
- Evaluate the proposed access rule, distinguishing possible benefits from verified device performance and naming conditions.
- Share all alerts because the vendor claim proves fatigue and injury prevention.
- HIPAA always blocks any employer from seeing any health-related information.
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.
Wearable and autonomy
Define wearable and autonomy aloud or in writing using the supplied terms.
Discuss the fictional case; do not disclose your own wearable or health information.
Two benefits and two privacy harms
Use S1 to record two proposed safety benefits and two possible privacy harms in a table. Label the benefits as proposed.
Use check-ins and task review as the two goals. A claimed alert is not a verified fatigue measurement.
Position and evidence
Choose refusal, limited access or waiting for specified evidence before granting access. Cite at least one E1 MedlinePlus fact and one S1 detail; explain how each informs your position.
Separate the policy value from evidence of effectiveness. Use E2 to avoid a universal HIPAA assertion and E3 to qualify device claims.
Strongest other-side point
State the strongest actual group counterpoint, or a labeled C1 solo point, and answer it fairly.
Do not replace the opposing argument with a weak objection. Qualify your claim if needed.
One-paragraph CER
Write one paragraph balancing worker safety and privacy, with your claim, E1 fact, scenario evidence, reasoning, strongest counterpoint and reply.
Post to the confirmed board and screenshot your actual post for the evidence packet. If access is blocked, save the paragraph and tell the teacher what you cannot open.
Check your product
- I define wearable and autonomy.
- I identify two proposed benefits and two possible privacy harms.
- My CER uses an E1 fact and a scenario detail with reasoning.
- I answer the strongest opposing point and qualify unsupported device or legal claims.
- Check that your post appears and save a screenshot of that post.
This original policy discussion uses source guidance and an invented proposal. It cannot establish a device’s accuracy, injury prevention, legal permission or an actual worker’s condition.
Turn in your work
Wk6 CER: Bioethics: wearable data privacy
Post the paragraph to the class board identified by Mr. Mendoza and retain a screenshot of your own post for the evidence packet. Use the named assignment in your HBS section as directed; do not create another submission.
- Section 1292: Wk6 CER: Bioethics: wearable data privacy
- Section 6792: Wk6 CER: Bioethics: wearable data privacy
If the board or assignment is unavailable, save the paragraph and tell the teacher. Use the solo counterpoint to develop your argument. When access works, post your work, capture your own screenshot and check that Schoology shows Submitted.
Connection to PLTW
Original wearable-privacy CER; ask for official Activity 1.2.4 and device-specific evidence before using them.
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 1.2.4 Mind Over Muscle
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.
Slides and optional notes
Provide two warmup lines, four table entries, evidence/reasoning, counterpoint/reply and the paragraph. Keep the same CER; access issues are recorded honestly. Guided notes are optional and do not add a second submission.
Sources and optional reading
- Personal Health Records · MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine; inspected September 11, 2026
- Employers and Health Information in the Workplace · HHS Office for Civil Rights; inspected September 11, 2026
- Covered Entities and Business Associates · HHS Office for Civil Rights; inspected September 11, 2026
- Electromyography (EMG) and Nerve Conduction Studies · MedlinePlus, National Library of Medicine; inspected September 11, 2026
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: A proposed safety benefit needs evidence, and access should be justified by its purpose and limits.
The next motion-data work needs a verified sensor description and teacher protocol; today’s policy argument does not supply either. What does the verified sensor measure, and what would you need to infer movement?