Topic 2: God, Humanity, And Human Dignity
1. Explain the Christian view of the nature of human persons.
2. Compare the Christian view of intrinsic human value and dignity in contrast to secular views of personhood.
3. Evaluate how the concept of intrinsic human dignity is applied in the process of ethical decision-making.
What is the Christian concept of theimago Dei? How might it be important to health care, and why is it relevant?
According to your worldview, what value does a human person have? How does your position affect your stance on controversial bioethical issues, such as abortion, designer babies, and stem cell research?
Case Study on Moral Status
Based on “Case Study: Fetal Abnormality” andthe required topic Resources, write a 750-1,000-word reflection that answers the following questions:
1. What is theChristian view of the nature of human persons, and which theory of moral status is it compatible with? How is this related to the intrinsic human value and dignity?
2. Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? What from the case study specifically leads you to believe that they hold the theory you selected?
3. How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendations for action?
4. What theory do you agree with? Why? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?
Remember to support your responses with the topic Resources.
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.
PHI-413V-RS-T2CaseStudyFetalAbnormality.docx Case Study: Fetal Abnormality
Jessica is a 30-year-old immigrant from Mexico City. She and her husband Marco have been in the United States for the last three years and have finally earned enough money to move out of their Aunt Marias home and into an apartment of their own. They are both hard workers. Jessica works 50 hours a week at a local restaurant and Marco has been contracting side jobs in construction. Six months before their move to an apartment, Jessica finds out she is pregnant.
Four months later, Jessica and Marco arrive at the county hospital, a large, public, nonteaching hospital. A preliminary ultrasound indicates a possible abnormality with the fetus. Further scans are conducted, and it is determined that the fetus has a rare condition in which it has not developed any arms and will not likely develop them. There is also a 25% chance that the fetus may have Down syndrome.
Dr. Wilson, the primary attending physician, is seeing Jessica for the first time, since she and Marco did not receive earlier prenatal care over concerns about finances. Marco insists that Dr. Wilson refrain from telling Jessica the scan results, assuring him that he will tell his wife himself when she is emotionally ready for the news. While Marco and Dr. Wilson are talking in another room, Aunt Maria walks into the room with a distressed look on her face. She can tell that something is wrong and inquires of Dr. Wilson. After hearing of the diagnosis, she walks out of the room wailing loudly and praying aloud.
Marco and Dr. Wilson continue their discussion, and Dr. Wilson insists that he has an obligation to Jessica as his patient and that she has a right to know the diagnosis of the fetus. He furthermore is intent on discussing all relevant factors and options regarding the next step, including abortion. Marco insists on taking some time to think of how to break the news to Jessica, but Dr. Wilson, frustrated with the direction of the conversation, informs the husband that such a choice is not his to make. Dr. Wilson proceeds back across the hall, where he walks in on Aunt Maria awkwardly praying with Jessica and phoning the priest. At that point, Dr. Wilson gently but briefly informs Jessica of the diagnosis and lays out the option for abortion as a responsible medical alternative, given the quality of life such a child would have. Jessica looks at him and struggles to hold back her tears.
Jessica is torn between her hopes of a better socioeconomic position and increased independence, along with her conviction that all life is sacred. Marco will support Jessica in whatever decision she makes but is finding it difficult not to view the pregnancy and the prospects of a disabled child as a burden and a barrier to their economic security and plans. Dr. Wilson lays out all of the options but clearly makes his view known that abortion is scientifically and medically a wise choice in this situation. Aunt Maria pleads with Jessica to follow through with the pregnancy and allow what God intends to take place and urges Jessica to think of her responsibility as a mother.
2020. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
image1.jpeg Case Study on Moral Status – Rubric
Collapse AllRubric CriteriaCollapse All
Christian View of the Nature of Human Persons and Compatible Theory of Moral Status
Christian View of the Nature of Human Persons and Compatible Theory of Moral Status
Explanation of the Christian view of the nature of human persons and the theory of moral status that it is compatible with is clear, thorough, and explained with a deep understanding of the relationship to intrinsic human value and dignity. Explanation is supported by topic study materials.
Determination of Moral Status
Determination of Moral Status
The theory or theories that are used by each person to determine the moral status of the fetus is explained clearly and draws insightful relevant conclusions. Rationale for choices made is clearly supported by topic study materials and case study examples.
Recommendation for Action
Recommendation for Action
Explanation of how the theory determines or influences each of their recommendations for action is clear, insightful, and demonstrates a deep understanding of the theory and its impact on recommendation for action. Explanation is supported by topic study materials.
Personal Response to Case Study
Personal Response to Case Study
Evaluation of which theory is preferable within personal practice along with how that theory would influence personal recommendations for action is clear, relevant, and insightful.
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format
Organization, Effectiveness, and Format
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Documentation of Sources
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total200points God, Humanity, and Human DignityBy Nathan H. White
“Great are you, O Lord, and exceedingly worthy of praise; your power is immense, and your wisdom beyond reckoning. And so we humans, who are a due part of your creation, long to praise youwe who carry our mortality about with us, carry the evidence of our sin and with it the proof that you thwart the proud. Yet these humans, due part of your creation as they are, still do long to praise you. You stir us so that praising you may bring us joy, because you have made us and drawn us to yourself, and our heart is unquiet until it rests in you.” (St. Augustine, trans. 2001)
What does it mean to be a human being?
Why does a human being have value?
What is meant by the concept of personhood?
What are the practical implications for the value of human beings within a health care context?
Humankinds restless heart is an invitation to be involved with the human endeavor and particularly with those who are sick and dying. In caring for other human beings while loving God, human hearts may feel flooded with the fulfilling praises of God. Those called as nurses can praise God through their hands, bodies, minds, hearts, and spirit, and will make decisions that may decide life and death. They may even help others find salvation. St. Augustine writes, “My heart is listening, Lord; open the ears of my heart and say to my soul, I am your salvation” (St. Augustine, trans 2001). This chapter will address why nurses carry this care to others based upon the Christian belief that every human being is made in the image of God.
One of the main hallmarks of the medical profession is its interpersonal nature. Medicine is, if nothing else, a very human profession. A nurse gives medicine, offers comfort to a dying patient, educates patients about their diseases, and walks with patients through their medical treatment. Interpersonal caring defines the experience of the profession. Throughout history, health care professionals have acknowledged and celebrated the compassionate nature of nursing as its motivation and foundation.
Although the vocation of nursing centers around caring for other human beings, medical professionals often do not stop to ask why they are doing what they are doing or what it is about another human being that warrants the kind of involved, and often difficult, care that nurses provide day in and day out. In seeking answers to these questions, the inherent value of human beings becomes apparent. Nurses frequently empathize with others and want to do the best for them, and this is to be applauded. Yet primarily, the Christian belief that human beings are created in the
image of God
imago Dei, undergirds the value and dignity of every human being simply because of his or her existence. This belief suggests certain practical implications in a range of contemporary health care issues, such as abortion, in vitro fertilization, the definition of death, and euthanasia. This chapter will begin to address many of these topics by looking at ways that science, philosophy, and theology have attempted to answer them.
What Does It Mean to Be a Person?
While the question What does it mean to be a person? may at first seem to be a straightforward question, scientists, philosophers, and theologians still debate the answer. Some perceive a
to be only a physical body with a brain dependent on the body. This is called
. Others suggest that each person has a body and a
. This is termed
. Some have more complicated understandings of the human person that identify the significance of characteristics, such as reason and the search for meaning, that separate human persons from other living organisms. Each of these descriptions of a person understands a human being in a different way. In the field of health care, how health care professionals approach what it means to be a person uniquely informs treatment options.
For example, if a physician perceives a human as having an eternal soul, practitioners will craft treatment that involves this spiritual reality. If a person is understood as having only a physical body, treatment will focus entirely on these options. Every nurse already approaches a patient with an idea of what a person is, and the goal of this chapter is to raise awareness of the reality of the personhood that lies within every patient.
At its most basic level, being a person means that an individual has inherent worth. The person possesses moral, ethical, and legal rights that a nonperson does not have. Generally, in the Christian tradition, personhood has been understood as a substantive nature that all human beings possess. A person may also possess certain traits, such as faith, reason, moral capacity, and consciousness, that enable deep mutual relationality with other persons, including God. In the Christian understanding, personhood is inherent to human beings and is not merely based upon recognition of certain capacities, such as reason, moral capacity, and consciousness.
Worldview and the Question of Personhood
Worldview significantly impacts the understanding of what it is to be human and to be an individual person. Some believe that God or a transcendent source gives human beings value. Alternatively, another may understand humankind as simply being at the top of the food chain, within the closed system of natural selection. Yet an individual who believes in the existence of God would find God’s nature to be of primary importance for understanding what it means to be human. On the other hand, an individual who subscribes to the worldview described as scientism would assume that science can completely answer the question of what it means to be human. In each of these cases, the question of personhood is not primarily a scientific one, but rather a philosophical one.
Additionally, an individual’s worldview about personhood directly influences decisions regarding the care and treatment of patients. Nurses and other health care professionals may think that beliefs and actions separate easily into different boxes without mutual interaction. In reality, beliefs and assumptions about the world significantly shape interactions with the world. This is easily seen in health care situations. If belief in God shapes understanding of personhood, a nurse may display his or her faith determining the care that is needed based on personal and professional perception as well as listening attentively to the patient. If a practitioner perceives a person as being only a physical body, personal interaction with patients and health care considerations may remain at the level of basic physical care.
For example, in the context of palliative care, what constitutes a human person may help decide when to withhold or withdraw treatment from a patient. If quality of life is assumed to be the only consideration for care, treatment could be withdrawn too early before other methods of comfort care are considered. Alternatively, the Christian worldview makes it clear that every human being is approached as being made in the image of God and worthy not only of quality care for physical ailments, but also of complete care for both body and soul.
The Metaphysical Question: What Kind of Thing Is a Human Person?
The Bible describes the need to reverently consider the mystery of the human person. Some 3,000 years ago, the writer of the Psalms, prayerfully reflecting on the finitude of humanity and the mystery of God’s relation to human beings, wrote, “what is man that you aremindful of him,andthe son of man that youcare for him?” (Psalm 8:4 English Standard Version). Yet the psalmist does not specifically relate what is so special about human beings or what about
separates them from other creatures.
In the postmodern health care situation, nurses will find many understandings of the human person suggested by other professionals and patients. For example, some philosophers, such as Hume, have hypothesized that human beings are only a collection of perceptions. Some, such as Searle, say humans are the creators of their own reality, while others, such as Wittgenstein, say that human beings might not exist at all. All these viewpoints may exist in the health care setting. Yet within the Christian religious tradition, human beings themselves are inherently deserving of dignity and respect.
Because, in creation, God made human beings in his image, personhood has a transcendent origin; therefore,
should be recognized and valued in all human beings. Practically, the truth of human dignity calls forth respectful treatment from others. For instance, people who consider themselves as having dignity would not let others treat them in a demeaning or degrading manner, but rather would consider themselves as being worth more than such treatment would suggest. Thus, individuals would look at themselves as being inherently valuable and deserving of proper treatment.
Dignity logically relates to the concept of human rights. People rightly view abuses against human rights, such as genocide, as being among the worst kind of offenses. But the exact nature of these human rights is not clear. The U.S. Declaration of Independence suggests that human rights refer to the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” but others may consider human rights as being more or less than this. For instance, some consider the right to life as the most primary of human rights, while others recently have included access to high-speed Internet as a human right (Human Rights Council, 2016). The range of viewpoints is quite staggering. Unless practitioners can determine the source of these rights, whether from God or elsewhere, then there is little reason to ascribe rights to human beings any more than to any other entity.
A medical professional’s beliefs about what constitutes a human being significantly impact actions when caring for a sick or dying patient. The person of Christian faith sees the human being as a creation of God. In the Bible, the psalmist wrote as a prayer to God, “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well” (Psalm 139:14a). Clearly, in the psalmist’s view, human beings have a special relationship to their Creator who made them in such an extraordinary way. The relationship of human beings to God and to other creatures is, then, of utmost importance.
Scientific Classification: Human Persons in Relation to Other Species
The scientific classification system, based on the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s thought, divides up entities into various categories based upon observed traits. The basic differentiation is between the nonliving or the living, with further differentiation into categories such as animal or plant, vertebrate or invertebrate. In regard to human beings, the
Homo sapiens, such classification labels describe shared characteristics between human beings and other animals. This is helpful to describe what a human being is like, but this does not, in the end, provide an answer regarding what kind of thing a human being is. For instance, it cannot not explain why human beings have particular characteristics, such as reason, emotion, or spirituality.
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, the originator of the naturalistic theory of evolution, attempted to explain human existence without reference to a divine being. Naturalistic evolution has roots in this system of taxonomy and views the law of survival as the driving force behind the onward movement of life itself. Naturalistic evolution, though, fails to answer some questions fully, such as why human beings exist or how nonphysical phenomena, such as consciousness, arose from purely physical origins.
Published in 1859, the full title of Darwin’s book is quite telling as to its thesis: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Human beings, in this understanding, are the most advanced form of life on earth, but are not the ultimate end to evolutionary progress. One implication of this viewpoint is that continued human enhancement is not only acceptable but is almost mandated in the onward march of progress. Another implication follows from this: Human beings are merely one stop in nature’s continuing development in the evolution of living things. Yet if human beings are not different kinds of things than a beetle, then there is little ethical reason that they should not both be treated in a similar manner. If it is ethically justified to kill a beetle, naturalistic evolution provides little justification for not treating other organisms, including human beings, likewise. In their assessment of justified ethical treatment for animals, some
ethicists, such as Peter Singer (1975), argue animals should receive just as much consideration as humans.
Some individuals ascribe to belief in theistic evolution, wherein God is understood to have created all that exists but chose to use the process of evolution to develop the world to what it is today. This approach resolves some fundamental difficulties with a naturalistic account of evolution, but it also may raise other difficulties.
In naturalistic evolution, the existence of phenomena such as the soul, ideas, conscience, and love are either created by physical factors, such as brain chemistry, that assist to aid survival or do not exist at all. For example, philosopher Richard Rorty (1982) wrote, “There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves, no criterion that we have not created in the course of creating a practice, no standard of rationality that is not an appeal to such a criterion, no rigorous argumentation that is not obedience to our own conventions” (p. xlii). Thinking, emotions, faith, and self-awareness, then, come merely as a means of aiding physical survival.
This is a form of reductionism called physicalism
in which human persons are treated as nothing but physical material. This reductionism is an implication of scientism, and it has negative effects in health care because it reduces human beings to merely a system of physical phenomena rather than multifaceted beings who should be cared for holistically. In contrast to reductionism, dualism is a viewpoint that sees human beings as complex entities consisting of multiple levels; therefore, dualism offers a foundation for understanding human thinking, emotional awareness, and spiritual reality.
The characteristics that differentiate human beings from other living species are nonphysical realities, such as mind, soul, or
. Dualism views the human person as being made of both the physical body and nonphysical realities, such as the soul. The soul is intricately connected with the body but is not identical to the body and continues after the physical death of the body. In the history of Christian thought, some thinkers also regard the human person as being comprised of body, soul, and spirit. Theologians and philosophers debate exactly what constitutes the nonphysical reality of human beings, with much debate even about the existence of the human mind. The contents of belief regarding nonphysical phenomena may differ, but that such a reality exists is affirmed by many.
In recent years, empirical research has supported the reality of human transcendent phenomena. Modern research has shown the efficacy of nonphysical, even spiritual, elements in creating beneficial medical outcomes (Koenig, King, & Carson, 2012). Many medical studies have demonstrated that spiritual and religious activities, such as prayer, religious service attendance, and meditation, have positive health outcomes. Alternatively, spiritual maladies, such as unforgiveness and anger, have corresponding negative physical health outcomes. Additionally, other nonphysical phenomena that are not specifically related to spirituality, such as expectation, reappraisal, and worldview, have been shown to have significant effects upon physical outcomes, including the experience of pain (Tracey, 2010; Wiech, Farias, Kahane, Shackel, Tiede, & Tracey, 2008).
Many Christians and other religions believe that a spiritual reality exists beyond the physical; this spiritual reality interfaces with the physical realm, but it is also separate from it. In this understanding, the human being is more than a body, and some part of the human being can survive physical death. As an example, in this view, the human mind is separate from the human brain, though the mind interfaces with and is in some way dependent on the brain; therefore, damage to the human brain can influence expression of the human mind, but it does not eradicate or permanently damage the mind, the soul, or the human being.
The Question of Value?
Many medical professionals perceive human beings as being inherently valuable and see belief in God as being foundational to their work. They want to ensure the care of other human beings because each person would want to receive such care. This attitude has been summed up in the Golden Rule: “The second is this:’You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandmentgreater than these” (Mark 12:31).
Human beings seem to implicitly recognize some aspects of right and wrong, including the inherent value and worth of human beings. For instance, C. S. Lewis in
The Abolition of Man(Lewis, 1944/2001) identifies the reality of consistent moral standards across diverse cultures around the world. Murder, rape, and kidnapping are almost universally regarded as wrong.
Mauthausen survivors cheer the soldiers of the 11th Armored Division of the U.S. Army one day after their actual liberation. The banner reads: “The Spanish Anti-Fascists Salute the Liberating Forces.” Photo courtesy of National Archives and Records Administration, College Park.
Value and ethical judgments such as these seem to indicate that human beings have a different status from other creatures. This suggests that human beings should not be treated in degrading ways. A significant 20th-century example lies in the war crimes the Nazis perpetrated against millions of Jews, Gypsies, and others they deemed undesirable. In the Nuremberg Doctor’s Trial following World War II, Nazi doctors were charged with crimes against humanity for the genocide and medical experiments they conducted on innocent victims. Significantly, the Nuremberg Code that came out of this tribunal set the basic standards for ethical treatment of human beings in medical and research practice. Standard medical concepts, such as informed consent, have their origin in this document. Additionally, in the aftermath of World War II, the United Nations (1948) made a landmark declaration in the history of humanity regarding “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” (para. 1).
Viktor Frankl (1973), a Jewish psychiatrist who survived the Holocaust, later wrote:
The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environmentor, as the Nazis liked to say, of blood and soil. I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. (p. xii)
If human beings are worthy of any dignity and respect, then reasons for arriving at this conclusion must exist. In general, there are two ways of reasoning why human beings have value: a functional view of value and an essentialist view of value.
Functional View of Value
According to the
functional view of human value
, a person’s abilities determine the value of that person. For example, a person who has highly developed rational thinking abilities may be seen as valuable and important to society. Or a nurse’s ability to educate patients about diabetes or to comfort dying patients will be understood rightly as making a beneficial contribution.
The problem with functionalism lies in the very logic it uses. By making human worth contingent upon function, it becomes arbitrary. A person with deficits in rational thinking abilities may be thought of as less valuable than the person with these abilities; a person without emotional and social awareness may be perceived as less than other people. Philosophers call this understanding of a person an
or instrumental perspective because it relies on external criteria for determining a person’s worth. For instance, society could decide the value of a person depending on his or her actions, abilities, and contributions, though the assessment of these valuations may change. Alternatively, an
view of value views human beings as inherently having worth regardless of abilities.
In Nazi Germany, for instance, a functional view of the value of persons led to the extermination of the disabled and handicapped. Yet even insulting and degrading those with whom one disagrees can also be a subtle form of dehumanization. Others may be seen as impersonal adversaries rather than human beings with feelings, families, and inherent worth. Even considering a patient as a number or a symptom rather than holistically as a human being is itself a type of dehumanization.
Sadly, this extrinsic perspective can be applied to patients without their awareness of this judgment. For example, if a patient goes through an unsuccessful medical procedure that leads to extensive brain damage, his or her family must decide about whether to continue treatment or let their loved one die without intervention. According to the functional understanding, because the patients brain functioning is now diminished, it would follow that the patients value is also diminished.
In another example, when a fetus appears to have few functional abilities, the value of this fetus may be diminished in the view of the family. This process of perceiving people at any stage of life as valuable based on their level of functionality can lead to dehumanization, in which others see the nonfunctioning person as a thing to be manipulated and even destroyed.
Essentialist View of Value
essentialist view of human value
regards humans as themselves being intrinsically worthy of value. In contrast to an extrinsic view, an intrinsic viewpoint regards human beings as having inherent value apart from any external benefits or valuations.
The essentialist viewpoint is compatible with Christian belief and undergirds most approaches to Christian ethics. This is why many Christians believe that abortion, euthanasia, and genocide are morally wrong because they all are instances of killing a human being who has inherent value simply by virtue of being human. The kind of care consistent with the essentialist view of persons is seen in medical professionals providing hospice care for the dying. In this view, patients dignity and worth are recognized throughout as they near the end of their earthly lives.
Another example of the practical implications of an essentialist view of human value is the care given to individuals with mental handicaps. Christians believe that people with severe mental deficits still deserve moral and ethical treatment as fellow human beings. Yet in a functionalist view of human value, the affording of equal value to disabled persons makes little sense because these individuals do not have the same level of functioning as other human beings. The essentialist view of human value, by regarding human beings as of worth beyond simply the functions that they are able to perform, has significant practical implications in medical practice.
Respect for Persons
This brief survey of thought about human beings has argued that persons have special worth that is bestowed by God. This value is part of the substance of what it means to be a human being. This is how, in essence, a person is very different from a thing. A thing can be used and manipulated; however, personhood suggests that people ought to relate mutually with one another in an ethical, moral, and respectful manner. To be a person, then, in part, is to have the ability to be in relationship with God and others. Human beings have the grace-filled gift of relating to God and to others,
Spencer W. Duck is single and lives at 321 Hickory Drive in Ames, Iowa 86701.
His eight-year-old son, Mitch, lives with him nine months of the year in Spencers
rented condominium. Mitch lives with his mother, Daisy – Spencer’s ex-wife,
during the summer months. His mother provides half of Mitch’s support and
Spencer has agreed to allow her to claim Mitch as her dependent. Spencer was
awarded custody of Mitch.
Spencer has the following items pertaining to his 2020 Federal income tax return:
Spencer is age 35 (SSN: 333-22-1111). Mitch is age 10. (SSN: 111-23-
4567). Other than Mitch, Spencer has no children.
As an information technology specialist, Spencer receives a $195,000
salary from his employer (World Electronics, LLC), who withheld $35,300
in federal income tax.
He paid $18,000 in alimony to his ex-wife (Daisy, SSN: 222-44-5555).
They were divorced in 2017. The divorce decree was finalized in 2018
and requires Spencer to pay alimony.
He received a state income tax refund in 2021 of $3,500 for state income
taxes withheld in 2020. Last year (2020), he used the standard deduction
when completing his 2020 Federal income tax return.
In 2021, he had state income tax withheld from his wages of $8,200.
o Alcon Corporation bond interest income $7,600
o City of Drake bond interest income $7,000
o Pear Corporation Dividend (qualified) $4,500
o South Lake Mutual Fund
Capital Gain Distribution $900
Ordinary Dividend (qualified) $950
Gambling winnings from playing the slot machines: $15,000. Gambling
losses – $2,000. Spencers nickname is The Lucky Duck.
Spencer had the following capital asset transactions in 2021:
o On March 1, 2021, land was sold for $36,000. The land was
received as a property settlement on January 10, 2018, when the
land’s FMV was $32,000. His ex-wife’s basis for the land,
purchased on January 10, 2002, was $28,500.
o A personal-use computer acquired on March 2, 2020 for $4,000
was sold for $1,580 on July 10, 2021.
o A membership card for a prestigious Ames City country club was
sold for $10,500 on August 15, 2021. The card was acquired on
October 10, 2016, for $6,000.
o On August 16, 2021, Spencer sold for $3,700 his 10 shares of York
Corporation purchased as an investment on February 16, 2021 for
First Income Tax Return Project Acct 3315 -005 (Fall Semester 2022) – P a g e | 4
o On March 15, 2021, Spencer sold for $6,500 an antique watch fob.
The fob was a gift from his grandfather on January 10, 2001, when
its FMV was $1,000. The fob was purchased by his grandfather on
April 2, 1981 for $1,500.
o 10 shares of Texsun Industries, Inc. stock held as an investment
were sold for $26,000 on December 5, 2021. The securities were
inherited from his uncle, who died on April 10, 2017 when the fair
market value of the securities was $19,000. The uncle purchased
the securities on January 10, 2014, for $15,700.
o Purchased 10 stock options for Krispy Kreme Company common
stock on February 14, 2021 which expired on October 1, 2021. The
options cost $850 and were allowed to expire.
o He has a short-term capital loss carryover of $550 into 2021.
Mitch has interest income of $2,000 from a Bank of Ames certificate of
deposit which his mother put in his name. Neither Spencer, Daisy nor
Mitch want Mitch to file a separate tax return and elect to include the
interest income on the appropriate parents tax return.
Other than those items listed above, Spencer had no other items of
income or itemized deductions. Spencer also has no foreign bank
accounts nor other foreign assets or financial interests. He also had no
cryptocurrency transactions in 2021.
Complete Form 1040 and accompanying schedules for Spencer W. Ducks
Federal income tax return for the 2021 tax year. Use all rates and deductions,
that are applicable for 2021. Ignore all credits, the alternative minimum tax, net
investment income tax and any applicable penalties. Do consider the child tax
credit. If you believe that the child tax credit is applicable, then use the rules for
2022 in determining the amount of the child tax credit.
In filling out Form 8949, all transactions will have box (C) or (F) checked. There
is no need to fill-out more than one Form 8949. No codes are required for the
You may make-up any personal information for Spencer, Daisy, or Mitch not
contained in this project.