Healthcare professionals provide support throughout the cycle of life, from birth to death.
Healthcare professionals provide support throughout the cycle of life, from birth to death.
Final Project II Guidelines and Rubric
Overview
Healthcare professionals provide support throughout the cycle of life, from birth to death. They have an obligation to provide humane and compassionate care to patients while adhering to their specific field’s code of ethics. Sometimes, healthcare professionals are privy to discussions between family members regarding end-of-life issues. In some instances, a healthcare facility may be in charge of providing information about advance directives to patients. Healthcare professionals should calibrate their own moral beliefs to align with their ethical and legal obligations. By studying issues contained within real-life cases, healthcare professionals can come to terms with their beliefs and obligations relative to end-of-life issues. For Final Project II, you will submit a draft of your essay for your Milestone Three assignment, which will be submitted to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. This milestone draft will be submitted in Module Six. The final product will be submitted in Module Eight. In this assignment, you will demonstrate your mastery of the following course outcomes: Analyze bioethical issues faced by various healthcare professionals for their impact on decision making Prompt In this project, you will analyze the Terri Schiavo case through the lens of the bioethical issue(s) related to the case. You will analyze the case to address what the bioethical issue is and what role end-of-life issues, such as self-determination and advanced directives, played in the case. Using your analysis, you will determine how this bioethical issue impacted the decisions made by the healthcare professionals involved in the case. Your essay must address the following critical elements: I. II. III. Introduction: Describe the provided case, including information on the stakeholders involved, the bioethical issue, and the time period of the incident that occurred. Bioethical Analysis: Analyze the bioethical issue for the role end-of-life issues played in the case. Be sure to use appropriate terminology and support with secondary research. Conclusion: Describe how the bioethical issue influenced the decisions of healthcare professionals involved in the case. Be sure to use specific examples. 1 Milestones Milestone Three: Draft of Final Project II: Bioethics In Module Six, you will analyze the Terri Schiavo case through the lens of bioethics. You will address what the bioethical issue is and what role end-of-life issues, such as self-determination and advanced directives, played in the case. Using your analysis, you will determine how this bioethical issue impacted the decisions made by the healthcare professionals involved in the case. This milestone will be graded with the Milestone Three Rubric. Final Submission: Bioethical Short Paper In Module 8, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project 2: Bioethics Rubric. Final Project II Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Your bioethical short paper should be a 1- to 2-page Microsoft Word document formatted with 12-point Times New Roman font and one-inch margins. All citations and references should be formatted according to the most recent APA guidelines. Critical Elements Introduction Bioethical Analysis Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Describes the provided case, description provides exceptional including information on the insight into the main stakeholders involved, the components of the case bioethical issue, and the time period of the incident that occurred Meets “Proficient” criteria and demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of the role that end-of-life issues played in the case Not Evident (0%) Describe the provided case, but Does not describe the provided case description is cursory or illogical, contains inaccuracies, or does not include information on the stakeholders, bioethical issue, or time period of the incident Analyzes the bioethical issue for Analyzes the bioethical issue for Does not analyze the bioethical the role end-of-life issues played the role end-of-life issues played issue for the role end-of-life issues in the case, utilizing appropriate in the case, but analysis is cursory played in the case terminology and supporting with or illogical, contains inaccuracies, secondary research does not use appropriate terminology, or is not supported with secondary research 2 Value 31.15 31.15 Conclusion Meets “Proficient” criteria, and Describes how the bioethical examples provided demonstrate issue impacted the decisions of a complex grasp of how the healthcare professionals bioethical issue impacted the involved in the case, and uses decisions of the healthcare specific examples professionals in the case Describes how the bioethical issue Does not describe how the impacted the decisions of the bioethical issue impacted the healthcare professionals in the decisions of healthcare case, but description is cursory or professionals involved in the case illogical, contains inaccuracies, or is not supported by specific examples 31.15 Articulation of Response Submission is free of errors Submission has no major errors related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, and spelling, syntax, or organization organization and is presented in a professional and easy-to-read format Submission has major errors Submission has critical errors related to citations, grammar, related to citations, grammar, spelling, syntax, or organization spelling, syntax, or organization that that negatively impact readability prevent understanding of ideas and articulation of main ideas 6.55 Total 100% 3 1 IHP 420 Milestone Three Denise Vazquez Southern New Hampshire University 2 Introduction Bioethics is the study of ethical, social, and legal issues that arise in biomedicine and biomedical research (Bystranowski et al., 2022). The Teri Schiavo case is probably one of the most controversial bioethics cases in the recent decade. Her feeding tube was removed after a court ruled in favour of the same. Her death marked the final complication of a heart failure that started on February 25, 1990 (Hook & Mueller, 2005). Teri’s ailment and demise drew the attention of major legal, medical, theological, political, ethical, and social stakeholders across the United States (Hook & Mueller, 2005). The family of Terri filed petitions to bar the removal of the feeding tube with no success. Bioethical Analysis The reason why the Schiavo case became popular is that it brought to the limelight the issues of end-of-life choices. It defied the ethical principle of respect for patient autonomy (Bystranowski et al., 2022). Her feeding tube was removed on March 18 and she died on March 31, 2005 (Klugman, 2015). The bioethics issue in this case relates to the basis of the removal of the feeding tubes (Hook & Mueller, 2005). At the baseline, the decision to remove the feeding tube was not based on Terri’s or her family’s interests (Hook & Mueller, 2005). It was informed by political and monetary interests (Klugman, 2015). The political and legal stakeholders saw the issue as an opportunity to further their monetary interests at the cost of a family’s privacy and dignity. Conclusion Health and death decisions are largely medical and personal-based. The inclusion of the political and legal stakeholders compromises the overall viability of such decisions in the best 3 interests of the patient and their family members. The physicians in this case failed to uphold the needs of the patient by not participating fully in arguing for the rights of the patient. 4 References Hook, C. C., & Mueller, P. S. (2005). The Terri Schiavo saga: The making of a tragedy and lessons learned. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 80(11), 1449–1460. https://doi.org/10.4065/80.11.1449 Bystranowski, P., Dranseika, V., & Żuradzki, T. (2022). Half a century of bioethics and philosophy of medicine: A topic‐modeling study. Bioethics. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13087 Klugman, C. (2015, February 11). Terri Schiavo: Ten years later. Bioethics Today. Retrieved October 10, 2022, from https://bioethicstoday.org/blog/terri-schiavo-ten-years-later/#
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||