9 Responses to My Hypothesis- Nina

1. davidbdale says:

   February 19, 2019 at 4:30 pm

   Nina, you really need to start reading on your topic. As you gather sources for your White Paper, give these few a look. They will force you out of whatever rut your thinking is in and which is preventing you from making any progress on this Hypothesis post.

   1. Campus Sexual Assault: How America’s Institutions of Higher Education Respond

   Click to access 196676.pdf

   2. Page 236 the Campus SaVE act.

   Click to access 196676.pdf

   3. Campus Security: Lessons Learned From a Security Analysis at Antioch University
   https://commons.keene.edu/handle/20.500.12088/8024

   4. Really Cool Technology Approach: Campus security in a close proximity notification system
   https://patents.google.com/patent/US9693190B2/en

   5. Possible disadvantages of #4: Campus emergency notification systems: Lessons learned from a miscommunication
   https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/casr.30459

   6. The trouble with human beings: Campus Security Officers’ Perceptions of Sexual Assault Victims
   https://search.proquest.com/openview/c0cef25c992c760cdd0fbb5774efcde3/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

   If I can find these thought-provoking articles in a 5-minute search of Google Scholar, you can too. Once you begin putting yourself through the process of actually interacting with provocative source material, you can stop THINKING about your topic and start WRITING about a hypothesis.

   Deal?

   Please Reply. It’s how we meet the course requirements. 🙂

   (Remember, if you can’t get full access to these materials, or you run up against a pay-wall, you can search the titles and authors at the Rowan Library database and probably find them for free.)

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. davidbdale says:

   February 20, 2019 at 1:09 pm

   OK, Nina, let’s get started. This is exciting.

   1. Child Euthanasia sets children at older age than those who have no set time of death.

   “Child Euthanasia” does no such thing. The diagnosis of a “short-term terminal illness” resets the age clock though. Knowing that they will die soon turns young children into very old children who measure their age not in “number of years lived” but in “number of months before they will die.”

   2. A child should have the upper hand to decide if euthanasia is an option if when clear signs of death are noted.

   This is vague. Should the child have the legal right to command a death day? Or should the child be restricted to what she can convince her parents or guardians to agree to? In other words, is a terminally ill child automatically considered an adult in the eyes of the law? Or is the terminally ill child still the child of her parents? And should the parents have the right to be the ultimate arbiters?

   3. A child should not have to suffer from an incurable disease.

   Granted, but this is a step back from #2.

   So, what’s your actual #3?

   In your White Paper, you’re going to want the most compelling academic support for the Belgium decision. Have you found it yet?

   Please reply. It’s how we meet the Course Requirements. 🙂

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • nina525 says:

     February 20, 2019 at 2:45 pm

     Thank you for the feedback, I think breaking down the first hypothesis or #1 would be a great start to a good hypothesis. Understanding that the terminal condition or disease is the problem made it much easier to generate thoughts. Thank you.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • davidbdale says:

       February 20, 2019 at 2:59 pm

       Thank you for that affirmation, Nina. I’m glad we’re making progress. I look forward to seeing your White Paper. I hope we can work together to develop a paper you can be proud of.

       LikeLike

       Reply
3. davidbdale says:

   February 24, 2019 at 11:18 am

   At this point in developing your Hypothesis, the ONLY way to proceed efficiently is to read the thoughtful work of others (unless you happen to have first-person access to experts on the topic). I did a Google Scholar search for two phrases together and got just one hit. These were the phrases:

   “ethical objections” “child euthanasia”

   I got this:
   

   But notice the hyperlink to “Related articles”:
   https://bit.ly/2Noqeux

   That click delivered 101 items that covered some VERY interesting sources of ethical complexity about educating kids about organ donation, the use of organ donation as a means of euthanasia (sounds like the Mayan Protocol video we watched in class), and others closely related but not identical to your baseline hypothesis. My advice would be to read lightly and widely in this intriguing but broad topic until you have that OH! moment that makes you say: “I never thought of it THAT WAY!” When YOU’RE surprised, your readers will be surprised, and THAT is the nature of a good counterintuitive research argument.

   Good luck. Was that helpful?

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • nina525 says:

     February 24, 2019 at 12:14 pm

     Thank you for the feedback, and to add, would you say that my hypothesis needs more work, or that I just need to do my research to gather other information?

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • davidbdale says:

       February 24, 2019 at 1:36 pm

       Everybody’s Hypothesis always needs more work, Nina, and by “more work” I mean “do your research to gather other information.”

       Eventually, you’ll know what you can prove, and THAT will become your Thesis, which is what every Hypothesis yearns to become. Show me what you’ve got so far in your White Paper. Then we’ll know how far you’ve come.

       LikeLike

       Reply
4. davidbdale says:

   March 26, 2019 at 11:07 am

   One more tweak to your Hypothesis, Nina.
   What you’ve done here is identify a TOPIC.
   A Hypothesis is a clear declarative statement of a claim that can be proved or disproved by research. Return to the My Hypothesis lecture material if you need a review.

   My Hypothesis—davidbdale

   
   You’ll see that what starts out as a simple phrase “euthanasia and depression,” for example, becomes in the end a very clear statement of something you intend to discover.

   Some examples:
   1. Medical professionals tasked with deciding whether to prescribe euthanasia for teens suffering depression are held to an appropriate degree of accountability.
   2. The standards used to prescribe euthanasia for teens suffering depression are entirely too lax.
   3. Depression, even clinical and chronic depression, because it’s not a terminal condition, should never be used to qualify teenagers for euthanasia.

   Does that help?

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. davidbdale says:

   April 7, 2019 at 4:00 pm

   Clinical and chronic depression, because it is not a terminal condition, should never be used to qualify a person for physician assisted suicide or euthanasia.

   That’s a well-crafted hypothesis, Nina. It makes a couple of claims, but its overall thrust is ethical. It claims that something SHOULD NOT be done. But it bases that conclusion on a legal situation. Laws as currently written make euthanasia and assisted suicide available only to those who are diagnosed with a (short term) terminal illness.

   Your proof will be factual and simple. If you demonstrate that depression never qualifies as a terminal condition, then clearly those who suffer with it will not qualify for euthanasia.

   One further option is available to you . You could say:
   1. Depression is not a terminal condition.
   2. Euthanasia is available only to terminal cases.
   3. Therefore: Euthanasia is unavailable to depression suffers.
   . . . HOWEVER . . .
   4. Those are bad laws.
   5. Deeply clinically depressed people cannot be cured and suffer just as badly as those who have terminal illnesses.
   6. The criteria for euthanasia SHOULD BE suffering, not terminality.
   7. The incurably depressed should be given the same access to euthanasia as those who currently qualify.

   Your hypothesis seems clear, but it does allow for both possibilities.

   LikeLike

   Reply