We all know it’s socially acceptable to donate human hair. Many of our daughters have contributed to Locks of Love. It’s also socially acceptable in many circles to purchase human hair. A great number of our celebrities benefit from hair extensions. We donate blood, and some of us have given kidneys to ailing family members. But are we, as a society, legally allowed to sell our blood? If so, to whom? Can we sell an organ? To whom and for how much? Can a parent sell a child’s blood or a child’s kidney? What are the moral, ethical, legal, medical, and social implications of any or all of these issues?

These are only some of the very controversial and ethically debatable issues broached in Jessie Willing’s senior science elective, Bioethics.

“In Bioethics we attempt to apply a moral compass to what is right or wrong about a difficult situation where there is no cleanly defined right or wrong, and where there are legal aspects, social aspects, and medical aspects,” explains Willing.

Her goal is to involve the students in the complex process of evaluating difficult issues from all sides. “We are dealing with kids on the cusp of adulthood who need to be able to think reasonably about these issues and who will have to confront these issues, whether it is the death of a relative or the vaccination of a child. I want to draw them through the process, to see both sides.”

Often, much of what is taught in high school science is clear. “High school,” says Willing, “tends to be very ‘here’s the answer.’ Photosynthesis is photosynthesis. It is what it is. In this class, there isn’t an answer. It’s hard for kids sometimes. I actually don’t care how they fall on the continuum with regard to the issues, but for each of them as people, it’s important for them to know how to evaluate the information.”

Willing opens her class with a discussion about the common bioethical principles. They discuss autonomy, meaning self-rule or self-determination. They ask the question, "Who has the right to make a decision?” “At what point can you say I do or do not want to have a medical treatment,” asks Willing. “Then you have a 12-year-old. Does the 12-year-old have the right to say that, or the 12-year-old’s parents? We talk about vaccines. About religions that don’t believe in modern medicine.”

Willing then moves on to the definition of personhood, defined as the point someone comes into existence. The birth issue and the euthanasia issue fall under personhood, both of which spark wide-ranging, emotionally-charged responses.

During the one-semester class, students do two research projects on subjects of their choosing. In each paper, they have to present a legal, scientific, and historical approach to their issue. While they advocate for their opinion, they are required to present both pro and con positions. In the past, controversial issues such as animal rights, bio-warfare, and reproductive technology have all served as topics.

“The idea behind the project is that people should walk out of the room more confused than when they walked in. The students should give me enough information to question myself.”

Willing is not concerned about the individual student’s position. In Willing’s class, it’s all about walking through the ethical inquiry: asking questions, gathering relevant background information, reasoning through a dilemma, making a decision, and evaluating the outcome.

“Pick a side and tell me why,” she says of her student’s efforts, “I don’t stand in a position of judgment. There isn’t a right or wrong.”