I’m studying and need help with a Philosophy question to help me learn.
Read the case study that is attached. follow guide lines below to write. use quotes from the book in the paper (I sent pictures of the book) The focus is quality of life and autonomy. begin with what is medically indicated.
Please let me know if files are unable to be opened
A. What you must read
First Topic: what is Medically Indicated and why? YOU MUST use direct quotations from your text to provide evidence that you have actually read your book and to provide evidence for your point of view. Be sure to use appropriate ethical principles.
Second Topic: how does Patient Autonomy apply here? Does the patient have the capacity to make a medical decision? Is the surrogate decision maker the appropriate decision maker? Again I will be looking for appropriate direct quotations from your Clinical Ethics text.
B. What you must write and how
The paper format I am expecting requires you structure your paper using the SBAR strategy which was also described in the syllabus. This is for all intents and purposes the rubric I would like you to follow when you write your ethical analysis of the case study. SBAR was developed by Kaiser Permanente to save patient lives on hand off. It meant everyone knew what was necessary when time was limited. It will become habitual when you become a nurse. I have provided a copy of Shady Side Hospital Medical SBAR here as well, it is an exact copy of what Kaiser itself had developed.
First Pargraph, S: What is the ethical/medical Situation now? This includes stating what is medically indicated and patient code status. What is the medical diagnosis? What is the medical prognosis? It also includes a statement about what the ethical disagreement is and who is disagreeing with whom about what; or what is the ethical puzzle if there is no actual disagreement. What the hell is wrong here? What is the conflict?
Second Paragraph, B: What is the Background that led to this situation? How the hell did it get to this point? What happened that led to this dilemma. What is the history of the non-medical events that led to this dilemma?
Third Paragraph, A: What is your Assessment of the situation? Who is right? Who is wrong? What the hell should we do? Is everyone off base because they are missing something? This is essentially your thesis. This is what you are going to demonstrate is the way to resolve this dilemma.
Duration of paper with as many paragraphs as necessary, R: What is your ethical Recommendation? This is where you provide the bulk of your argument and use the Topics book to provide evidence for why your assessment is the best assessment. This is where you persuade the ethics committee you are right. Why the hell are you right? I really want to know.