[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
Applying Ethical Frameworks in Practice 1) Write a 750-1,000-word paper that describes your professional position regarding patient confidentiality using the assigned article, “Bioethics on NBC’s ER: Betraying Trust or Providing Good Care? When Is It Ok to Break Confidentiality?” located at http://www.bioethics.net/articles.php?viewCat=7&articleId=133 2) As you write your paper, include the following: a) Explain the ethical implications of a breach of confidentiality. b) Provide ethical theories and/or ethical principles (from among those introduced in your readings) to substantiate your position. c) Identify a reasonable alternative to address the dilemma presented in the article using a framework of ethical decision making presented in lecture or in your readings. Explain the significance of applying this framework. d) Explain how an ethics committee might approach the dilemma using ethical theories, principles, and a collaborative approach to ethical decision making. 3) Use standard paper format in APA style, including an introduction, a conclusion, and a title page. An abstract is not required. Cite in-text and in the Reference section. 4) This assignment uses a grading rubric that can be viewed at the assignment’s drop box. Instructors will be using the rubric to grade the assignment; therefore, students should review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the assignment criteria and expectations for successful completion of the assignment. Please use the website inclusive in the instructions above to access the article that you will be using to write the paper. The instructions below is the grading rubic as stated in the instructions above, use it to include the points needed in the paper: Criteria Achievement Level Unsatisfactory Less than Satisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent Explain the Ethical Implications of a Breach of Confidentiality 1.07 points Does not identify contextual features related to confidentiality. Does not distinguish among fact, opinion, and value judgments. Fails to identify implications and consequences of breach of confidentiality. 1.13 points Incomplete discussion of issue. Superficial analysis of ethical implications. Limited consideration of preexisting assumptions. 1.25 points Limited discussion of relevant context and exploration of implications. Identifies influence of assumptions, addressing ethical dimensions that underlie the issue. 1.41 points Relevant context and thorough discussion of issue. Analysis includes consideration of preexisting socially constructed assumptions. Identifies implications and consequences from a practice perspective. 1.5 points Analysis of issue is comprehensive. Explores confidentiality with global perspective, identifying underlying relationships between stakeholders and among socially constructed systems. Provide Ethical Theories and/or Ethical Principles to Substantiate Your Position 2.66 points Does not identify ethical theory and/or principle from readings. Does not present own perspective. Discussion is grounded in absolutes, with little or no acknowledgement of own bias. 2.81 points Applies ethical theory and/or principle to issue, though some aspects are incorrect or confusing. Key details and connections between theory and application are missing. Presents own perspective without justification, does not address other views. 3.11 points Applies ethical theory and/or principle with limited integration. Analysis is incomplete. Presents own perspective without justification. 3.53 points Integrates multiple viewpoints and comparisons of ideas or perspectives using ethical theory and/or principles as a framework. Identifies own position on issue, but justification and connection to theory are incomplete. 3.75 points Appropriately identifies own position on issue, drawing support from lecture content, experience, and information beyond assigned sources. Integrates ethical theory and/or principle to substantiate position. Identify a Reasonable Alternative to Address the Dilemma 2.66 points Does not adopt a decision-making framework. Presents a single perspective; alternatives are not addressed. 2.81 points Applies decision-making framework incorrectly. Confuses cause and correlation; presents ideas and alternatives in confused or confusing sequence. Does not explain significance of applying framework. 3.11 points Identifies alternatives with limited scope. Applies decision-making framework as foundation for selecting alternatives and justifying their application, given the context of the dilemma presented. 3.53 points Identifies alternatives that demonstrate relevance, accuracy, and completeness. Applies decision-making framework with clearly distinct correlations of relationships among ideas. 3.75 points Integrates decision-making framework in a complex process of judgment and justification with comprehensive discussion of implications for each alternative identified. Clearly articulates significance of framework with a thorough discussion of strengths and limitations. Explain How an Ethics Committee Might Approach the Dilemma Using Ethical Theories, Principles, and a Collaborative Approach to Ethical Decision Making 2.13 points Does not discuss role of ethics committee and potential alternatives or approaches to decision making. 2.25 points Misinterprets role of ethics committee in identifying reasonable solutions to ethical dilemmas. 2.49 points Discusses role of ethics committee but provides an incomplete discussion of the approach or process of determining reasonable alternatives. 2.82 points Distinguishes unique role of ethics committee as conduit for ethical decision making. Provides thorough discussion of approach used by committee to determine reasonable alternatives. 3 points Qualifies role and limitations of ethics committees in influencing the outcome of ethical decision making. Addresses the diverse perspectives drawn from a collaborative approach to problem solving. Thesis Development and Purpose 0.53 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. 0.56 points Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. 0.62 points Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. 0.71 points Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 0.75 points Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive; contained within the thesis is the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. Paragraph Development and Transitions 0.53 points Paragraphs and transitions consistently lack unity and coherence. No apparent connections between paragraphs are established. Transitions are inappropriate to purpose and scope. Organization is disjointed. 0.56 points Some paragraphs and transitions may lack logical progression of ideas, unity, coherence, and/or cohesiveness. Some degree of organization is evident. 0.62 points Paragraphs are generally competent, but ideas may show some inconsistency in organization and/or in their relationships to each other. 0.71 points A logical progression of ideas between paragraphs is apparent. Paragraphs exhibit a unity, coherence, and cohesiveness. Topic sentences and concluding remarks are appropriate to purpose. 0.75 points There is a sophisticated construction of paragraphs and transitions. Ideas progress and relate to each other. Paragraph and transition construction guide the reader. Paragraph structure is seamless. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 0.53 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. 0.56 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, and/or word choice are present. 0.62 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. 0.71 points Pros
e is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. 0.75 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. Paper Format (1” Margins, 12 point-font, double-spaced, Times New Roman, Arial, or Courier) 0.21 points GCU Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. 0.23 points GCU Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. 0.25 points GCU Template is used; Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. 0.28 points GCU Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. 0.3 points All format elements are correct. Research Citations (In-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment) 0.32 points No reference page is included. No citations are used. 0.34 points Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. 0.37 points Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present 0.42 points Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. 0.45 points In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”best” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]
[meteor_slideshow slideshow=”adssa” metadata=”height: 126, width: 630″]