Ethics of monitoring
Do now
Debate whether wearables and continuous monitoring help or harm patients, and defend your view.
- Hand in
- Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing whether continuous wearable monitoring helps or harms patients, with a reference to patient autonomy in the reasoning.
- Where
- Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
If a smartwatch pings you at 2 a.m. saying your heart rhythm looks off, has it saved your life or robbed you of sleep, and who gets to decide whether you keep wearing it?
Debate whether wearables and continuous monitoring help or harm patients, and defend your view.
- • I can weigh benefits and harms of health monitoring.
- • I can defend a position with reasoning.
- Name one thing a smartwatch or fitness tracker measures about your body.
- If your watch told you something about your health looked wrong, would you want to know? Why or why not?
- 1Read the prompt: Does constant health monitoring make us healthier or more anxious?
- 2List one benefit and one harm of continuous wearable monitoring.
- 3Choose a side and connect it to patient autonomy.
- 4Argue your claim in your group with one reason and one example.
- 5Post a written CER with your position and reasoning.
What did this day actually feel like?
Ethics of monitoring
ETHICS MONDAY Do wearables and constant health monitoring make us healthier or just more anxious? This one split the room in a way the others had not, and it was the first Monday where I thought the class was mostly wrong.
Most people said more data is obviously better. I said more data is only better if someone knows what to do with it, and that a number you cannot act on mostly produces worry. The pushback was that I was underestimating patients. Fair. But the underlying point held up: the benefit is not in collecting the data, it is in the interpretation, and the interpretation is the part nobody guarantees you.
Turned in: CER → Claim Evidence Reasoning folder
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
The same day, drawn.
Do wearables make us healthier or just more anxious? Most of the room said more data is obviously better. I did not.
ME
A number you cannot act on mostly produces worry. The benefit is the interpretation, and nobody guarantees you that.
Fiction. There is no such student. The lessons, labs and dates are the real planned course; the student, the classmates and the conversations are invented.
🛠 Get unstuck · pick your level
🔑 Today's words · 5
Tap a word in the lesson for a plain meaning and one example. Recycled into next week's Do-Now.
Do the work · 80-minute blockfirst 5 min = hook▸
💡 Big idea: Continuous monitoring produces more data, but that data improves health only when someone interprets and acts on it correctly, so the benefit depends on interpretation, not on the amount of data collected.
- 0:00Hook: show a real smartwatch alert that turned out to be a false alarm vs. one that caught a real arrhythmia
- 0:10Introduce patient autonomy concept; contrast with beneficence (what the doctor thinks is best)
- 0:20Read the ethics prompt; list one benefit and one harm of continuous monitoring
- 0:32Small-group debate: connect position to patient autonomy
- 0:54Individual CER writing: position, evidence, reasoning
- 1:10Share two CERs; preview Tuesday bloodwork content
- • Smartwatches can now detect atrial fibrillation, track blood oxygen, and estimate sleep quality. Does that make people healthier? Or does it make them obsess over numbers that do not actually mean much?
- • This is the ethics of data. The technology exists. The question is whether using it improves patient outcomes or whether it creates anxiety, drives unnecessary medical visits, and shifts decision-making from doctors to algorithms.
- • Patient autonomy means you have the right to choose whether you are monitored. But does a patient who opts out of monitoring get worse care? That is where the tension is.
- • Pick a side and defend it. Wednesday we will work with actual longitudinal data and see what trends look like over time.
- • Patient autonomy is the right of a competent individual to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including the decision to be monitored or not.
- • Wearable data can detect early warning signs, improve chronic disease management, and reduce emergency visits, but it can also generate false alarms and increase health anxiety.
- • Data from wearables is self-reported or algorithmically interpreted, which introduces accuracy limitations not present in clinically validated instruments.
Unit 2.1 Clinical Data: Routine bloodwork, chronic disease monitoring, telehealth, wearables, remote monitoring. · Ethics of monitoring
Day 1 of this lesson. Open this exact section in myPLTW (find it in Clever, Microsoft sign-in), then do the work below.
Do this: Log in to myPLTW and open the Lesson 2.1 Talk to Your Doc / Lesson 2.2 Decoding a Diagnosis clinical-data section. Read the unit overview before Tuesday.
Mark the clinical-data unit overview task complete in myPLTW.
You finished the vital-signs work in Lesson 2.1 last week. Today starts the chronic-monitoring and bloodwork phase. The overview reading should be done by the end of today.
myPLTW screenshot showing the clinical-data overview task marked complete.
The official PLTW activity stays inside myPLTW. If myPLTW will not open, use F1 and E1-E3 on this page to complete today's local evidence decision, then make up the official activity when access returns. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Check things off as you work, then submit. This tells Mr. Mendoza how you're doing so he can help the class. It does not replace turning in your producible through the submission route shown below.
Use the code Mr. Mendoza gave you, not your name. Saved on this device.
Unit 2.1 Clinical Data: Routine bloodwork, chronic disease monitoring, telehealth, wearables, remote monitoring. · Ethics of monitoring
Log in to myPLTW and open the Lesson 2.1 Talk to Your Doc / Lesson 2.2 Decoding a Diagnosis clinical-data section. Read the unit overview before Tuesday.
You finished the vital-signs work in Lesson 2.1 last week. Today starts the chronic-monitoring and bloodwork phase. The overview reading should be done by the end of today.
This is how Mr. Mendoza sees the class keeping pace with PLTW. Be honest, it only helps if it is accurate.
🎯 Debate whether wearables and continuous monitoring help or harm patients, and defend your view.
- Read the prompt: Does constant health monitoring make us healthier or more anxious?
- List one benefit and one harm of continuous wearable monitoring.
- Choose a side and connect it to patient autonomy.
- Argue your claim in your group with one reason and one example.
- Post a written CER with your position and reasoning.
CER: Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing whether continuous wearable monitoring helps or harms patients, with a reference to patient autonomy in the reasoning.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Use the checklist just below and upload by 11:29 PM for full credit. Absent with an excused absence? You get two school days for every day you were absent, so this deadline moves with you.
| Task | Who |
|---|---|
| Read the prompt: Does constant health monitoring make us healthier or more anxious? | _______ |
| List one benefit and one harm of continuous wearable monitoring. | _______ |
| Choose a side and connect it to patient autonomy. | _______ |
| Argue your claim in your group with one reason and one example. | _______ |
| Post a written CER with your position and reasoning. | _______ |
Working solo? Put your own name in "Who" for every row.
- I can weigh benefits and harms of health monitoring.
- I can defend a position with reasoning.
- 1Do thisDebate whether wearables and continuous monitoring help or harm patients, and defend your view.
- 2Use this resource
- 3Submit thisCER: Written CER (3-5 sentences) arguing whether continuous wearable monitoring helps or harms patients, with a reference to patient autonomy in the reasoning.
- 4Submit it here
- 1Open the drop folder.
- 2Sign in with your district Microsoft account, not a personal one.
- 3Upload the file, named Lastname_Firstname__Assignment Title.
- 4Your own upload panel says Uploaded with a green check: that is your receipt.
Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not. Principles of Biomedical Technology (Principles of Biomedical Science) › Unit 2.1 Clinical Data: Routine bloodwork, chronic disease monitoring, telehealth, wearables, remote monitoring. › CEROpen the drop folder
Learn it · deck, reading, 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.
One vital-sign reading is only a snapshot of , so it cannot separate a transient response from a chronic condition, which is why clinicians rely on repeated measurements to reveal a real trend.
Continuous monitoring produces more data, but that data improves health only when someone interprets and acts on it correctly, so the benefit depends on interpretation, not on the amount of data collected.
A detective board holds observations, possible explanations, and one next question.
- Which notes are direct observations?
- Which notes are explanations?
- What new evidence would separate the explanations?
Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
Biomedical investigations use controlled procedures and validated measurements, not intuition alone.
- • Board notes map to E1-E3.
- • Possible explanations map to the decision options.
- • The next question maps to the evidence-based action.
Driving question: If a smartwatch pings you at 2 a.m. saying your heart rhythm looks off, has it saved your life or robbed you of sleep, and who gets to decide whether you keep wearing it?
What you already know: One vital-sign reading is only a snapshot of , so it cannot separate a transient response from a chronic condition, which is why clinicians rely on repeated measurements to reveal a real trend.
New idea: Continuous monitoring produces more data, but that data improves health only when someone interprets and acts on it correctly, so the benefit depends on interpretation, not on the amount of data collected.
Visual or model: F1. F1. A lesson illustration or teaching diagram for Ethics of monitoring. Use it with E1-E3; it is a model or context image, not experimental or patient data. What to notice: Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation.
- Observe or measure the relevant feature in Ethics of monitoring.
- Organize the observation with a stable evidence ID.
- Apply this rule: Keep observations separate from explanations, then collect the evidence that can distinguish the options.
- Choose the option the evidence supports and state the limit of the conclusion.
Real biomedical example: If a smartwatch pings you at 2 a.m. saying your heart rhythm looks off, has it saved your life or robbed you of sleep, and who gets to decide whether you keep wearing it?
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.
- • : The amount of sugar dissolved in the blood, the body's main fuel, normally about 70 to 99 mg/dL when fasting and tightly controlled by .
- • : A waxy, fat-like substance that the body uses to build cell membranes and make hormones, but too much in the blood can clog arteries.
- • : Anything that raises a person's chance of developing a disease, such as smoking, family history, or high , without guaranteeing it.
- • telehealth: Delivering healthcare remotely using video calls, phone, or digital tools so patients and providers can connect without being in the same place.
- • wearable: A small electronic device worn on the body that continuously senses and records health data such as heart rate, steps, or oxygen level.
- • monitoring: The ongoing measurement of a patient's vital signs or condition over time to track changes and catch problems early.
- • : The span of values for a lab test or measurement seen in healthy people, used as a reference to flag results that may signal a problem.
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.
Patient autonomy is the right of a competent individual to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including the decision to be monitored or not.
Limit: E1 supplies context or an observation; it does not by itself establish the explanation.
Continuous monitoring produces more data, but that data improves health only when someone interprets and acts on it correctly, so the benefit depends on interpretation, not on the amount of data collected.
Limit: E2 is a teaching statement or comparison and must be checked against the task evidence.
I can weigh benefits and harms of health monitoring.
Limit: E3 supports only the result or product criterion named here; it cannot justify a broader clinical or causal claim.
PLTW-PBT-2026-10-12 · Simulated classroom evidence scenario
Your role: biomedical investigator
Decision: Your team must decide what the evidence from Ethics of monitoring supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
- • Select the option best supported by E1-E3.
- • Select a reasonable alternative and name the evidence it would require.
- • Delay the claim because the evidence does not distinguish the options.
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: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Ethics of monitoring. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
Reason for review: Your team must decide what the evidence from Ethics of monitoring supports before submitting the claim-evidence-reasoning response named on the lesson page.
Context: More data is not the same as better care; data only helps when someone interprets it correctly and acts on it, and the patient always has the right to decide whether to be monitored at all.
- • T1: Read the prompt: Does constant health monitoring make us healthier or more anxious?
- • T2: List one benefit and one harm of continuous wearable monitoring.
- • T3: Choose a side and connect it to patient autonomy.
- • T4: Argue your claim in your group with one reason and one example.
- • T5: Post a written CER with your position and reasoning.
- • E1: Patient autonomy is the right of a competent individual to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, including the decision to be monitored or not.
- • E2: Continuous monitoring produces more data, but that data improves health only when someone interprets and acts on it correctly, so the benefit depends on interpretation, not on the amount of data collected.
- • E3: I can weigh benefits and harms of health monitoring.
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 Ethics of monitoring. Trace the labeled observation or evidence sequence before choosing an explanation. 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 that because a wearable produces a number, that number is as trustworthy as a hospital lab test.. The trap: Wearable data is estimated by an algorithm from sensors on your skin, not measured in a validated lab, so it can be wrong; treating a watch reading as clinical truth can lead to false alarms or false comfort.
Claim: A home blood glucose monitor that automatically uploads readings to a patient's care team helps patients more than it harms them, but only when the patient gives informed consent to that data sharing.\n\nEvidence: Automatic uploading lets a nurse or doctor spot dangerous highs and lows between visits and adjust insulin sooner, which can prevent emergencies for people with diabetes. The same feature also sends a stream of personal health data outside the home, where it could be seen by more people than the patient expects or used in ways the patient never agreed to.\n\nReasoning: The deciding factor is informed consent, which means the patient understands what data is collected, who can see it, and how it will be used before agreeing to share it. If the patient knows those terms and still chooses to share, the benefit of faster medical response outweighs the loss of some privacy. A limitation is that uploaded readings are only numbers without context, so a sudden low value could reflect a device error rather than a real emergency. Because of this, the care team should confirm an unusual reading with the patient before changing treatment.
This model shows the level of evidence and organization needed to complete: A short written argument taking a side on whether a home blood glucose monitor that automatically shares readings with a care team helps or harms patients, with the reasoning grounded in informed consent and data privacy.
- 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 the CER to the discussion board or hand in the written copy before leaving.
- 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 Ethics of monitoring. 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 and interactives for this lesson, from authoritative open organizations and PLTW's own public course outline.
Check yourself · commit, then reveal▸
Claim ceiling for this check: The supplied lesson evidence can support an observation, pattern, classroom mechanism, or next-step decision about Ethics of monitoring. It cannot by itself prove causation, establish a real clinical diagnosis, or justify action outside this classroom task.
A smartwatch says your resting heart rhythm looks abnormal, but your doctor's EKG comes back completely normal. Why might the watch and the EKG disagree?
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.
Go further and get help▸
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.
Watch the recorded monitoring-ethics prompt and post a written CER on whether continuous wearable monitoring helps or harms patients.
John Carroll Philosophy for ChildrenThen submit your CER. Turn this in at the drop folder with your district Microsoft sign-in, or hand it to Mr. Mendoza in class. Both count as submitted. Doing the activity in myPLTW does not.
Class still runs. Complete the online activity above (it's self-guided). Need the concept taught without a teacher? Use this authoritative explainer:
MedlinePlus: Laboratory Tests- 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.
- SubmittedTurned in the right way, on the class site or handed to Mr. Mendoza in class, and confirmed. Not in Schoology: that is where the report-card grade appears later.