Students in this clip are developing the skills for APT. They jump from one point to the next, and do not consistently press on ideas as they will do later in the year. Nevertheless, in five minutes, they make a number of arguments from very different perspectives, all of which are relevant for public policy on the topic: 

• from a constitutional standpoint: if you have the right to life, you have the right to end that life; 
• from a professional standpoint: Does it jeopardize the professional role of the doctor if they intentionally end a patient’s life? And is it the doctor’s role to save life or to support happiness—whether that means living or dying?
• from a circumstantial standpoint: might a person in pain make a decision at one moment that they would regret at another moment because the experience of that pain is so overwhelming? And, might that person have every right to make such a decision to avoid overwhelming pain if impending death from the disease is certain?
• from a relational standpoint: does the family have a right to be part of the decision to prevent the patient from doing something rash?
• from a legal standpoint: should physician-assisted suicide be acceptable as long as the patient signs a legal document in advance?

While none of these points is fully developed, students listen to and are prodded by their classmates to take different perspectives and to be more precise (the right to take your own life, not someone else’s; the doctor is killing you, but you asked the doctor to do it). 

These students are studying civics in eighth grade social studies. They will be expected to master content regarding the founding documents, the three branches of the U.S. government, how a bill becomes a law, and the division of responsibilities between federal and state governments. The opportunity to engage in discussion, even for the brief time shown in this video clip, allows students to move from being passive receivers of information about the mechanisms of governance to becoming active participants in discussion of a social issue that will be decided by their representatives, allowing them to see the personal relevance of the structures of our democracy. 

There are four different views (associated with characters in the text) about whether it was okay to break the rule in this case because the boy’s intentions were good. Each of the debating students represents one of those views. 

While the question of intentionality pervades legal arguments in courtrooms at every level of our judicial system, we see in this classroom that students as young as 4th grade are very capable of engaging with precisely this issue. When the issue is made relevant to them, as with another 4th grade student straying from the path in a national park and picking flowers for his sick mother in violation of the park regulations, students are able to think in very nuanced ways. Any of us who have parked illegally to do a quick errand, or chosen to go through a redlight in the middle of the night when no other car was in sight, is familiar with the impulse to use our own judgment, knowing we might have to accept the consequences (paying a fine) if caught. But stealing from someone else or punching someone on the street who offends us is in a different category because, whether or not we are willing to take the consequences, we have done harm to others. These 4th graders are able to argue about this nuance.  On one hand, picking a few is not a big deal if you’re willing to take the consequences if you’re caught. On the other hand, the bees need flowers for survival and you are taking (stealing) something that deprives them. 

The debate among the students may lead a casual observer to imagine that one or more of these students will end up in law school. But whether or not that turns out to be true, we can be fairly certain that these students will tune into the issues regarding the enforcement of regulations and the treatment of others who break a rule when they become voting adults. And they will be practiced at thinking carefully about their views and at expressing them to others.