Lopeswrite Graphics

  1315 Words undefined4 Similarity Score   0% Quoted Text 2 Citation Items 21 Grammar Items CITATION OPTIONS
  • Web References
  • School Repository
  • Self Plagiarism
GRAMMAR OPTIONS
  • Grammar
  • Style
  • Spelling
  • Spelling Duplicates
Grand Canyon University LopesWrite Feedback Center Zeena John EthicalDilemma.docx Summary Submission Id: 88a753d6-c610-4bb3-a093-fc9d3a3a8b3c   1315 Words   4% SIMILARITY SCORE        2   CITATION ITEMS        21   GRAMMAR ISSUES          Internet Source   4% Institution   0% Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA 1 ETHICAL DILEMMA 6 Ethical Dilemma Student Name: Zeena John Course: HLT 520 Instructor: Dr. Wendy Whitner, PhD, MPH Date: 03-27-19 Ethical Dilemma Physicians are often faced in ethical dilemmas in their line of duty. Ethical Decision making is needed when healthcare professionals are required to address a conflicting or uncertain issues regarding competing values. As indicated by Holt, Sarmento, Kett and Goodman (2018), physicians must consider principles of ethics like beneficence, justice, autonomy and non-maleficence as well as the ethical standards of their organization and their profession. Ethical dilemmas can stem from cases of unconscious patient with a DNR tattoo to the critical and emergency care physicians who were in charge of the patient. These physicians followed questionable recommendations from the consultants of ethics. The patient had no known identity, he was taken to the emergency department while in a critical condition, and unconscious. He had a “Do Not Resuscitate” tattoo on his anterior chest, and even a signature that goes with the tattoo. The health care team made a decision not to bother with the tattoo but the decision was later reversed after consultations were made with the ethics consultants. The agreement over the tattoo was that the tattoo could be representing authentic preferences of the patient. A case like this raises an ethical dilemma; should the patient be resuscitated against their will as seen on the tattoo, or should the health attendants honor the tattoo? An ethical dilemma situation must meet three conditions (Holt, Sarmento, Kett & Goodman, 2018). The first condition is in a case where an individual or ‘agent’ has to decide on the best course of action. These ethical dilemmas have to offer options; they should not be hard or create uncomfortable situations which do not have alternatives. About the DNR patient, the health care team could decide to either resuscitate the patient or follow what his tattoo said. There should also be different courses of actions to choose from. In this case, there were two choices, to save or not to save the DNR patient. This is a hard decision to make for any person involved. The last condition is that regardless of the course of action taken, there will be a compromise of the ethical principles. Following the statement written on the tattoo would see a loss of life, amidst the chance to save him. However, trying to resuscitate the patient will be against the will expressed in the tattoo, and there is no information as to why it is written not to resuscitate him. In determining the constituents of an ethical dilemma, a distinction has to be made between ethics, laws, policies, values, and morals (Holt, Sarmento, Kett & Goodman, 2018). Ethics are the standards used to determine what is right and what is wrong. They rely on rational and logical criteria for a decision to be made given that it is a cognitive process (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009). Values are the things or ideas an individual value, and these values are associated with feelings (Allen & Friedman, 2010). Morals are the codes of conduct of behavior ascribed by an individual, used to strengthen relationships (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009). Agency policies and laws are commonly applied in complex cases and it is the obligation of the healthcare attendants to take a particular ethical course of action. There is a difference between personal ethics and professional ethics and values. Values are personal and involve feelings, and cannot be used in solving an ethical dilemma. After joining a profession, in this case as a medical care provider, a person agrees to follow the standards of that profession, together with the code of ethics and values. In the case of a patient with the DNR tattoo, ethics and professional values have to be given a priority. One important principle of ethics that must be put into consideration by the emergency physician states that withdrawing and withholding the treatments to sustain life are seen as equivalent in ethics. Therefore, when a physician is in a dilemma with regard to the wishes of the patient, he/she should take the initiative step of saving he patient’s life. When more information is obtained, the physician can deescalate the care of the patient in the appropriate way according to their initial preferences. Also, in the field of medicine, a physician should review ACP (advance care planning), which has two primary forms (Vearrier, 2018). These forms are; life-sustaining treatment being ordered by physician and advanced directives (AD). ADs can be completed at any time during a person’s life to appoint a surrogate decider or to guide future care. This legal document (AD) has to be filled by the person himself or herself in the presence of a witness. POLST forms, are orders from a physician for the care for a life about to end that can be taken to other health care facilities. The documents are only for the individuals with serious illness or those critically ill and could help in the surrogate. The tattoo saying “Do Not Resuscitate” is therefore neither legal nor ethical enough because of some reasons. First, tattoos are not supposed to be in the legal considerations of POLST or ADs, and it has neither a witness nor notary. Therefore, it cannot be used as a wearable AD or to finish legal documentation. The second reason is that the medical providers cannot presume informed decision-making, no evidence exists showing that tattoos have a clear understanding of the patients DNR status. (Vearrier, 2018). Also, the tattoo has no enough guiding information to decide an intervention. Lastly, a lot of people, more than 50%, who have tattoos regret having them. The above information does not, however, mean that the data should be ignored. The AD and POLST documents could not be available when the health care attendants are deciding on crucial issues. A way of communicating should be included in the crucial decision-making process (Vearrier, 2018). When evaluating the merits and challenges of the procedures of healthcare, bioethics is used to refer to the principles of medical ethics. For any practice to be referred to as ethical, it has to conform to the four principles including justice, autonomy, non-maleficence, and autonomy. The first principle is autonomy; where a patient is required to make informed and un-manipulated action and intention when deciding about their healthcare. A patient should be aware of all the benefits and risk of a medical procedure and the success likelihood. In this case, the patient was unconscious. The patient did not have a relative and he never spoke his mind apart from the tattoo. The second is justice, where treatment is distributed to all groups equally. Health care provider should distribute scarce resources fairly. Following this method, the tattoo patient could be revived in the same manner as other emergency cases handled in the facility. The third concept is beneficence; it demands the provision of medical procedure with the intention of benefitting the patient. It demands maintenance and development of skills and knowledge, striving for net benefit. The last principle is non-maleficence. This ethical concept requires that a procedure should not harm the involved patient or others. The physicians ought to use the aforementioned procedures to guide in making a decision regarding what is best for the patient. Autonomy states that a patient has the right to have control of his body, but since there is no accompanying relatives, the patient could not express himself. I would also do everything possible to keep the patient alive. I would also employ non-maleficence to guide the treatment process; this makes the patient’s recovery process more effective. References Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7 (2). Retrieved from http://www.socialworker.com/jswve. Dolgoff, R., Lowenberg, F. M., & Harrington, D. (2009). Ethical decisions for social work practice (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole. Holt G. E, Sarmento B., Kett D., & Goodman K. W. (2018). An unconscious patient with a DNR tattoo. N Eng J Med. 2017;377:2192-2193. Social Worker (2014) What is an ethical dilemma? Retrieved from https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics- articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilemma%3F/ Vearrier L. (2018) Do Not Resuscitate tattoos: Are they valid? ACEONow. Retrieved from https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not-resuscitate-tattoos-are-they-valid/ Grammatical problem: Instructor Grammatical problem: Instructor Possible agreement error. The noun 'Instructor' seems to be countable, so consider using: " instructors " . Three successive sentences begin...: Ethical Three successive sentences begin with the same word.: Ethical Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Consider rewording the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym. Web Content: http://tacfs.org/resources/Documents/2015_D1-E1_Nisenbaum_TWO_120.pdf Web Content: http://tacfs.org/resources/Documents/2015_D1-E1_Nisenbaum_TWO_120.pdf Spelling mistake: Dolgoff Logoff Spelling mistake: Dolgoff Logoff Possible spelling mistake found Spelling mistake: Loewenberg Rosenberg Spelling mistake: Loewenberg Rosenberg Loewenberg Lederberg Possible spelling mistake found Spelling mistake: Dolgoff Logoff Spelling mistake: Dolgoff Logoff Possible spelling mistake found Spelling mistake: Loewenberg Rosenberg Spelling mistake: Loewenberg Rosenberg Loewenberg Lederberg Possible spelling mistake found in the case of (abou...: In the case of About in the case of (about, to): In the case of About In the case of To Change to "about" or "to" and change the word order of the sentence. with/in reference to...: with regard to about with/in reference to, with/in regard to (about, of, on, for, concerning, regarding): with regard to about with regard to of with regard to for with regard to concerning Replace with shorter "about", "of", " on", "for", "concerning", or " regarding". Statistically detect wrong use of ...: he the Statistically detect wrong use of words that are easily confused: he the Statistics suggests that 'the' might be the correct word here. Please check. obtain (get): obtained get obtain (get): obtained get Did you mean simpler "get"? Spelling mistake: Vearrier Earlier Spelling mistake: Vearrier Earlier Vearrier Carrier Vearrier Barrier Vearrier Terrier Vearrier Valerie Vearrier Perrier Possible spelling mistake found Web Content: https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not-resuscitate-tattoos-are-they-valid/ Web Content: https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not-resuscitate-tattoos-are-they-valid/ Passive voice: treatment being ordered by Passive voice: treatment being ordered by Change from passive to active voice? Example: "Instruments are played by her." can be changed to "She plays instruments." Spelling mistake: ADs Ads Spelling mistake: ADs Ads ADs AD s ADs CDs Possible spelling mistake found Passive voice: are not supposed to be Passive voice: are not supposed to be Change from passive to active voice? Example: "He is said to be happy." could be changed to "The people said that he was happy." if you can define who/what performed the action. Spelling mistake: ADs Ads Spelling mistake: ADs Ads ADs AD s ADs CDs Possible spelling mistake found Spelling mistake: Vearrier Earlier Spelling mistake: Vearrier Earlier Vearrier Carrier Vearrier Barrier Vearrier Terrier Vearrier Valerie Vearrier Perrier Possible spelling mistake found Spelling mista...: un-manipulated manipulated Spelling mistake: un-manipulated manipulated Possible spelling mistake found comma between ...: relative and relative, and comma between independent clauses: relative and relative, and Use a comma before 'and' if it connects two independent clauses (unless they are closely connected and short). Spelling mistake: benefitting benefiting Spelling mistake: benefitting benefiting benefitting benefit ting Possible spelling mistake found Legal jargon referri...: aforementioned these Legal jargon referring to previous text: aforementioned these Legalese. Bad style in any normal text. Remove and explain. Use "this " or "these". accompany: accompanying go with accompany: accompanying go with accompanying with If not in musical context, use "go with" or "with".

Historical Speech Analysis Paper Exemplary Work Assignment - Rhetorical Criticism

Due Date: Refer to the syllabus

This speech is worth 200 points (100 points for the Writing Center meeting & 100 points for the paper) Students will select a culturally or historically exemplary speech. You will analyze the text of a historical speech of your choice and write a paper analyzing its use of the five canons of rhetoric – invention, arrangement, style, delivery and memory – which we discussed in class and is also covered in Chapter 2 of the textbook. When writing your analysis, consider the following questions:

1. What is the topic of the speech? What led this speaker to give that speech at that time? Who is the audience and what is the setting? Do some research to learn the context and current events of the day that the speech took place within. For example, what was going on at the time the speech was given and what was its purpose overall? What was the general purpose of the speech i.e. inform, persuade, entertain or commemorate? What was the specific purpose regarding cognitive effects, affective effects and behavioral effects. Be specific.

2. How was the speech organized? Could you identify the main points? How were the ideas connected? What were there transition statements? Be specific.

3. Address the style of the speech. Was the language casual or formal? Was it accessible to those we imagine were in the audience?

4. What delivery technique did the speaker use? Was that appropriate given the topic, the audience, the setting and the time period?

5. Do you think this was a successful speech? Did it accomplish its goals? If so, why? If not, why not?

Your goal is not to tell me what was in the speech – so and so said this - but to analyze and critically think about how what it is in the speech is, or is not, an example of the use of the 5 canons of rhetoric. For example you could write, MLK used the extemporaneous delivery technique in his “I Have a Dream” speech. This was appropriate because he was able to maintain some eye contact with the large audience and make use of hand gestures. Certainly you may quote the speech, but only to use that quote as an example of the use of one of the canons – to support your statement. If you need more help with this distinction, please ask me. Your analysis must be 3-5 pages, double-spaced. At the top of your first page list your name, the name of the speaker and the title of the speech. A cover page is not necessary. You must use at least 3 credible sources for this assignment. More is fine, less if not. The speech itself – in any format, like print and video – is one source. You need at least two others, like a newspaper or scholarly article, book or other source that addresses the speech in some way. Cite your sources using MLA style, both within the paper and at the end on a Works Cited page. (See the MCC library home page for an MLA guide). This assignment must be submitted via BlackBoard > Assignments folder > Historical Speech Analysis. The list of speeches from which you may choose this assignment will be distributed separately.

Historical Speech Analysis

Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel’s speech ‘The Perils of Indifference,' is presented as part of the Millennium Lecture Series at the White House, in the presence of then, President Bill Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton. His speech is mainly based on his own story and about the violence and indifference of the past and present. I analyzed this speech using the five canons of rhetoric: Invention, Disposition, Style, Memory, and Delivery. This speech addresses the five canons of rhetoric for an exceptional and powerful speech in the history.

Invention

A speech is inefficient if it does not have the relevant information to impact the audience positively. The canon of invention provides guidelines for creating your speech content (Jaffe 2016). This canon deals with the purpose and gathering of materials for the speech. Elie Wiesel chose a very sensitive topic for his speech. He gave a speech focusing on his own life, world wars, concentration camps and Nazism to make share his ideas. It is evident throughout the speech that Elie Wiesel considered his audience. He also questioned the President and the audience several times. At the beginning of the speech, he mentions and welcomes his audience by saying, “Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton, members of Congress, Ambassador Holbrooke, Excellencies, friends.” He had to be very careful as he is delivering a speech on a sensitive topic in front of government delegates. Although he complains about Franklin Delano Roosevelt about sending back Jews back to Nazi-occupied Germany, he is calm and humbly expressed his thoughts, analyzing the audience. He questions, “And that ship, which is already in the shores of the United States, is sent back. I don't understand. Roosevelt is a good man, with a heart. He understood those who needed help. Why didn't he allow these refugees to disembark?” He takes the audience back to the horrendous events from the past and conveys his vision for a better future, this part deals with the emotions of the audience and would instantly grab their attention. The general purpose of this speech is to inform. Elie Wiesel has done some immense research on the topics he is to present. He proves his research by stating facts, for example, he says, “It has been suggested, and it is documented, that the Wehrmacht could not have conducted its invasion of France without oil obtained from American sources.” The immense research is what makes the speech reliable.

Disposition

The credible information would be hard to interpret if the content is disorganized. After gathering all the information for the speech, organizing the information in a sensible way are components of the canon of disposition or arrangement. The canon of disposition involves the arrangement of speech into three broad categories: introduction, main-body, and conclusion. Elie Wiesel starts his speech by welcoming his guests, and the introduction consists of his own story where he talks about how he is saved by the American soldiers and thanks the president for his part. He says, “And now, I stand before you, Mr. President -- Commander-in-Chief of the army that freed me, and tens of thousands of others -- and I am filled with a profound and abiding gratitude to the American people.” He starts off with a personal example, to show his audience about how rough the past is due to the war and violence. The transition from the introduction to the body is smooth as he starts off by questioning the “legacy” of the past. The body starts off by various questions that puzzle the listeners and leaves the listeners craving for answers. For example, “What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue?” He talks about the indifference and its consequences. The body paragraph discusses mainly how a small indifference can change the life of a person. He gives two examples to prove his point. The first example is about his rescue from the Nazis and being a Nobel Laureate. Another example he gives in the speech about the 1,000 Jews who were denied entry into America and were sent back to Nazi-occupied Germany. He explains the different aspects of indifference. Examples connected the ideas of the speech. He connects the entire body with questions regarding the indifferences in people and about how it becomes inhumane. He says, “Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end…Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment.” He connects his ideas in a way that makes it easy for the listeners to understand. All his ideas are based on a word, i.e., “indifference.” By giving these examples, differences, and similarities, he grabs his audience’s attention towards him. The transition from the body to the conclusion is evident as he questions the listeners about whether or not we have learnt to become “human” from the past. The conclusion meets the rhetoric claims for an effective conclusion as he refers to the introduction and summarizes the main points in the speech. He says, “Some of them -- so many of them -- could be saved…And so, once again, I think of the young Jewish boy from the Carpathian Mountains. He has accompanied the old man I have become throughout these years of quest and struggle.” This also serves as a final memorable statement. The use of connectives and excellent organizational pattern throughout the speech is evident, and these ideas make this speech a great historical speech.

Style

Every speaker has their way or style of communicating. The canon of style contains principles for using language effectively in both speaking and writing (Jaffe, 2016). Elie Wiesel’s speech is well-written grammatically, and choice of vocabulary is flawless and very formal. Using concrete and straightforward words help the listeners understand easily. He chose right words in his speech and only some of the words were technical, and they were mostly, names of places. His choice of words is flawless, and he made sure he did not offend anyone in the audience. The major highlight in the speech is he gave the general definition of words like “indifference” and “gratitude,” which makes it easier for listeners to understand. He is being very careful of what he is saying since he chose a very sensitive topic. He used several figures of speech, for example, “…indifference is always the friend of the enemy…” He uses paradox in this line to convey an idea that indifference could indirectly affect us. He avoids slang expressions in his entire speech. Elie Wiesel’s speech is more like a conversation between him and his audience. Using a proper style has increased the credibility of the speaker and the ideas being conveyed.

Memory and Delivery

Although the previous three canons are important in speech making, the canon of memory and delivery is very important because it is these canons deals with conveying the speaker’s ideas to the audience. The canon of memory includes four methods of delivering speeches; they are memorized, manuscript, impromptu and extemporaneous delivery. Elie Wiesel read his speech from paper, which is called the manuscript delivery. It is the best method for delivering this type of speech because it involves a lot of examples and historical events. The canon of delivery is important because, this is the part where the audience look at the speaker, judge the content and grasp the ideas or concepts. This canon involves the rules or standards for presenting a speech (Jaffe, 2016). Elie Wiesel delivers his speech enthusiastically and with great energy. He genuinely had a conversation with the audience, had frequent eye-contact and showed enormous confidence which increased the credibility of his speech. His body gestures were very limited, that is, he limited his facial expressions and emotions. He shows enormous confidence while delivering the speech. He also refers to people from the audience, for example, “And I am grateful to you, Hillary, or Mrs. Clinton, for what you said, and for what you are doing for children in the world, for the homeless, for the victims of injustice, the victims of destiny and society” and grabs the others attention. He altered his tone frequently every time he questions and when he talks about “death of children every minute.” He also made frequent pauses to ensure that the audience understood his speech.

Conclusion

The five canons of rhetoric are merely the guidelines for a good speech. Through the analysis of Elie Wiesel’s speech, it is evident that the speech met the guidelines for an effective and powerful speech in the history. Elie Wiesel started the speech with an emotional introduction and concluded with the same emotion. He has done great research for the speech and introduced many of his audience to significant historical events. The organization of the speech is perfect with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. The choice of language, vocabulary and grammar is exceptional and met the requirements of the canon of style.

9% SIMILARITY SCORE 4   PLAGIARISM ISSUES 32   GRAMMAR ISSUES Int ernet Source   9% Inst it ut ion   0%

Zeena John EthicalDilemma.docx

Summary  1305 Words  

Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA 1

ETHICAL DILEMMA 2

Et hical Dilemma

Et hical Dilemma

Physicians are oft en faced in et hical dilemmas in t heir line of dut y. Et hical Decision

making is needed when healt hcare professionals are required t o address a conflict ing

or uncert ain issues regarding compet ing values. As indicat ed by Holt , Sarment o, Ket t

and Goodman (2018), hysicians must consider et hical principles such as just ice,

beneficence, non-maleficence and aut onomy as well as t he et hical st andards of t heir

organizat ion and t heir profession. The case of an unconscious pat ient wit h a DNR

t at t oo present ed an et hical dilemma for t he crit ical and emergency care physicians

who were in charge of t he pat ient . These physicians were led by quest ionable

recommendat ions from t he consult ant s of et hics. The pat ient had no known ident it y,

he was t aken t o t he emergency depart ment while in a crit ical condit ion, and

unconscious. He had a “Do Not Resuscit at e” t at t oo on his ant erior chest , and even a

signat ure t hat accompanied t he t at t oo. The healt h care t eam had decided not t o

honor t he t at t oo, but t hey lat er reversed t he decision aft er consult ing t he et hics

consult ant s. It was agreed t hat t he t at t oo could be represent ing aut hent ic

preferences of t he pat ient . A case like t his raises an et hical dilemma; should t he

pat ient be resuscit at ed against t heir will as seen on t he t at t oo, or should t he healt h

at t endant s honor t he t at t oo?

For a sit uat ion t o be called an et hical dilemma, it has t o meet t hree condit ions (Holt ,

Sarment o, Ket t & Goodman, 2018). The first condit ion is in a case where an individual

or ‘agent ’ has t o decide on t he best course of act ion. These et hical dilemmas have t o

offer opt ions; t hey should not be hard or creat e uncomfort able sit uat ions which do

not have alt ernat ives. In t he case of t he DNR pat ient , t he healt h care t eam could

decide t o eit her resuscit at e t he pat ient or follow what his t at t oo said. There should

also be different courses of act ions t o choose from. In t his case, t here were t wo

 Spelling mistake: hysicians  physicians

 Passive voice: physicians were led by

 accompany: accompanied  go wit h

 Web Content: https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not…

 Passive voice: It was agreed that

 in the case of (abou...: In the case of  About

choices, t o save or not t o save t he DNR pat ient . This is a hard decision t o make for

any person involved. The last condit ion is t hat regardless of t he course of act ion

t aken, t here will be a compromise of t he et hical principles. Following t he st at ement

writ t en on t he t at t oo would see a loss of life, amidst t he chance t o save him. On t he

ot her hand, t rying t o resuscit at e t he pat ient will be against t he will expressed in t he

t at t oo, and t here is no informat ion as t o why it is writ t en not t o resuscit at e him.

In det ermining t he const it uent s of an et hical dilemma, a dist inct ion has t o be made

bet ween et hics, laws, policies, values, and morals (Holt , Sarment o, Ket t & Goodman,

2018). Et hics are t he st andards used t o det ermine what is right and what is wrong.

They rely on rat ional and logical crit eria for a decision t o be made given t hat it is a

cognit ive process (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harringt on, 2009). Values are t he t hings or

ideas an individual value, and t hese values are associat ed wit h feelings (Allen &

Friedman, 2010). Morals are t he codes of conduct of behavior ascribed by an individual,

used t o st rengt hen relat ionships (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harringt on, 2009). Laws and

agency policies are most ly used in complex cases, and t he healt h care at t endant s are

obligat ed by law t o t ake a part icular course of act ion. There is a difference bet ween

personal et hics and professional et hics and values. Values are personal and involve

feelings, and cannot be used in solving an et hical dilemma. Aft er joining a profession,

in t his case as a medical care provider, a person agrees t o follow t he st andards of

t hat profession, t oget her wit h t he code of et hics and values. In t he case of a pat ient

wit h t he DNR t at t oo, et hics and professional values have t o be given a priorit y.

There is an import ant et hical principle t hat emergency physicians have t o consider in a

dilemma such as t his. This principle st at es t hat wit hdrawing and wit hholding t he

t reat ment s t o sust ain life are seen as equivalent in t erms of et hics. Therefore, when

faced wit h a dilemma regarding t he wishes of t he pat ient , t he physicians should go

ahead wit h t he int ervent ions t o save lives. Aft er obt aining more informat ion, t he care

of t he pat ient can t hen be de-escalat ed appropriat ely according t o t heir preferences.

Also, in t he field of medicine, a physician should review ACP (advance care planning),

which has t wo primary forms (Vearrier, 2018). These forms are; Advance Direct ives

(AD) and Physician Orders For Life-Sust aining Treat ment (POLST). ADs can be

complet ed at any t ime during a person’s life t o appoint a surrogat e decider or t o

guide fut ure care. This legal document (AD) has t o be filled by t he person himself or

herself in t he presence of a wit ness. POLST forms, on t he ot her hand, are orders from

a physician for t he care of end of life t hat can be t aken t o ot her healt h care

inst it ut ions. The document s are only for t hose who are seriously ill, or people who are

nearing deat h and could assist in t he surrogat e.

The t at t oo saying “Do Not Resuscit at e” is t herefore neit her legal nor et hical enough

because of t he following reasons. First , t at t oos are not legal POLST or ADs, and it has

neit her a wit ness nor not ary. Therefore, it cannot be used as a wearable AD or t o

finish legal document at ion. The second reason is t hat t he medical providers cannot

presume informed decision making, as t here is no evidence t hat t he t at t oo shows a

clear DNR st at us underst anding of t he pat ient (Vearrier, 2018). Also, t he t at t oo has

no sufficient guiding informat ion t o decide an int ervent ion. Last ly, a lot of people,

more t han 50%, who have t at t oos regret having t hem. The above informat ion does

not , however, mean t hat t he dat a should be ignored. The AD and POLST document s

could not be available when t he healt h care at t endant s are deciding on crucial issues.

A way of communicat ing should be included in t he process of crucial decision making

(Vearrier, 2018).

In t he evaluat ion of t he merit s and challenges of a medical procedure, bioet hicist s

refer t o t he healt hcare et hics’ basic principles. For any pract ice t o be referred t o as

et hical, it has t o conform t o t he four principles including just ice, aut onomy, non-

maleficence, and aut onomy. The first principle is aut onomy; where a pat ient is

required t o make informed and un-manipulat ed act ion and int ent ion when deciding

about t heir healt hcare. A pat ient should be aware of all t he benefit s and risk of a

medical procedure and t he success likelihood. In t his case, t he pat ient was

unconscious. The pat ient did not have a relat ive and he never spoke his mind apart

from t he t at t oo. The second is just ice, where t reat ment is dist ribut ed t o all groups

equally. Healt h care provider should dist ribut e scarce resources fairly. Following t his

 on the other hand (...: On the other hand  But

 Spelling mistake: Dolgoff  Logoff

 Spelling mistake: Loewenberg  Rosenberg

 Spelling mistake: Dolgoff  Logoff

 Spelling mistake: Loewenberg  Rosenberg

 Passive voice: attendants are obligated b...

 in the case of (abou...: In the case of  About

 in terms of (in, for): in terms of  in

 Web Content: https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not…

 obtain (get): obtaining  get

 Spelling mistake: de-escalated  deescalat ed

 Spelling mistake: Vearrier  Earlier

 Web Content: https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not…

 Spelling mistake: ADs  Ads

 on the other hand (...: on the other hand  but

 assist, assistance (help): assist  help

 Spelling mistake: ADs  Ads

 Hyphenation p...: decision maki...  decision-maki...

 Spelling mistake: Vearrier  Earlier

 sufficient (enough): sufficient  enough

 in the process of: in the process of

 Hyphenation p...: decision maki...  decision-maki...

 Spelling mistake: Vearrier  Earlier

 Web Content: https://web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/w…

 Spelling mistake: bioethicists  bioet hics

 Spelling mista...: un-manipulated  manipulat ed

 comma between ...: relative and  relat ive, and

met hod, t he t at t oo pat ient could be revived in t he same manner as ot her emergency

cases handled in t he facilit y. The t hird concept is beneficence; it demands t he

provision of medical procedure wit h t he int ent ion of benefit t ing t he pat ient . It

demands maint enance and development of skills and knowledge, st riving for net

benefit . The last principle is non-maleficence. This et hical concept requires t hat a

procedure should not harm t he involved pat ient or ot hers. The physicians ought t o

use t he aforement ioned procedures t o guide in making a decision regarding what is

best for t he pat ient . Aut onomy st at es t hat a pat ient has t he right t o have cont rol of

his body, but since t here is no accompanying relat ives, t he pat ient could not express

himself. I would also do everyt hing possible t o keep t he pat ient alive. I would also

employ non-maleficence t o guide t he t reat ment process; t his makes t he pat ient ’s

recovery process more effect ive.

References

Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. (2010). Affect ive learning: A t axonomy for t eaching social

work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Et hics, 7 (2). Ret rieved from

ht t p://www.socialworker.com/jswve.

Dolgoff, R., Lowenberg, F. M., & Harringt on, D. (2009). Et hical decisions for social work

pract ice (8t h Ed.). Belmont , CA: Brooks/Cole.

Holt G. E, Sarment o B., Ket t D., & Goodman K. W. (2018). An unconscious pat ient wit h

a DNR t at t oo. N Eng J Med. 2017;377:2192-2193.

Social Worker (2014) What is an et hical dilemma? Ret rieved from

ht t ps://www.socialworker.com/feat ure-art icles/et hics-

art icles/What _Is_an_Et hical_Dilemma%3F/

Vearrier L. (2018) Do Not Resuscit at e t at t oos: Are t hey valid? ACEONow. Ret rieved

from ht t ps://www.acepnow.com/art icle/do-not -resuscit at e-t at t oos-are-t hey-valid/

 Spelling mistake: benefitting  benefit ing

 Legal jargon referri...: aforementioned  t hese

 accompany: accompanying  go wit h

Rubic_Print_Format

Course Code Class Code
HLT-520 HLT-520-O500 Lawsuit Recommendation Paper 75.0
Criteria Percentage Unsatisfactory (0.00%) Less than Satisfactory (74.00%) Satisfactory (79.00%) Good (87.00%) Excellent (100.00%) Comments Points Earned
Content 70.0%
Advantages and Disadvantages of an Arbitration Resolution 10.0% A description of the advantages and disadvantages of an arbitration resolution is not included. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of an arbitration resolution is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of an arbitration resolution is complete but lacks supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of an arbitration resolution is complete and includes supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of an arbitration resolution is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Mediation Resolution 10.0% A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a mediation resolution is not included. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a mediation resolution is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a mediation resolution is complete but lacks supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a mediation resolution is complete and includes supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a mediation resolution is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Settlement Resolution 10.0% A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a settlement resolution is not included. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a settlement resolution is incomplete or incorrect. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a settlement resolution is complete but lacks supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a settlement resolution is complete and includes supporting detail. A description of the advantages and disadvantages of a settlement resolution is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
Resolution Recommendation 40.0% An explanation of the recommended resolution option and the rationale for choosing it is not included. An explanation of the recommended resolution option and the rationale for choosing it is incomplete or incorrect. An explanation of the recommended resolution option and the rationale for choosing it is complete but lacks supporting detail. An explanation of the recommended resolution option and the rationale for choosing it is complete and includes supporting detail. An explanation of the recommended resolution option and the rationale for choosing it is extremely thorough and includes substantial supporting detail.
Organization and Effectiveness 20.0%
Thesis Development and Purpose 7.0% Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
Argument Logic and Construction 8.0% Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5.0% Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
Format 10.0%
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) 5.0% Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5.0% Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.
Total Weightage 100%

Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA 1

ETHICAL DILEMMA 6

Ethical Dilemma

Physicians are often faced in ethical dilemmas in their line of duty. Ethical Decision making is needed when healthcare professionals are required to address a conflicting or uncertain issues regarding competing values. As indicated by Holt, Sarmento, Kett and Goodman (2018), physicians must consider ethical principles such as justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and autonomy as well as the ethical standards of their organization and their profession. The case of an unconscious patient with a DNR tattoo presented an ethical dilemma for the critical and emergency care physicians who were in charge of the patient. These physicians were led by questionable recommendations from the consultants of ethics. The patient had no known identity, he was taken to the emergency department while in a critical condition, and unconscious. He had a “Do Not Resuscitate” tattoo on his anterior chest, and even a signature that accompanied the tattoo. The health care team had decided not to honor the tattoo, but they later reversed the decision after consulting the ethics consultants. It was agreed that the tattoo could be representing authentic preferences of the patient. A case like this raises an ethical dilemma; should the patient be resuscitated against their will as seen on the tattoo, or should the health attendants honor the tattoo?

For a situation to be called an ethical dilemma, it has to meet three conditions (Holt, Sarmento, Kett & Goodman, 2018). The first condition is in a case where an individual or ‘agent’ has to decide on the best course of action. These ethical dilemmas have to offer options; they should not be hard or create uncomfortable situations which do not have alternatives. In the case of the DNR patient, the health care team could decide to either resuscitate the patient or follow what his tattoo said. There should also be different courses of actions to choose from. In this case, there were two choices, to save or not to save the DNR patient. This is a hard decision to make for any person involved. The last condition is that regardless of the course of action taken, there will be a compromise of the ethical principles. Following the statement written on the tattoo would see a loss of life, amidst the chance to save him. On the other hand, trying to resuscitate the patient will be against the will expressed in the tattoo, and there is no information as to why it is written not to resuscitate him.

In determining the constituents of an ethical dilemma, a distinction has to be made between ethics, laws, policies, values, and morals (Holt, Sarmento, Kett & Goodman, 2018). Ethics are the standards used to determine what is right and what is wrong. They rely on rational and logical criteria for a decision to be made given that it is a cognitive process (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009). Values are the things or ideas an individual value, and these values are associated with feelings (Allen & Friedman, 2010). Morals are the codes of conduct of behavior ascribed by an individual, used to strengthen relationships (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009). Laws and agency policies are mostly used in complex cases, and the health care attendants are obligated by law to take a particular course of action. There is a difference between personal ethics and professional ethics and values. Values are personal and involve feelings, and cannot be used in solving an ethical dilemma. After joining a profession, in this case as a medical care provider, a person agrees to follow the standards of that profession, together with the code of ethics and values. In the case of a patient with the DNR tattoo, ethics and professional values have to be given a priority.

There is an important ethical principle that emergency physicians have to consider in a dilemma such as this. This principle states that withdrawing and withholding the treatments to sustain life are seen as equivalent in terms of ethics. Therefore, when faced with a dilemma regarding the wishes of the patient, the physicians should go ahead with the interventions to save lives. After obtaining more information, the care of the patient can then be de-escalated appropriately according to their preferences. Also, in the field of medicine, a physician should review ACP (advance care planning), which has two primary forms (Vearrier, 2018). These forms are; Advance Directives (AD) and Physician Orders For Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST). ADs can be completed at any time during a person’s life to appoint a surrogate decider or to guide future care. This legal document (AD) has to be filled by the person himself or herself in the presence of a witness. POLST forms, on the other hand, are orders from a physician for the care of end of life that can be taken to other health care institutions. The documents are only for those who are seriously ill, or people who are nearing death and could assist in the surrogate.

The tattoo saying “Do Not Resuscitate” is therefore neither legal nor ethical enough because of the following reasons. First, tattoos are not legal POLST or ADs, and it has neither a witness nor notary. Therefore, it cannot be used as a wearable AD or to finish legal documentation. The second reason is that the medical providers cannot presume informed decision making, as there is no evidence that the tattoo shows a clear DNR status understanding of the patient (Vearrier, 2018). Also, the tattoo has no sufficient guiding information to decide an intervention. Lastly, a lot of people, more than 50%, who have tattoos regret having them. The above information does not, however, mean that the data should be ignored. The AD and POLST documents could not be available when the health care attendants are deciding on crucial issues. A way of communicating should be included in the process of crucial decision making (Vearrier, 2018).

In the evaluation of the merits and challenges of a medical procedure, bioethicists refer to the healthcare ethics’ basic principles. For any practice to be referred to as ethical, it has to conform to the four principles including justice, autonomy, non-maleficence, and autonomy. The first principle is autonomy; where a patient is required to make informed and un-manipulated action and intention when deciding about their healthcare. A patient should be aware of all the benefits and risk of a medical procedure and the success likelihood. In this case, the patient was unconscious. The patient did not have a relative and he never spoke his mind apart from the tattoo. The second is justice, where treatment is distributed to all groups equally. Health care provider should distribute scarce resources fairly. Following this method, the tattoo patient could be revived in the same manner as other emergency cases handled in the facility. The third concept is beneficence; it demands the provision of medical procedure with the intention of benefitting the patient. It demands maintenance and development of skills and knowledge, striving for net benefit. The last principle is non-maleficence. This ethical concept requires that a procedure should not harm the involved patient or others. The physicians ought to use the aforementioned procedures to guide in making a decision regarding what is best for the patient. Autonomy states that a patient has the right to have control of his body, but since there is no accompanying relatives, the patient could not express himself. I would also do everything possible to keep the patient alive. I would also employ non-maleficence to guide the treatment process; this makes the patient’s recovery process more effective.

References

Allen, K. N., & Friedman, B. (2010). Affective learning: A taxonomy for teaching social work values. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 7 (2). Retrieved from http://www.socialworker.com/jswve.

Dolgoff, R., Lowenberg, F. M., & Harrington, D. (2009). Ethical decisions for social work practice (8th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Holt G. E, Sarmento B., Kett D., & Goodman K. W. (2018). An unconscious patient with a DNR tattooN Eng J Med. 2017;377:2192-2193.

Social Worker (2014) What is an ethical dilemma? Retrieved from https://www.socialworker.com/feature-articles/ethics- articles/What_Is_an_Ethical_Dilemma%3F/

Vearrier L. (2018) Do Not Resuscitate tattoos: Are they valid? ACEONow. Retrieved from https://www.acepnow.com/article/do-not-resuscitate-tattoos-are-they-valid/

Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA

1

Ethical Dilemma

Physicians are often faced in ethical dilemmas in their line of duty.

Ethical Decision

making is needed when healthcare professionals are required to address a conflicting or uncertain

issues regarding competing values.

As indicated by

Holt, Sarmento, Kett and Goodman

(

2018

),

physicians

must consider ethical principles such a

s justice, beneficence, non

-

maleficence and

Running head: ETHICAL DILEMMA 1

Ethical Dilemma

Physicians are often faced in ethical dilemmas in their line of duty. Ethical Decision

making is needed when healthcare professionals are required to address a conflicting or uncertain

issues regarding competing values. As indicated by Holt, Sarmento, Kett and Goodman (2018),

physicians must consider ethical principles such as justice, beneficence, non-maleficence and

Get help from top-rated tutors in any subject.

Efficiently complete your homework and academic assignments by getting help from the experts at homeworkarchive.com