Wednesday, April 25, 2007

What may lie ahead

"The Young Family," by Patricia Piccinini


as well as:

MOre of Piccinini's work, including "Still Life with Stem Cells" can be seen at

The following is a statement by User:Patriciapiccinini about the work:
The Young Family (2002-3) presents a transgenic creature. The inspiration behind this work is the expectation that we have of growing human organs in other species, especially pigs. Rather than make a didactic image that argues for or against these technologies, I want to address the reality of these possible creatures in a very compassionate way. The question I raise, that I am interested in, relates to the distinction between human and animal characteristics: Not so much her humanity, but the 'animalness' in us. Genetically, we share traits with her, but also we share the fundamental trait of looking after offspring. I am interested in the kinds of ways that we look at the many ethical issues that surround medical technologies. There are two kinds of people who are thinking about these issues; those who are objective observers, and those that are actually affected by the issues, such as somebody who has a family member who is affected by a disease. These two viewpoints are often very different. It is impossible to be objective about these issues when you are emotionally involved, but I don't think that is a bad thing. These are not simple issues with easy answers: It is one thing to talk about an idea and another to be confronted by the emotional reality of a creature, and yet another to be in need of what that creature might provide.


NOTE: This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that this promotional image of a work of art is properly attributed.

April 26, 2007

For our last class, please read Chapter 12 in Meilaender, Bioethics: "Sickness and Health."

OPTIONAL: read "L'Chaim and its Limits: Why Not Immortality?" by Leon Kass at You also might want to see another side says by reading this response: "Killing Immortality" by Simon Smith, at

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Cases of
in China
by Louisa Lim

Pastor Liang Yage's wife was forced to abort their baby seven months into her pregnancy. The couple already have one child, a 12-year-old boy. They were told that having another child would contravene China's one-child policy. “The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate, so I didn't look up to see the baby.”

A slogan on a village building outside Baise in southwest China, reads, "Keep the birth rate low to enhance the quality of the population."

Morning Edition, April 23, 2007 · During the past week, dozens of women in southwest China have been forced to have abortions even as late as nine months into the pregnancy, according to evidence uncovered by NPR.

China's strict family planning laws permit urban married couples to have only one child each, but in some of the recent cases — in Guangxi Province — women say they were forced to abort what would have been their first child because they were unmarried. The forced abortions are all the more shocking because family planning laws have generally been relaxed in China, with many families having two children.

Liang Yage and his wife Wei Linrong had one child and believed that — like many other couples — they could pay a fine and keep their second baby. Wei was 7 months pregnant when 10 family planning officials visited her at home on April 16.

Liang describes how they told her that she would have to have an abortion, "You don't have any more room for maneuver," he says they told her. "If you don't go [to the hospital], we'll carry you." The couple was then driven to Youjiang district maternity hospital in Baise city.

"I was scared," Wei told NPR. "The hospital was full of women who'd been brought in forcibly. There wasn't a single spare bed. The family planning people said forced abortions and forced sterilizations were both being carried out. We saw women being pulled in one by one."

The couple was given a consent agreement to sign. When Liang refused, family planning officials signed it for him. He and his wife are devout Christians — he is a pastor — and they don't agree with abortion.

The officials gave Wei three injections in the lower abdomen. Contractions started the next afternoon, and continued for almost 16 hours. Her child was stillborn.

"I asked the doctor if it was a boy or girl," Wei said. "The doctor said it was a boy. My friends who were beside me said the baby's body was completely black. I felt desolate, so I didn't look up to see the baby."

Medical sources say fetuses aborted in this manner would have been dead for some time, so the tissue is necrotic and thus dark in color.

"The nurses dealt with the body like it was rubbish," Wei said. "They wrapped it up in a black plastic bag and threw it in the trash."

This was also the treatment given to the stillborn baby of He Caigan. Family planning officials turned up at her house, in the countryside several hours outside Baise, before dawn on April 17 to force her to go to the hospital. This would have been her first baby — but she hadn't married the father, in contravention of family planning laws. She was already 9 months pregnant, just days away from delivery.

"They told me I'm too young, I couldn't keep the child and I should have an abortion," she said. "I'm too young to get a marriage certificate — I'm only 19 and my boyfriend's only 21."

After the forced abortion, her boyfriend left her. She said that she's still in great physical pain and that her life had been ruined.

An eyewitness, who requested anonymity for fear of the consequences, said that he counted 41 occupied beds on just one floor of the maternity hospital in Baise and that he believed none of the women he saw had come to the hospital of their own free will.

Coerced abortions such as these were not unusual after China's one-child policy was first introduced in 1980. But a law passed five years ago guarantees China's citizens a degree of choice in family planning matters. When contacted for comment, an official at China's State Commission for Population and Family Planning said she'd heard nothing about forced abortions in Guangxi and asked for more details. But in Baise, a family planning official surnamed Nong acknowledged that such behavior would violate regulations. Despite the fact that these allegations refer to events that happened just within the last week, he said an investigation had already been held.

"We were very surprised to hear of these accusations," Nong said, "but our investigation concluded some individuals who were dissatisfied with our family planning policies were fabricating stories. These facts simply don't exist. We really love and care for women here."

Official figures published by the Xinhua news agency shed some light on why a forced abortion campaign might be judged necessary. They show that the Baise government missed its family planning targets last year. The recorded birth rate was 13.61 percent, slightly higher than the goal of 13.5 percent. This is significant because the career prospects of local officials depend upon meeting these goals.

Wei Linrong and her husband Liang Yage, were incensed by their treatment, seeing it as little short of murder.

"I think their methods are too cruel," said Wei, "my heart really hurts. Such a tiny baby, it was innocent. And they killed it."

"Every time we talk about this child, we both cry," Liang added. "We can't bear talking about this child."

Liang and his wife risked further official disapproval by contacting a Christian group overseas to publicize their plight. China may once have depended on its state apparatus of control and fear to silence those who suffer human rights abuses at the hands of its officials. But China's victims are angry, and they want their voices to be heard

Thursday, April 12, 2007


Will be held in A305 so we can have power-point access.

Tuesday, April 17:


Thursday, April 19:


Tuesday, April 24:


Monday, April 02, 2007


Tu 4/3

EIMM, pp. 595-614, “Assisted Reproductive Technologies”

BPC, pp. 11- 25, “”Procreation vs. Reproduction,”

EIMM, pp. 615-630,Commodification

Th 4/5

EIMM, pp. 631-691, “ Human Cloning and Stem cell Research”

HANDOUT: Ramsey Colloquium, “The Inhuman Use of Human Beings”

Tu 4/10 : Continue
EIMM, pp. 631-691, “ Human Cloning and Stem cell Research”
HANDOUT: Ramsey Colloquium, “The Inhuman Use of Human Beings”

Th 4/12
BPC, pp. 88-103, “Gifts of the Body"
HANDOUT: Sacks, “Markets and Morals”

Tu 4/17
Presentation #1 and #2

Th 4/19
Presentation #3 and #4

Tu 4/24
Presentation #5 and #6

Th 4/26
BPC, pp. 114-118, “Sickness and Health”
Leon Kass, “L’Chaim and its Limits” at

Th 5/3
Essay due in lieu of final, 1:00 pm

Monday, March 19, 2007


I've just been informed that I must cancel class Tuesday, March 20 in order to allow students to attend the Stone-Campbell lectures. So, be ready on Thursday to discuss the following articles in EIMM:

1) pp. 595-605, "The Presumptive Primacy of Procreative Liberty"

2) pp. 615-624, "What's Wrong with Commodification?"

3) pp. 624-630 "Selling Babies and Selling Bodies"

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Humans for Sale: How much are YOU worth?

The following is from a website...and is hopefully tongue in cheek.

"Currently over 10.3 million humans for sale!

Have you been thinking about putting yourself up for sale lately? Ever wonder how much money you could get on the open human market? will attempt to place a value on your life using a variety of criteria in 4 basic facets of life. Among the criteria used include athletic ability, education level, income, amount of exercise, weight, and sense of humor. This is obviously a very subjective matter and is not intended and does not claim to be scientifically accurate. The more honestly you answer the questions, the more realistic the dollar value returned will be."

to take the quiz, go to:

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Thanks for your Understanding

Hello everyone--

Thank you for your help and prayers for Grace as she endured a medical emergency last class. She went home with her daughter-in-law and we trust she is improving and will be back with us Tuesday.

Meanwhile, we are behind in our schedule, and this coming week half our class will be away this coming week for Nationals. I had originally thought we would cancel class for March 8 but because we are behind we can no longer proceed with that plan. Instead, here is what we will be doing for the next two weeks:

Tuesday, 3/6

EIMM, pp. 309-321, Advance Directives
EIMM, pp. 333- 356: Choosing for Others
BPC, pp. 79-87, Who Decides?

Thursday 3/8

EIMM, pp. 377-381, 394-400, Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide:

Tuesday 3/13

EIMM, pp. 416-434, Euthanasia and Physician-assisted Suicide
BPC, pp. 57-67, Suicide and Euthanasia

Thursday, 3/15

VIDEO: 18 Ways to Make a Baby

Emily, Elise and McKenzie: you will need to submit one-page summaries for each of the articles you will be missing while at Nationals, demonstrating to me that you understand them.

Also, Elise and Emily: I do not have McKenzie's phone or e-mail address, so I'd appreciate it if you would pass this assignment on to her.

Kyle, Grace and Joshua: we will meet as usual next week and cheer our athletes from afar.

Thanks for your understanding as we make these necessary adjustments to our course calendar. Please call me if you have any questions or concerns.



Wednesday, February 28, 2007

"Not Dead Yet"

"It's the ultimate form of discrimination to offer people with disabilities help to die without having offered real options to live."-Diane Coleman, founder of Not Dead Yet

This group was was founded on April 27,1996, shortly after Jack Kevorkian was acquitted in the assisted suicides of two women with non-terminal disabilities. In a 1997 Supreme Court rally, the outcry of 500 people with disabilities chanting "Not Dead Yet" was heard around the world. Since then, eleven other national disability rights groups have joined NDY in opposing legalized assisted suicide with chapters in over 30 states.

"We helped put Jack Kevorkian behind bars in 1999. In the 2003-2005 fight to save Terri Schiavo, twenty-five national disability groups joined Not Dead Yet in opposing her guardian's right to starve and dehydrate her to death." Read more about this group at and at

Why We Exist and What We Believe

Since 1983, many people with disabilities have opposed the assisted suicide and euthanasia movement. Though often described as compassionate, legalized medical killing is really about a deadly double standard for people with severe disabilities, including both conditions that are labeled terminal and those that are not. Disability opposition to this ultimate form of discrimination has been ignored by most media and courts, but countless people with disabilities have already died before their time. For some, a disabled person's suicidal cry for help was ignored, misinterpreted, or even exploited by the right-to-die movement. For others, death came at the request of a family member or other health care surrogate. This is not compassion, it's contempt.

People already have the right to refuse unwanted treatment, and suicide is not illegal. What we oppose is a public policy that singles out individuals for legalized killing based on their health status. This violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, and denies us the equal protection of the law. Some bioethicists have even started to argue that intellectually disabled people are not persons under the law. That hasn¹t happened since slavery was legal.

Legalized medical killing is not a new human right, it's a new professional immunity. It would allow health professionals to decide which of us are "eligible" for this service, and exempt them from accountability for their decisions. Killing is not just another medical treatment option, and it must not be made any part of routine health care. In these days of cost cutting and managed care, we don't trust the health care system, and neither should you.

People with disabilities have an opportunity to lead society from the isolation and despair of today into a renewed recognition of belonging and community for all. The idea that people with disabilities are not worthy of society's acceptance or resources is not new. We see this form of hatred throughout history, often masked as benevolence. But for the first time in history, people with disabilities are organizing our community to fight back, to demand the equal protection of the law

What will we be doing Thursday, 3/1?

Please read:

EIMM, p. 341- 356
Meilaender, "Who Decides?" p. 75-83
We will review previous material and discuss issues relating to artificial nutrition and hydration.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

What will we be doing Tuesday, 2/13?

A healthy liver in adults weighs about 3 pounds (left). A liver damaged by alcoholism shows a buildup of fatty tissue (middle), and a liver with cirrhosis is enlarged and swollen (right).
© A. Glauberman/Science Source, Photo Researchers, Inc.

As we wrap up our discussion of the challenges to our health care system we will end with the question, "should decisions concerning the allocation of scare health resources take into account the virtue or vice of the recipient?"

In particular, we will ask, "Is giving livers to reformed alcoholics a waste of medical resources?"

Please read the following articles in EIMM:

1) "Should Alcoholics Compete Equally for Liver Transplantation?" pp. 223-228

2) "Alcoholics and Liver Transplantation" pp. 228-232

Monday, February 05, 2007

Helpful Sites for Reading and Writing Philosophy

Your first paper will be due Tuesday, Feb 27. Please consult the handout for exact information about how to write it, and feel free to contact me with any questions you might have.

I am recommending that you consult two sites before you do the paper.

First, check out:
Then, read
Both sites have lots of important tips that will help you to do a better job with this assignment.

Saturday, February 03, 2007

What will we be doing Thursday, February 8?

Please read EIMM, pp. 187-201: "Methods and Strategies for Rationing Healthcare."
What will we be doing Tuesday, February 6?

We will begin our unit on Allocation, Social Justice and Health Policy.

Please read EIMM: pp. 145-167.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

What will we be doing on Thursday, February 1?

We'll be watching a video! Bring popcorn.
What will we be doing on January 30?

1) Turn in your papers on autonomy.
2). Finish up discussion of physician-patient relations; discuss Part 1 Section 2, Informed Consent.

3) If we have time, we'll start the discussion of Allocation, social Justice, and Health Policy. Read Introduction to Part 2; pp. 145-154.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Reflection Paper:

“…Autonomy is widely recognized in contemporary medicine and can fairly be described as the cornerstone of contemporary bioethics.” --Steinbock, Arras and London, EIMM, p. 45.

Write a 2-3 page paper reflecting on the implications of an ethical theory that assumes autonomy to have such importance. Be sure to
  • briefly explain what is meant by “autonomy”
  • discuss the advantages of holding autonomy as your foundational value
  • discuss the problems with holding autonomy as your foundational value
  • decide whether you think autonomy should be taken as the “cornerstone of contemporary ethics” or whether something else should function as its foundation.

    DUE: January 30

Is ethics about hard cases, or about character?

A word about your textbooks

Many years ago now, my husband Steve wrote a paper, "Christian Ethics and the Ethics of Virtue," on this very question. It first appeared in The Covenant Quarterly (August 1987), pp. 125-134, then was anthologized in Readings in Christian Ethics, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), pp. 257-266. You can read it here: It will give you a window on the options Christians now deal with in a world where ethical theories lie about like broken shards.

Basically, ever since Kant and Mill ethics has focused on "hard cases," dilemmas and case studies. The question,"what should I do?" swells to become the single overriding concern of ethics. What is the right thing to do? eclipses the premodern question, "what is the good life? what does a virtuous person look like?"

The Premodernist Christian assumes that what is most fundamental is the kind of persons we are; and that our actions flow from our character. On the other hand, Modernism fixates on action, and ignores being.

One of our textbooks, Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, is written from a modernist/postmodernist point of view. Thus you will see it worries a lot about autonomy, and delights in case studies and difficult situations. Our other textbook, Bioethics: A Primer for Christians, is written from a premodernist point of view. As a book written "by a Christian for Christians," it discusses the virtues that should characterize us as followers of Christ, and only then does it attempt to discern the sort of actions that fall out from that character.

What do you think? Is ethics only about asking the question, "what should I do?" Or, before you ask that question, is it about answering an even more fundamental one: "Who do you say I am? " (Matthew 16:15) and ordering your being in accord with the answer you give?

Thursday, January 18, 2007

NOTE! NO CLASS, Thursday January 25.
What will we be doing Tuesday, January 23?

We will discuss Autonomy, Paternalism, Models of the Provider-Patient Relationship, and Informed Consent. In EIMM, instead of pp. 43-54, please read pp. 43 to the top of p. 50 Please add the article, "Four Models of Physician-patient Relationship" on pp. 67-76; and then, as printed, read pp. 83-106.

NOTE: both textbooks are on reserve in the library if you need them.

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

What will we be doing, Thursday January 18?
Revisions to Course Calendar

The bad weather recently forced me to cancel class last Thursday. Even if this hadn't happened, we would have been "behind." So here is the first of probably many revisions to the course calendar.

This Thursday, instead of the video, we will finish our discussion of ethical theories for the first half of class. Please read EIMM, pp. 1-41, "Moral Reasoning in the Medical Context" and BPC, pp. 1-10, "Christian Vision."

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Welcome to PHL315 Bioethics!

Description of Course:

PHL 315 Bioethics (3) An in-depth examination of contemporary bioethical issues, including those surrounding the following areas:

1) the health professional-patient relationship
2) allocation of resources, social justice and health policy
3) personhood, death, foregoing life-sustaining treatment and euthanasia
4) reprogenetics (reproductive technologies, surrogacy, stem cell research, cloning and genetic engineering)
5) experimentation on and commodification of human beings

In the spirit of full disclosure, the instructor’s philosophical training is from the analytic tradition, (as opposed to the continental tradition) and she is a committed, practicing Christian.

Purpose of Course:

• To provide a fundamental part of a Christian liberal arts education, integrating NCC’s biblical and Christian studies with rigorous philosophical study.
• To clarify bioethical concepts, arguments and positions, and their metaphysical and theological foundations through lecture, discussion, oral and written assignments.
• To engage students in formal ethical analysis and dialogue, with special focus on medical issues.
• To prepare students for effective citizenship and successful roles in ministry, teaching, counseling, science and technology, by giving them an opportunity to critically reflect on bioethical issues and theories.
• Finally, to assist and encourage any Christians in this class to grow in the cardinal and theological virtues, and find their voice and place of service in both the city of God and the city of Man.

Course Objectives:

Upon completing this course, you will be able to:

• describe some of the central concepts and issues in the bioethics
• analyze and critically evaluate those concepts, arguments and positions.
• begin formulating your own positions on these issues, enabling you to write your own advance directive.

Textbook and Resource material:


• Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine, 6e, edited by Steinbock, Arras, London. (Boston: McGraw hill, 2003).
• Meilander, Gilbert. Bioethics: A Primer for Christians. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).
• Handouts, library reserve items, online materials, and course blog.


Students are invited to check the course blog for syllabus, updates to the course calendar, bibliographies, additional articles, quotes, and to continue conversations outside the classroom.

Instructor Information:

• Beth Bilynskyj, M.A. Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, 1979.
• 744-9343 (home phone; leave message and best time for me to return your call)
• (probably the best way for us to immediately connect)
• Office Hours: TBA

Please feel free to contact me. It is important that we end confusion and answer your questions as soon as possible. I also welcome your comments on the content of the course, and/or any suggestions you have to improve the class. Most of all, I want to get to know you, and invite you to be part of the Great Conversation, which is partially

1. Two 6-8 page essays, in APA or MLA style (25% each, total 50%)

These essays are opportunities for you to explore bioethical topics in greater depth, and like all philosophical writing, they should be characterized by clarity, conciseness and completeness.
I will evaluate your essays on the following elements: topic, thesis, structure, logic and argumentation, use of literature/research, and mechanics (language, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.). I am always happy to read and comment on rough drafts given to me at least a week before the due date. All essays must be submitted in hard copy. Do not submit them as e-mail or attachments without prior permission.

Due Dates:

Essay #1: Tuesday, February 20, 1:00 pm
Essay #2: Thursday, May 3, 1:00 pm

2. Attendance, Preparation, Discussion (20%)

Philosophy has been described as a “great conversation,” so the bulk of our time together will be discussing the day’s assigned readings. Plan to spend at least two hours in preparation for every hour in class. Furthermore, don’t just underline, outline! This is the secret to being a successful student. Outlining is an excellent way to master material for any course, because it demands that you read actively, rather than passively.

As this is such a small seminar, its success depends upon you. Your class discussion/ participation grade will be calculated by the frequency of your contributions to class discussions, and the quality of your questions, observations and conclusions. The successful student will come to class prepared to offer at least one well-formed question, comment or criticism about the day’s readings.

NOTE: Should participation and discussion flag as a result of students not having done their readings, I reserve the right to give “pop” quizzes, which will be counted as part of this preparation/discussion grade.

Absence is the greatest damper for participation and discussion, so you should make every effort not to miss class. Everyone has something to contribute, so your presence is crucial! Being absent from class more than three times leads to significant grade reductions, i.e. A becomes A-, B+ becomes B, etc. Ten or more unexcused absences will result in automatic failure of the course. Please refer to the NCC attendance policy below.

2. Reflection paper (10%)

Students will be asked to write a 2-3 page paper evaluating utilitarian moral reasoning. You’re your point of view, to what degree, if any, should this type of reasoning figure in thinking about bioethical issues? These are not research papers. They are opportunities to analyze a method which is widely used today in bioethical debates. As usual, papers will be judged generally
according to clarity, conciseness and completeness, and in particular according to thesis, structure, logic and argumentation, and mechanics (language, grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc.).

4. Presentation (20%)

The course will conclude with presentations to be given to the class. Students are encouraged to consult Carole Levine’s Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Bioethical Issues, on reserve, and choose an issue they find compelling. They then have two options:

1) Work individually
Present two sides of the issue, devoting an hour to explaining and evaluating
the arguments on both sides.

2) Work together with a group (2-3 people)
Each person will devote 1/2 hour to explaining his position, and ½ hour to attacking and rebutting other position(s).

For example, Issue 14: Should Animal Experimentation Be Permitted?
YES: Jerod M. Loeb, “Human vs. Animal Rights” pp. 238-245
NO: Tom Reagan, “Ill-Gotten Gains” pp. 246-252

1) working individually: student A will summarize both articles and show how the arguments intersect.
2) working as a group: student B will “be” Loeb; student C will “be” Reagan. In one class period, B and C will present the arguments for each of their positions in ½ hour blocks. In another class period, B and C will each spend ½ hour on the offensive, attacking their opponent; and ½ hour on the defensive, rebutting their opponent’s attacks.

Consult the handout to be distributed Feb 15 for more details.

Academic Policies:

General undergraduate academic policies can be found starting on page 42 of the Undergraduate Academic Catalog 2006-2007 which is online at The following specific policies are related to this particular course:

Class Attendance.

Students are expected to arrive on time for class. Your participation grade will be affected if you are not in class or are late to class, for whatever reason. Excused absences will be allowed for activities such as serious illness, family or work emergencies, and recognized commitments with the College. The professor will determine the validity of the excuse. The student is responsible for knowing all information presented in the class(es) missed. If there are any problems, please let the professor know BEFORE the class.

Missed and Late Work

No make-up exams will be allowed except for circumstances granted a legitimate excuse status. In the event that a student cannot take an exam, he/she must contact the professor BEFORE the absence, and the professor will determine whether or not a legitimate excuse is warranted. Final exams are not given before their scheduled time unless permission has been secured from the Vice President for Academic Affairs in advance. In case of serious illness or an extreme family crisis the student should request the professor for an I (incomplete) grade. In such a case, the policy on make-up exams applies.

Due dates for major course requirements are included elsewhere in this syllabus and course calendar. In solidarity with Dr. Bollenbough, I reproduce the following from one of his syllabi:

“All products/assignments are due at those scheduled times, even if you have negotiated an ‘excused’ absence…late work received after the due date will receive half credit unless extenuating circumstances are negotiated and approved by the course instructor ahead of time. Halft credit will be given only if late work is received within one week of the original due date. No work will be accepted after this without extreme and extenuating circumstances approved by the instructor in writing. Incompletes will be assigned per protocol in the NCC catalog.”

Plagiarism and Academic Dishonesty.

Plagiarism, cheating, and any other form of academic dishonesty are not acceptable and will not be tolerated at NCC. A student reported to have engaged in any one of the above will be subjected to a disciplinary action according to the policy stated in the Undergraduate Academic Catalog.

Disability Services

If you need special accommodations because of a documented disability whether it is psychiatric, learning, physical or sensory, you must process your request with Ms. Angela Doty, the designated Disability Officer. Contact Ms. Doty through the Student Development Office by phone at 684-7345, by e-mail at:, and/or refer to the Disability Services Handbook (available in the Student Development Office) for the policy and detailed procedures regarding disabilities. Contact should be made prior to the beginning of each semester so that the Disability Officer can make reasonable accommodation for each eligible student.