PBS/PBT · Sep 23 · Investigation Day 11 of 18 · Case A STATIC · Period 1-2
Who Speaks for the Dead
One product: Ethics review-board worksheet, Parts A–E plus the ethics position slip block, in one worksheet.
Start: In one sentence, what is the difference between having the authority to do something and being obliged to do it? Keep your answer; the scenario record uses it.
Claim ceiling: This is a reasoning exercise on a fictional scenario. Real cases involve real law, real faith, and real families; our ruling binds nobody.
Daily directions
Work the ethics that govern the medical examination of a death: who decides, what dignity requires, and why the autopsy exists at all.
Hook: Before the medical thread opens a single instrument it has to answer a human question: by what right? Today you sit on the review board that answers it, for a family that says no and an examiner who says the manner of death is in doubt.
Driving question: When the family says no and the examiner says the manner is in doubt, what should the review board order, and what would make you change your mind?
- Open your own-case worksheet, add your period and investigator code, label it a supplied fictional scenario record, read the briefing and answer A1 and A2 from the text.
- Study the track-meet worked model (a practice case, not ours), then read the scenario record and fill B1's interests table: three sides, an interest, a fair argument and an accommodation for each.
- Argue in pairs: take a role, argue it with reasons you can point to, swap sides at the signal, then answer B2.
- Rule and write: B3 (ruling, deciding principle, strongest argument against your ruling) and C1 (the five-to-seven-sentence decision memo).
- Finish D1 and E1 to E3, copy your ruling with principle, the opposing argument and the accommodation ordered into the position slip block, and submit the one worksheet on paper or as one PDF.
Record route: Supplied fictional scenario record plus the own-case authorization memo, available to all students including absent students. You are reasoning about a supplied fictional scenario record and your own case's one-line authorization memo. A record may give less than you would like; preserve that limit instead of filling the gap.
Check and hand in
Your worksheet needs A1 and A2 with their citations, B1's three-row interests table, B2's three accommodations and a reasoned choice, B3's ruling, principle and steelman, C1's memo with all five parts, D1 and E1 to E3, and the position slip block filled to match B3 and C1. No invented finding, no examination described as if it happened, no name for any real person, no fact beyond the scenario record.
Hand the paper worksheet to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF in your section's assignment by the due time posted on it. Use your period and investigator code. Do not submit the same worksheet twice. Keep the Day 11 Cornell page and the autopsy vocabulary entry in your notebook.
The 80-minute plan
- 0–8 min (from 0:00), Teacher launch: Identify the one worksheet, your case and the paper-record boundary. Do the do-now. Hear the own-case authorization memo: examination ordered, next of kin consented, no findings released. Tasks do-now.
- 8–22 min (from 0:08), Read the briefing and answer from the text: Read R2 to R4, record autopsy, jurisdiction and accommodation, then answer A1, copying the first three words of the sentence you used, and A2. Tasks A1, A2.
- 22–34 min (from 0:22), One guided example, then the scenario record: Walk the track-meet worked model through its seven steps. Read the scenario record and start B1: name the three sides and write each interest in one sentence, no arguments yet. Tasks B1.
- 34–50 min (from 0:34), Argue both sides in pairs: Take your role and argue it with reasons you can point to. Swap sides at minute 42. Finish B1's fair-argument and accommodation columns as you listen, then answer B2. Tasks B1, B2.
- 50–70 min (from 0:50), Rule and write, individual work with teacher support: Write B3: your ruling, the deciding principle and the strongest argument against your ruling. Then write C1, the five-to-seven-sentence decision memo, respectful of every person in the scenario. Tasks B3, C1.
- 70–80 min (from 1:10), Vocabulary, self-check and submit: Complete D1 and E1 to E3 from memory, then check. Copy your ruling with principle, the opposing argument and the accommodation ordered into the position slip block. Hand in paper or one PDF. Tasks D1, E1, E2, E3, slip.
How the pair argument runs
Pair-groups of 4. Round 1 pairs family's advocate with the examiner, and the public-interest representative with the housemate's attorney. Swap at minute 42: each student argues the opposite role in the same pair.
one Team A to D member per pair-group keeps the steelman rule honest. The pair argument feeds B1 and B2; it creates no group turn-in.
Team jobs today
- Team A, Scene and Documentation: Chair one exchange pair-group; keep the steelman rule honest.
- Team B, Trace: Chair one exchange pair-group.
- Team C, Serology and DNA: Chair one exchange pair-group.
- Team D, Toxicology and Chemistry: Chair one exchange pair-group.
- Team E, Medical Examiner: Brief the class, in one minute, on what the next case lesson opens: the external exam and time of death, as supplied records.
- Team F, Records and Timeline: Log today as a timeline event: the autopsy authorization date in our case.
Optional guided notes
Guided notes can support your work but are not another submission. Guided notes and the separate worked model are support, not extra submissions.
Optional support: Optional Guided Notes; Day 11 Cornell page and the autopsy vocabulary entry, kept in the notebook; Existing voluntary vocabulary extra credit, kept separate from required D1.
The required briefing
D10 taught you that a DNA profile names a source and a panel names a body state. Neither one, alone, names what happened.
R1. Your one worksheet
Complete the ethics review-board worksheet, Parts A–E plus the position slip block at the end. Today you sit on a review board. There is no specimen, no instrument and no collection. You reason about a supplied fictional scenario record and you read our own case's one-line authorization memo. Nothing you write claims that you attended, ordered or performed an examination, and nothing today releases a finding, a cause or a manner of death.
Keep every answer tied to the record. A record may give less than you would like: no name for the family's tradition, no age for the housemate, no result from any examination. Preserve that limit instead of filling the gap. The scenario is the same for everyone, present or absent.
R2. By what right: jurisdiction
Before the medical thread opens its instruments, it has to answer a human question: by what right? A medical examiner is a physician with legal authority to investigate certain deaths: sudden, unexplained, violent, or in official custody. In those deaths the examination is not optional and family consent is not required by law, because society has decided the truth of a death is a public good. That decision has costs, and today you weigh them honestly.
Jurisdiction is the set of deaths the law gives a medical examiner the authority to investigate: sudden, unexplained, violent, or in custody. Analogy to hold onto: the referee's field of play. In this reading the list is a classroom rule for the scenario, not a statement of any one state's statute. Authority is not obligation: in the scenario record, the office that has authority still chooses what form the examination takes, from a full examination to release without one. A ruling has to say which option it picked and why.
R3. Dignity and accommodation
Dignity requirements are not decoration: examinations are documented, limited to what the question requires, and the person is treated as a patient to the end. Many traditions have burial timelines and bodily-integrity beliefs that an autopsy strains. Examiners accommodate what can be accommodated (speed, minimal technique, returning all tissues) and must sometimes proceed over objection. The honest frame is a conflict of real goods: family autonomy and religious liberty against public truth and, sometimes, justice for the dead themselves.
An accommodation is a change to how an examination is done so a family's needs are respected while the question still gets answered. Analogy to hold onto: an ADA ramp. The scenario record names four: speed (release within the burial timeline); minimal or targeted technique; return of all tissues; and an external-and-imaging-only examination, where imaging means scans such as X-ray or CT, which look inside without opening. The reading's answer to which of these still answers the question in doubt is a targeted technique aimed at the injury in question. That is the reading's answer for this scenario. It is not a promise that a targeted examination answers every question in every case.
R4. Why perform one at all
Why perform one at all? Because some questions only the body can answer: which injury came first, what disease was hiding, whether a death that looks like one manner is actually another. Getting cause and manner right protects the living: it catches dangerous products, missed diseases, and disguised violence.
An autopsy is the systematic medical examination of a body to determine cause and manner of death. Analogy to hold onto: the final physical exam. The ten-year idea: an autopsy is the last physical exam, performed for the living as much as the dead; it answers the questions the body can still answer. Today no examination happens and none is described. You reason about whether one should, on a supplied fictional record.
R5. How to take a position: interests, a fair argument, a deciding principle
Today is a position-taking day: you will argue a side, steelman the other, and notice that the discipline is the same as the lab's: reasons you can point to, limits you must state. To steelman is to state the other side's argument the way its best defender would say it.
An interest is what a person or group needs or is trying to protect in the scenario: the family's faith and timeline, the public's need for the truth, the examiner's duty. A deciding principle is the one rule you apply when interests conflict, stated so that someone who disagrees can still see how you got there. Fill the interests table before you rule. A position without the other side's best argument is incomplete.
A complete decision memo names the ruling, the deciding principle, the accommodation ordered, the strongest opposing argument and why it did not win, and one sentence on what would change your mind. Keep it respectful of every person in the scenario. The claim ceiling holds for every reader. This is a reasoning exercise on a fictional scenario. Real cases involve real law, real faith, and real families; our ruling binds nobody.
R6. Our case today: the authorization memo
The scenario you argue is a separate fictional packet. Our own case supplies one line today, and nothing you rule changes it. Follow only your own case's note.
Case A note
Our case's examination is ordered today, over no family objection: the next of kin consented. Next of kin means the closest living relative, who speaks for the family. Team F logs the autopsy authorization date as a timeline event. No new physical evidence, no findings, no cause and no manner of death are released today.
Plain-English terms
- Autopsy
- The systematic medical examination of a body to determine cause and manner of death. Analogy to hold onto: the final physical exam.
- Jurisdiction
- The set of deaths the law gives a medical examiner the authority to investigate: sudden, unexplained, violent, or in custody. Analogy to hold onto: the referee's field of play.
- Accommodation
- A change to how an examination is done so a family's needs are respected while the question still gets answered. Analogy to hold onto: an ADA ramp.
- Interest
- What a person or group needs or is trying to protect in the scenario: the family's faith and timeline, the public's need for the truth, the examiner's duty.
- Deciding principle
- The one rule you apply when interests conflict, stated so that someone who disagrees can still see how you got there.
- Next of kin
- The closest living relative, who speaks for the family.
- Integrity (of the body)
- The body kept whole.
- Advocate
- A person who speaks for them.
- Limited (examination)
- Targeted.
- Imaging
- Scans such as X-ray or CT, which look inside without opening.
- Expedite
- Speed up.
- Undetermined
- No manner assigned.
- Steelman
- To steelman is to state the other side's argument the way its best defender would say it.
The track meet: a practice case, not ours
This practice scenario is printed on the separate track-meet worked model, not in your own case's worksheet. It is not Case A or Case B, and it is not the scenario you rule on in Part B. Use its structure, not its answers, in your worksheet.
The practice scenario
A 19-year-old collapses and dies during a track meet; the family wants the body released within two days for a funeral, and the examiner suspects an undiagnosed heart condition that the athlete's two younger siblings could share.
What to notice: the folder is closed and the chair is empty. The ruling has to be written so the person who is not in the room could read it and see how you got there.
Seven steps
- Name the sides before ruling: the family, the examiner, the public (here, the siblings and other young athletes). Three rows, no arguments yet.
- Write each side's interest in one sentence. Family: bury their child on time and whole. Examiner: learn what stopped a young heart, which only the body can answer. Public: if the cause runs in the family, two living siblings need to know.
- State each side's strongest argument the way its best defender would. Family: "Our grief and our faith are real, and the death was witnessed by hundreds; nobody suspects a crime." Examiner: "A witnessed collapse tells me it was sudden, not why; a hidden heart condition is exactly the kind of thing that kills the next sibling." Public: "Getting cause right protects the living."
- List the accommodations that fit: expedite so the two-day timeline holds; a targeted examination of the heart only; return of all tissues; imaging first, opening only if imaging cannot answer.
- Pick the deciding principle and say it so a person who disagrees can see how you got there: "When a finding could protect identifiable living people, the examination proceeds, in the smallest and fastest form that answers the question."
- Write the ruling in one sentence: a targeted heart examination, expedited to meet the funeral, all tissues returned. Then write the strongest argument against your own ruling, fairly: "A targeted exam is still an opening of the body the family holds sacred, and genetic testing on a blood sample from the siblings themselves could answer the family question without touching the deceased." Say what would change your mind: evidence that testing the siblings could answer the family's question as well as a targeted examination would.
- Check the ceiling: this is a fictional scenario; the ruling binds nobody, and the tone respects every person in it.
Finished product
Ruling: a targeted, expedited heart examination with all tissues returned, under the principle that a finding that can protect identifiable living people justifies the smallest examination that answers the question. Strongest opposing argument, stated fairly: sibling blood testing might answer the family question without opening the body at all.
What the model does and does not claim
The heart condition, whether it runs in a family, and whether a blood test on the siblings could answer the question are premises of a practice scenario. No condition, test or reliability figure is named, and none should be added. The model shows the shape of a complete ruling: sides named, interests written, arguments stated fairly, accommodations listed, one principle, one ruling, one honest steelman, one sentence on what would change your mind.
Now do the same steps on the scenario record in Part B. Present and absent students use the same record.
The death · the examiner's view · the family's objection · the law and the options
The family · the examiner · the public (or the law). No arguments yet.
What each side needs or is trying to protect.
The way its best defender would say it.
Speed · minimal or targeted technique · return of all tissues · external and imaging only
One sentence a person who disagrees can still follow. Choose among the record's options.
Fictional scenario · ruling binds nobody · respectful of every person in it
Read the scenario record and find its four parts: the death, the examiner's view, the family's objection, and the law and the options. Name the three sides before you argue anything: the family, the examiner, and the public or the law. Write each side's interest in one sentence. State each side's strongest argument the way its best defender would say it. List the accommodations the record names that fit the situation: speed, minimal or targeted technique, return of all tissues, an external-and-imaging-only examination. Pick one deciding principle and state it so a person who disagrees can still see how you got there, then rule by choosing among the record's options. Write the strongest argument against your own ruling, fairly, and one sentence on what would change your mind. Check the ceiling: the scenario is fictional, the ruling binds nobody, and the tone respects every person in it. Copy your ruling with principle, the opposing argument and the accommodation ordered into the slip block, and hand in the one worksheet.
Optional restart cue
Find the next unanswered task ID. Use R2 for jurisdiction, R3 for accommodations, R4 for why an autopsy exists, R5 for the ruling and the steelman, and the scenario record for every fact. Do not switch to the other case or create a second product.
The supplied fictional scenario record
Supplied fictional scenario record plus the own-case authorization memo, available to all students including absent students. Use the scenario packet in today's pack. Fill the interests table before you rule. A position without the other side's best argument is incomplete.
Your case: STATIC, case number JH-26-0831-A. Setting: Statik Sound, a neighborhood recording studio. The scenario itself is the same fictional packet (DOC-5) for every student, present or absent.
| Row | What the record says |
|---|---|
| Scenario, the death | A 44-year-old is found dead at the bottom of a staircase in a shared house. The fall could explain everything first responders saw. The house had a history of loud disputes, and one housemate gave three slightly different versions of the evening. |
| Scenario, the examiner's view | The medical examiner believes the manner of death is genuinely uncertain: an examination could tell a simple fall from an injury that happened before the fall. |
| Scenario, the family's objection | The family objects to any autopsy on sincere religious grounds. Their tradition requires burial within a strict timeline and holds the body's integrity (the body kept whole) sacred. They have retained an advocate (a person who speaks for them) and asked, respectfully and firmly, for release unexamined. |
| Scenario, the law and the options | State law gives the examiner authority to proceed when manner is in doubt. Authority is not obligation. The office may: perform a full examination; perform a limited (targeted) examination; use only external findings and imaging (scans such as X-ray or CT, which look inside without opening); expedite (speed up) to meet the burial timeline; or release without examination and close the case as undetermined (no manner assigned). |
| Roles argued in pairs | The family's advocate; the examiner; a public-interest representative (what the community loses if manners of death go unexamined); the housemate's attorney (what that client loses if the case stays undetermined forever). |
| Accommodations named in the reading (for Part B2) | Speed (release within the burial timeline); minimal or targeted technique; return of all tissues; external-and-imaging-only examination. The reading's answer to 'which still answers the question in doubt': a targeted technique aimed at the injury in question. |
| Jurisdiction rule from the reading (for Part E) | Sudden, unexplained, violent, or in-custody deaths fall under the examiner's legal authority; in those, family consent is not required by law because the truth of a death is treated as a public good. |
| Our case today | Team F logs today as a timeline event: the autopsy authorization date. No new physical evidence. |
The record names 5 options, 4 argued roles and 4 accommodations. Nothing beyond these rows is supplied; if the record is silent, write that it is not supplied.
Our own case today
The medical thread pauses for the question that governs it: who authorizes an autopsy here, and what does dignity require? Our case's examination is ordered today, over no family objection: the next of kin consented. No findings are released.
Team F logs today as a timeline event: the autopsy authorization date. No new physical evidence.
Notebook pages: Day 11 Cornell page; Vocabulary bank: autopsy entry. Keep the Day 11 Cornell page and the Vocabulary bank: autopsy entry in your notebook.
Ten tasks in the same worksheet
Answer from the reading above. Cite the sentence you used by copying its first three words in quotation marks. One line each. These come from today's pack; answer from memory first, then check.
Open the current task here or use its writing space in the worksheet. Extra help supports that same response.
PBS-U1-D11-A1
According to the reading, which deaths fall under a medical examiner's legal authority? Copy the first three words of the sentence you used, in quotation marks.
Use: R2
- Deaths listed
- Supporting sentence starts
Space: 3 writing lines
Sentence frame: The reading places these deaths under the examiner's authority: ____. Sentence used: "___ ___ ___".
Need a hint?
The reading lists four kinds of death. The answer is the list, not the word jurisdiction by itself.
PBS-U1-D11-A2
The reading says an autopsy is performed for the living as much as the dead. Name two ways the reading says getting cause and manner right protects living people.
Use: R4
- First way
- Second way
Space: 3 writing lines
Sentence frame: Getting cause and manner right protects living people by (1) ____ and (2) ____.
Need a hint?
Find the sentence that begins with the words getting cause and manner right.
PBS-U1-D11-B1
Fill the interests table for the scenario record: three sides (the family, the examiner, the public or the law), each with an interest in one sentence, their strongest argument stated fairly, and an accommodation that would help them. Fill the table before you rule.
Use: Scenario record; R3; R5; Worked model steps 1 to 4
- Row: The family: interest, fair argument, accommodation
- Row: The examiner: interest, fair argument, accommodation
- Row: The public (or the law): interest, fair argument, accommodation
Space: Three rows with three writing cells each, at least 2 lines per cell
Sentence frame: Table with columns: Side | Their interest, in one sentence | Their strongest argument, stated fairly | Accommodation that would help them.
Need a hint?
A fair argument is one its own side would recognize. Use the accommodations the scenario record names; do not invent a new medical option.
PBS-U1-D11-B2
List three accommodations an examiner can offer an objecting family, and say which of them still lets the question in doubt be answered.
Use: Scenario record, accommodations row; R3
- Accommodation 1
- Accommodation 2
- Accommodation 3
- Which still answers the question, and why
Space: 5 writing lines
Sentence frame: Three accommodations: ____, ____, ____. The one that still answers the question in doubt is ____ because ____.
Need a hint?
The reading's own answer is in the scenario record. Say it in your words and give the reason.
PBS-U1-D11-B3
Write your ruling in one sentence and the deciding principle in one sentence. Then write the strongest argument against your ruling, stated the way its best defender would say it.
Use: Completed B1 table; R5; Worked model steps 5 and 6
- Ruling
- Deciding principle
- Strongest opposing argument, stated fairly
Space: 6 writing lines
Sentence frame: Ruling: ____. Deciding principle: ____. Strongest argument against my ruling: ____.
Need a hint?
State the principle so a person who disagrees can still see how you got there. The opposing argument should sound like its best defender, not like a weak version you can knock down.
PBS-U1-D11-C1
Write the review board's decision memo: the ruling, the deciding principle, the accommodation ordered, the strongest opposing argument and why it did not win, and one sentence on what would change your mind. Five to seven sentences, respectful of every person in the scenario. This is a reasoning exercise on a fictional scenario; the ruling binds nobody.
Use: Completed B1 to B3; R5; Scenario record
- Five-to-seven-sentence memo
Space: 10 writing lines
Sentence frame: The board rules ____. The deciding principle is ____. The board orders the accommodation ____. The strongest argument against this ruling is ____; it did not win because ____. What would change my mind: ____.
Need a hint?
Count the five parts before you count the sentences. Do not add facts the scenario record does not give, and do not describe an examination as if it happened.
PBS-U1-D11-D1
Use autopsy, jurisdiction and accommodation correctly in one or two sentences about today's work. A definition alone does not count; use the words about something real.
Use: R2; R3; R4
- One or two applied sentences
Space: 3 writing lines
Need a hint?
Something real means the scenario, the worked model or our own case's memo. No invented finding.
PBS-U1-D11-E1
According to the reading, when can an examination legally proceed without family consent?
Use: R2; Scenario record, jurisdiction row
- One line
Space: 1 writing line
Need a hint?
Answer from memory first, then check R2.
PBS-U1-D11-E2
Name two accommodations an examiner can offer an objecting family.
Use: R3
- Two accommodations
Space: 1 writing line
Need a hint?
Any two from the reading's list.
PBS-U1-D11-E3
What makes a position slip complete?
Use: R5; Position slip block
- One line
Space: 1 writing line
Need a hint?
This is a rule check, not another ruling. Do not copy your B3 answer here.
Optional single check, not alternate work plans
The examiner has legal authority to proceed. What does that authority require?
- A full examination must follow.
- The office chooses among its options; authority is not obligation.
- The family's objection cancels the authority.
Check your choice
The scenario record says state law gives the examiner authority to proceed when manner is in doubt, and that authority is not obligation; the office chooses among five options and the ruling has to justify the choice.
- This turns a choice into a command and skips the accommodations the reading names.
- This keeps the record's level of detail: authority first, then a choice the ruling has to justify.
- The reading says family consent is not required by law in those deaths. An objection is weighed and accommodated where possible; it does not cancel the authority.
Short check
A death is sudden and unexplained, and the family refuses an autopsy. In this reading, does the examiner's authority depend on the family's consent, and what does the reading say that authority covers?
Check your answer
No. The reading places sudden, unexplained, violent and in-custody deaths under the examiner's legal authority, and in those deaths family consent is not required by law because the truth of a death is treated as a public good. What the office then does with that authority is a choice among options: authority is not obligation.
If you answered yes, you treated consent as the switch. Reread R2 for the four kinds of death, then the scenario record's law-and-options row.
Ethics position slip (closing block of this worksheet)
Copy into the position slip block: your ruling with its deciding principle, the strongest opposing argument stated fairly, and the accommodation you would order. Add your period and investigator code, your team and the time submitted. No names.
Header strip: INVESTIGATOR (PERIOD + CODE, NO NAMES) · TEAM · TIME SUBMITTED.
- Ruling with deciding principle
- Strongest opposing argument, stated fairly
- Accommodation ordered
- Investigator (period + code, no names)
- Team
- Time submitted
Space: Three labeled writing rows of 2 lines each plus a one-line header strip
This block is part of the same worksheet, not a second turn-in. If it disagrees with B3 or C1, fix the disagreement before you hand in.
Hand this sheet to Mr. Mendoza before you leave. The notebook pages named on today's pack stay in your Investigative Notebook.
Help when you need it
Guided notes and the separate worked model are support, not extra submissions. Guided notes can support your work but are not another submission.
Restart where you stopped
Lost your place? find the next unanswered task ID. Use R2 for jurisdiction, R3 for accommodations, R5 for the ruling and the steelman, and the scenario record for every fact. Stay in the same worksheet; do not switch to the other case or start a second product.
If you were absent or need help
Use the same scenario record printed in your worksheet; it is the data set for everyone. Write "canned data set" at the top of Part B so it is scored as make-up work. Since you cannot argue in a pair, write the family's advocate's best argument and the examiner's best argument yourself in B1, then complete the same product through the slip block. Do not invent facts, findings or a family's words the record does not give.
Lost your place? Find the next unanswered task ID and use F1's restart cue. Guided notes and the separate worked model are support, not extra submissions.
There was no lab work today. The class sat as a review board on a separate, fictional scenario packet (DOC-5), argued both sides in pairs, swapped sides, and wrote position slips. Our own case's authorization memo was attached: the examination is ordered and the next of kin (the closest living relative, who speaks for the family) consented, so the debate stays hypothetical.
If your teacher is absent: Complete the paper-record worksheet from the briefing, the worked model and the scenario record. Argue in pairs only if the adult in the room can keep the steelman rule; otherwise write both sides in B1. Submit the same one product. Nothing physical is opened, handled or examined.
Notebook support, not another submission
Keep the Day 11 Cornell page and the Vocabulary bank: autopsy entry in your notebook. The worked model, the optional check and the short check do not require another upload. Complete Parts A to E and the position slip block in the one worksheet.
Optional support
- Optional Guided Notes
- Day 11 Cornell page and the autopsy vocabulary entry, kept in the notebook
- Existing voluntary vocabulary extra credit, kept separate from required D1
No laboratory preparation applies today
No laboratory preparation applies to this day: there is no specimen, no instrument and no collection. The next assigned case lesson opens the external exam and time of death as supplied records; any separate physical activity keeps its own preparation requirement.
Connection to PLTW
Related PLTW reference:
- Activity 1.2.1 Anatomy of an Autopsy
This John Hay original worksheet practices ethical reasoning, fair argument and careful record keeping connected to PLTW Activity 1.2.1 Anatomy of an Autopsy, referenced by title only. It does not certify official activity completion. myPLTW student access is reported down for technical reasons; the portal day page and these printed materials carry the day.
referenced by title only; all materials in this file are John Hay original work. Official PLTW section hub link: not supplied.
Turn in one worksheet
Complete one ethics review-board worksheet, Parts A–E plus the position slip block. Hand the paper worksheet to Mr. Mendoza before leaving, or submit one PDF to this section's assignment, Wk5 D11 · Who Speaks for the Dead (PLTW 1.2.1), by September 23, at the due time on the assignment. Use your period and investigator code, no names. Do not submit twice; the Day 11 Cornell page and the autopsy vocabulary entry stay in your notebook.
The worked model, the optional check and the short check do not require another upload. Complete Parts A to E and the position slip block in the one worksheet.
Case A: submit to Wk5 D11 · Who Speaks for the Dead (PLTW 1.2.1)Keep this worksheet. In the next assigned case lesson the body starts answering: the external exam and time of death arrive as supplied records. Nothing you rule today changes our own case, where the examination is ordered and the next of kin consented.
What this worksheet cannot claim
This is a reasoning exercise on a fictional scenario. Real cases involve real law, real faith, and real families; our ruling binds nobody. Nothing today claims that you attended, ordered or performed an examination, and nothing releases a finding, a cause or a manner of death.
The heart condition, whether it runs in a family, and whether a blood test on the siblings could answer the question are premises of a practice scenario. No condition, test or reliability figure is named, and none should be added. The model shows the shape of a complete ruling: sides named, interests written, arguments stated fairly, accommodations listed, one principle, one ruling, one honest steelman, one sentence on what would change your mind.
No public background reference is printed for this day; the briefing cites the pack sections only.