Ethics Of Patient Care
Due: In an effort to facilitate scholarly discourse, create your initial post by Day 3. And reply to at least two of your classmates, on two separate days, by Day 7.
Gradebook Category: Discussions
Instructions
For this discussion, you will be applying defining attributes to an actual patient case. Please listen to the NPR podcast, If You Have Dementia, Can You Hasten Death As You Wished? (4:00 minutes). Additionally, review Wilkinson’s (1997) defining attributes in Developing a Concept Analysis of Autonomy in Nursing Practice.
Initial Post
Please respond to the following prompts:
Review Wilkinson’s (1997) defining attributes and describe how the NPR podcast, If You Have Dementia, Can You Hasten Death As You Wished? case story meets the definition of a borderline case.
Describe the ethical issues the case raises.
If it were changed to meet criteria for a model case. What ethical issues would come to the forefront?
Your initial post should contain two- to three-paragraphs with three- to four-sentences per paragraph. The post should integrate a minimum of three readings and/or other evidence-based research articles no more than three years old and use APA formatting for citations and references..
Reply Posts
Compare and contrast your ethical viewpoint, using a minimum of two scholarly sources using APA style, with two of your colleagues.
Please refer to the Grading Rubric for details on how this activity will be graded. The described expectations meet the passing level of 80 percent.
Posting to the Discussion Forum
Discussion Question Rubric
Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions. As this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric.
Note: The value of each of the criterion on this rubric represents a point range. (example: 17-0 points)
Discussion Question Rubric – 100 Points
Criteria Exemplary
Exceeds Expectations Advanced
Meets Expectations Intermediate
Needs Improvement Novice
Inadequate Total Points
Quality of Initial Post Provides clear examples supported by course content and references.
Cites three or more references, using at least one new scholarly resource that was not provided in the course materials.
All instruction requirements noted.
40 points Components are accurate and thoroughly represented, with explanations and application of knowledge to include evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role. Synthesizes course content using course materials and scholarly resources to support importantpoints.
Meets all requirements within the discussion instructions.
Cites two references.
35 points Components are accurate. And mostly represented primarily with definitions and summarization. Ideas may be overstated, with minimal contribution to the subject matter. Minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is present. But missing depth and/or development.
Is missing one component/requirement of the discussion instructions.
Cites one reference, or references do not clearly support content.
Most instruction requirements are noted.
31 points Absent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is superficial.
Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation.
No references cited.
Missing several instruction requirements.
Submits post late.
27 points 40
Peer Response Post Offers both supportive and alternative viewpoints to the discussion. Using two or more scholarly references per peer post. Post provides additional value to the conversation.
All instruction requirements noted.
40 points Evidence of further synthesis of course content. Provides clarification and new information or insight related to the content of the peer’s post.
Response is supported by course content and a minimum of one scholarly reference per each peer post.
All instruction requirements noted.
35 points Lacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content in the peer post without adding new information or insight.
Missing reference from one peer post.
Partially followed instructions regarding number of reply posts.
