Posted: April 28th, 2020

Hca322: health care ethics & medical law dq 1 week 2 1818

+++

Discussions
To participate in the following discussions, go to this week's Discussion link in the left navigation.

    Patient Rights

    Your instructor will assign you one of the following options by Day 1 of Week Two. In your initial discussion post, address the questions associated with your assigned option. Include the option number in the subject/title line of your post. You must use at least two scholarly sources in your post. Respond to at least two classmates using the required response prompt for their option (e.g., if your initial post  was Option 1, then respond to posts from Option 2 and 3 or if your  initial post was Option 2, then respond to posts from Option 1 and 3). Your initial post should be at least 250 words; your response post should be at least 100 words.

    Option 1: Patient Rights-Euthanasia
    For this option, you will take a look at the ethics surrounding euthanasia (intentionally ending a life to relieve pain or suffering) and the right to live versus right to die arguments that were present within the Teri Schiavo and Karen Ann Quinlan cases.  To being, view the Craig Ewart at Dignitas (Switzerland),  The Terri Schiavo Story , and the  Euthanasia-Whose life is it, anyway?  videos. Then, research and discuss the topic of euthanasia.  For your initial post, pick one case (either Teri Schiavo or Karen Ann Quinlan) and one side of the argument (either right to live or right to die) and explain how you would have handled this particular case differently in order to protect the patient. Your initial post must be a minimum of 250 words.

    Option 1 Required Response: Regardless of your personal beliefs, respond to your classmate’s post by considering the opposite side of their argument.  Explain what the other side’s logic was in relation to the same case your classmate chose (e.g., if your classmate selected right to live, give the rationale behind the right to die argument for that case).  Each response must be a minimum of 100 words.

    Option 2: Patient Rights-Assisted Suicide
    Review the Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s “60 Minutes” Interview video. Research and discuss physician assisted suicide.  Pick a side on this argument and explain why you selected that particular side using scholarly research to support your decision. Explain how this view would address the case of Dr. Kevorkian? In your post, explain whether you believe Dr. Kevorkian was a hero or a murderer? (Remember, there is no correct answer to this question…but support your opinion with research and facts). Your initial response should be at least 250 words.

    Option 2 Required Response: Regardless of your personal beliefs, respond to your classmate’s post by considering the opposite side of their argument. Explain how this approach would affect the outcome for Dr. Kevorkian.  For example, if your classmate responded that Dr. Kevorkian was a hero, respond to their post by explaining the reasoning behind the view that he was a murderer and what that would mean for him.  What are the ethical principles behind this point of view?  Your response must contain at least 100 words.

    Option 3: Patient Rights and Privacy
    Review the Electronic Health Records: Privacy and Security video (transcript). Research and discuss electronic health records (EHR).  Explain how EHR are intended to protect the patient.  Discuss any barriers that may prevent necessary protections. Your initial response should be at least 250 words.

    Option 3 Required Response: Respond to your classmate’s post and explain the concept that EHR might not be able to fully protect the patient. In what ways could this be better or worse than paper records? Then, refer to the barriers mentioned by your classmate and describe the potential policies that could reduce those barriers. Your response must contain at least 100 words.



    Courtroom Drama

    Your instructor will select one of the following court cases to dramatize in this week’s discussion board. Your instructor will select (or ask for volunteers) one student to be the “plaintiff” and one student to be the “defendant” from the case.  The remaining class members will become the jury.  The plaintiff and defendant are exempt from response post requirements for this forum.  They only need to build a strong case in their favor via their initial video post.  Each participant: the plaintiff, defendant, and jury members, will create their initial post using a YouTube video to explain their case and/or reasoning.  Review the YouTube Webcam Quick-Start Guide for instructions on how to create a YouTube account and YouTube video post using your computer’s webcam.
    Plaintiff (the person or entity who is suing another): Research the case and present evidence as to how you were wronged in the scenario. You must use scholarly sources to support your case and include the legal and ethical violations that occurred. You will support your suit by arguing your case in a 5-minute video to the jury. Post the link to your video in the discussion forum along with your reference list by the end of Day 3.

    Defendant (the person or entity who is being sued by the Plaintiff): Research the case and present evidence as to how you did not act against legal and ethical standards. You must use scholarly sources to support your case and why the issue is not a violation. You will support your suit by arguing your case in a 5-minute video to the jury.  Post the link to your video in the discussion forum along with your reference list by the end of Day 3.

    Jurors (the remainder of the class): Research the case, as well as the legal and ethical standards surrounding the issues from both sides. View the videos from both the plaintiff and defendant and in your video post, argue for your decision; to rule either in favor of the Plaintiff or Defendant. You will present your decision in a 5-minute video explaining the rationale behind your decision. Post the link to your video in the discussion forum along with your reference list by Day 5.

    The Jurors posts are due by Day 5 (Saturday), after viewing the Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s posts from Day 3 (e.g., the Plaintiff and Defendant must post by Day 3 so that the Jurors have time to respond by Day 5).

    Juror Response Posts: By the end of Day 7, review the decisions by your fellow jurors. Respond to two jurors – one who ruled in favor of the Plaintiff and one who ruled in favor of the Defendant (e.g., if you ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, you must respond to one juror who ruled in favor of the Defendant and one who ruled in favor of the Plaintiff). Discuss your agreement or disagreement with their decision and present additional facts to support your argument. Your responses must be a minimum of 100 words. The students who portrayed the Plaintiff and the Defendant are exempt from response posts.

    Judge: Your instructor will serve as the judge and review all posts, and then present the final decision as decided by the majority of the jurors’ ruling. This ruling will be posted by Day 1 of Week Three. Comments regarding the final ruling are encouraged, and may be made within the discussion forum beyond the close of Week Two.

–