NRS 437V Week 5 Assignment Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma (Part Two)

NRS 437V Week 5 Assignment Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma (Part Two)

NRS 437V Week 5 Assignment Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma (Part Two) – This is a CLC assignment.

Refer to the “Collaborative Learning Community: Analysis of an Ethical Dilemma” resource for the dilemmas and resources that will be used for this multi-part assignment.

After completing the individual interviews (Part ONE), share your interview results. Consider the responses of the four types of individuals interviewed. Assess their similarities and differences.

Compose a written recommendation of 750-1,000 words. Incorporate the research YOU HAVE done as well as your interview results for the four types of individuals to come to a resolution to the ethical dilemma. Be sure to clearly articulate your position and the rationale for your position.

Prepare this assignment according to the APA guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin.

Week 3 DQ 1

Uustal (1993) proposed a decision-making model that provides concrete steps in which to arrive at a morally acceptable solution when faced with an ethical dilemma. What type of an ethical dilemma have you encountered in the clinical setting? How can the decision-making model identified by Uustal be applied to this situation? Be specific when describing each of the nine steps.

Week 3 DQ 2

How do a nurse’s fundamental duties, as described by the Hippocratic Oath and Nightingale Pledge, influence a nurse’s practice and decision making?

NRS 437V Week 3 Assignment Applying Ethical Frameworks in Practice

Details:

Using the steps outlined in the decision-making models in your readings, select one ethical decision-making model and use the model to analyze the case provided.

Case Scenario:

A 6-year-old develops a high fever accompanied by violent vomiting and convulsions while at school. The child is rushed to a nearby hospital. The attending physician makes a diagnosis of meningitis and requests permission to initiate treatment from the parents. The child’s parents are divorced. The mother, who is not the biological parent of the child, has primary custody. She is a Christian Scientist who insists that no medical treatment be offered for religious reasons. The biological father, who resides in another state, is also contacted. He insists that treatment be given and seeks independent consultation from another physician.