Fluent Essays

In Week 2, we will explore contemporary ethical dilemmas in healthcare, including end-of-life decisions, and the legal and ethical issues that impact service delivery in healthcare. Your Learning Objectives for the Week: Apply legal and ethical principles, procedures, and cases to practical management problems frequently found in healthcare settings. Analyze the rights and responsibilities that physicians have toward patients and analyze the role of legal and ethical principles in adhering to these rights. MHA6060 Week 2 Lecture Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas While a number of legal and ethical issues are present in modern healthcare, there are some that are more commonly seen by administrators. In this lecture, we will take out some time to reflect on various ethical dilemmas or scenarios in which individuals may find it difficult to make decisions. Current healthcare ethics are impacted by previous events ranging from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to informed consent legislation to sequencing of the human genome. As a healthcare administrator, you may have a number of organizational policies, supported by enacted legislation, to support your decision in various cases. The cases you will most likely contend with include: · Abortion: Termination of a pregnancy before a fetus is viable; the term viability is hotly debated between those who do and do not support the right to choose. · Sterilization: Termination of the ability to have children via vasectomy or tubal ligation; voluntary sterilization poses some ethical concerns, but the real issues stem from efforts at eugenic sterilization. · Artificial insemination: Process to impregnate a female in a manner other than sexual intercourse; ethical dilemmas, concern for the offspring, and risk of multiple births arise over the process itself. · Surrogacy: Reproduction method where a woman agrees to give birth to a child that will be given to a contracted party; primary concerns are the exchange of a body for money and potential psychological impacts. · Organ transplantation: Procedure to replace a failing organ with a viable organ from a donor; the National Organ Procurement Act of 1984 makes it illegal to buy or sell organs, but there can be ethical issues with donor families feeling pressured or perceptions of unfair selection processes. Each of these scenarios presents unique challenges to healthcare administrators; however, guidance from organizational and legislative policies helps to remove some of these challenges. Following federal, state, and organizational regulations is a key aspect of the administrator position, and knowledge of such information is imperative to your success in healthcare organizations. Explore More Under subject areas, review the topic “Health.” Narrow your focus and review "60 Subcategories” for current legislation on aging, healthcare finance, family planning, coverage and access, technology, and more. Review the below link to learn more about the current legislation on a variety of contemporary ethical dilemmas. Bills and Resolutions  opens in new window Additional Materials From your course textbook, Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, review the following chapter: · Contemporary Ethical Dilemmas From the South University Online Library, review the following articles: · Moral Distress in Physicians and Nurses: Impact on Professional Quality of Life and Turnover  · The Burden of Choice: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Professionals’ Reactions to Ethical Challenges in Humanitarian Crises  End-of-Life Dilemmas While we have addressed some of the main legal and ethical scenarios that you are likely to face as a healthcare administrator, one deserves a bit more examination. End-of-life dilemmas include a myriad of different topic areas ranging from euthanasia to assisted suicide to advance directives. Euthanasia Euthanasia is loosely defined as “mercy killing,” where individuals with deteriorating health and with no hope of improvement are provided with some relief. The primary area of contention is whether the patient is dying from his or her incurable disease and to offer, only to the dying patient, the option of euthanasia. What this means is that a patient with an incurable disease who is not dying should not have the option of euthanasia. Due to changing societal norms and minimal legislative support for or against euthanasia, the matter has become muddled and administrators often turn to whether the patient is of sound mind to make end-of-life decisions. Physician-Assisted Suicide Physician-assisted suicide requires a voluntary physician to aid patients in killing themselves. Perhaps the most famous name in physician-assisted suicide is Dr. Jack Kevorkian who developed a device to bring about death quickly and without pain. He assisted an Alzheimer’s disease patient to commit suicide and was subsequently charged with first-degree murder. Those charges were later dismissed as there were no federal laws deeming assisted suicide as illegal. As with euthanasia, there are shifting opinions regarding assisted suicide too. Further, the Supreme Court maintains that assisted suicide of terminally ill patients is a state decision. Advance Directives The Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990 stipulates that patients have the right to make decisions about their healthcare, including treatment options and decisions that may need to be made in the future. Advance directive, also known as living wills or durable power of attorney, gives the patient a voice in his or her medical care should he or she becomes incapacitated at a later date. Such documents are written when the patient is sound and competent and detail his or her wishes for treatment should he or she becomes unable to communicate. This is a particularly important document to healthcare professionals as it allows them to provide appropriate intervention without interference from external parties. There are a number of legal and ethical issues that you may come across if you pursue career in hospital administration. However, following the directives set forth by patients via living wills, for example, and adhering to state and federal regulations for end-of-life care ensure patient’s respect, death with dignity, and protection from legal and ethical wrongdoings. Living Will Review the following example of a living will (Pozgar, 2018). Example of a Will  opens in new window Additional Materials From your course textbook, Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals, review the following chapter: · End-of-Life Dilemmas    From the South University Online Library, review the following articles: · Recording Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment  · Physicians, Specialised to Support and to Be Consulted in Case of Euthanasia  · Dying with Dignity-Physician Assisted Suicide in India: A Critical Review of Legal Facts  MHA6060 Week 2 Discussion Instructions   Before beginning work on this discussion forum, please review the link “Doing Discussion Questions Right” and any specific instructions for this topic. Your initial posting should be addressed at 300–500 words. Make your post to this Discussion Area by the due date assigned. Before the end of the week, begin commenting on at least two of your classmates’ responses. You can ask technical questions or respond generally to the overall experience. Be objective, clear, and concise. Always use constructive language, even in criticism, to work toward the goal of positive progress. Submit your responses in the Discussion Area. REASONABLE WARNING Review the following case study and address the questions that follow: From 1930 to 1960, about 5,000 patients at Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center, located in Chicago, Illinois, were treated with x-ray therapy for some benign conditions of the head and neck. Among them was Joel Blaz, now a citizen of Florida, who received this treatment for infected tonsils and adenoids while he was a child in Illinois from 1947 through 1948. He has suffered various tumors, which he now attributes to this treatment. Blaz was diagnosed with a neural tumor in 1987. In 1974, Michael Reese set up the Thyroid Follow-Up Project to gather data and conduct research among the people who had been subjected to the x-ray therapy. In 1975, the program notified Blaz by e-mail that he was at increased risk of developing thyroid tumors because of the treatment. In 1976, someone associated with the program gave him similar information on a phone call and invited him to return to Michael Reese for evaluation and treatment at his own expense, which he declined to do. Dr. Arthur Schneider was placed in charge of the program in 1977. In 1979, Schneider and Michael Reese submitted a research proposal to the National Institutes of Health stating that a study based on the program showed “strong evidence” of a connection between x-ray treatments of the sort administered to Blaz and various sorts of tumors: thyroid, neural, and others. In 1981, Blaz received but did not complete or return a questionnaire attached to a letter from Schneider in connection with the program. The letter stated that the purpose of the questionnaire was to “investigate the long-term health implications” of childhood radiation treatments and to “determine the possible associated risks.” It did not say anything about “strong evidence” of a connection between the treatments and any tumors. In 1996, after developing neural tumors, Blaz sued Michael Reese’s successor, Galen Hospital in Illinois, and Dr. Schneider, alleging, among other things, that they failed to notify and warn him of their findings and that he might be at a greater risk of neural tumors in a way that might have permitted their earlier detection and removal or other treatment. There is a clear duty to warn the subject of previously administered radiation treatments when there is a strong connection between those treatments and certain kinds of tumors. The harm alleged, neural and other tumors would here be reasonably foreseeable as a likely consequence of the failure to warn and was in fact foreseen by Schneider. A reasonable physician, indeed any reasonable person, could foresee that if someone was warned of “strong evidence” of a connection between treatments to which he or she had been subjected and tumors, he or she would probably seek diagnosis or treatment and perhaps avoid these tumors, and if he or she was not warned, then he or she probably would not seek diagnosis or treatment, increasing the likelihood that he or she would suffer from such tumors. Other things being equal, therefore, a reasonable physician would warn the subject of the treatments. Tasks: 1. Discuss the ethical and legal principles violated in this case. 2. Discuss the preventative measures that should be taken to prevent recurrence of such cases. To support your work, use your course and textbook readings and also use the South University Online Library. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. MHA6060 Week 2 Project Instructions  Instructions Before beginning work on this assignment, please review the expanded grading rubric for specific instructions relating to content and formatting. UTILITARIAN ETHICS Each week, you will have the opportunity to explore an ethical theory—consequential ethics, utilitarian ethics, deontological ethics, and nonconsequential ethics—in the context of a case scenario from your textbook. In this week, the focus will be on utilitarian ethics. Utilitarian ethics is a result-based theory that says the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its ability to maximize happiness or pleasure for all. Tasks: 1. Download and save the  assignment template  to your computer and update the file name to include your last name. 2. Review the assigned case in its entirety. 3. Address the questions posed in detail and with appropriate scholarly support. To support your work, use your course and textbook readings and also use the  South University Online Library . As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format. Submission Details · By the due date assigned, submit your document to the Submissions Area. MHA6060: Health Law and Ethics Week 2 Assignment UTILITARIAN ETHICAL THEORY Please review the following case: Daniel was the last of the five interviewees for the CEO’s position at Anytown Medical Center. During the interview, a member of the finance committee asked, “Daniel, how would you maximize an allocation of $100,000 to spend for improving patient care, besides the capital budget and construction projects?” Bishop Paul, the board chairman, added, “Daniel, think about the question. I will give you five minutes to form an answer.” Daniel responded, “Bishop Paul, I am ready to answer your question.” The trustees looked somewhat surprised, as Bishop Paul with a smile quickly responded, “You may proceed with your answer.” Daniel replied, “An old Chinese proverb came to my mind as quickly as the question was asked: ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.’ You are interviewing me as the CEO of your hospital. I see my job is to assure you that employees are thoroughly trained to care for the patients whom the hospital serves. I will maximize the value of each and every dollar by determining the skill sets that the staff is lacking and retrain the staff in the areas where deficiencies are noted.” Bishop Paul looked around the long oval table at the trustees, “This has been a long day and a grueling interview process for Daniel. Are there any other questions you would like to ask him?” There was silence, as the trustees nodded their heads no. Bishop Paul looked at Daniel and thanked him for his interest in becoming the hospital’s next CEO. Bishop Paul smiled and turned his swivel chair around as Daniel was walking toward the exit and asked, “Daniel, could you not leave the building just yet. If you could just wait outside the room and have a seat in the doctors’ lounge area.” After about twenty minutes, a trustee went into the lounge where Daniel was sitting and asked him to return to the boardroom. As he entered the room, Bishop Paul stood up and looked at Daniel straight in his eyes and said, “Daniel, you were the last to be interviewed because you were on the “short list” of candidates selected to be interviewed. Speaking for the board, your response to the last question was merely icing on the cake, confirming our interest in you joining our staff. Both the Board of Trustees and members of the Medical Executive Committee unanimously have recommended you as our CEO, with which I unconditionally concur. “Welcome to Anytown Hospital.” The trustees stood and clapped their hands. The bishop turned to the trustees and said, “Wow, that’s a first!” Please address the following questions drawing support from your course resources and credible scholarly resources cited in APA format : Summarize the main tenets of utilitarian theory of ethics and discuss how Daniel’s response to the trustee’s question of how he would spend the $100,000 fits the utilitarian theory of ethics. Assess whether other theories of ethics also apply here and provide a comparison and justification for at least one other theory—consequential, deontological, or nonconsequential. Discuss if Daniel, metaphorically speaking, succeeded in maximizing happiness in the eyes of the board. References 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402679&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 1/4 Close Print RubricSUO Discussion Rubric (80 Points) - Version 1.2 Course: MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 Response No Submission 0 points Emerging (F-D: 1-27) 27 points Satisfactory (C: 28- 31) 31 points Proficient (B: 32-35) 35 points Exemplary (A: 36-40) 40 points Criterion Score Quality of Initial Posting / 40No initial posting exists to evaluate. The information provided is inaccurate, not focused on the assignment’s topic, and/or does not answer the question(s) fully. Response demonstrates incomplete understanding of the topic and/or inadequate preparation. The information provided is accurate, giving a basic understanding of the topic(s) covered. A basic understanding is when you are able to describe the terms and concepts covered. Despite this basic understanding, initial posting may not include complete development of all aspects of the assignment. The information provided is accurate, displaying a good understanding of the topic(s) covered. A good understanding is when you are able to explain the terms and topics covered. Initial posting demonstrates sincere reflection and addresses most aspects of the assignment, although all concepts may not be fully developed. The information provided is accurate, providing an in- depth, well thought-out understanding of the topic(s) covered. An in- depth understanding provides an analysis of the information, synthesizing what is learned from the course/assigned readings. Participation No Submission 0 points Emerging (F-D: 1-13) 13 points Satisfactory (C: 14- 16) 16 points Proficient (B: 17-18) 18 points Exemplary (A: 19-20) 20 points Criterion Score 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402679&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 2/4 Participation No Submission 0 points Emerging (F-D: 1-13) 13 points Satisfactory (C: 14- 16) 16 points Proficient (B: 17-18) 18 points Exemplary (A: 19-20) 20 points Criterion Score Participation in Discussion / 20No responses to other classmates were posted in this discussion forum. May include one or more of the following: *Comments to only one other student's post. *Comments are not substantive, such as just one line or saying, “Good job” or “I agree. *Comments are off topic. Comments to two or more classmates’ initial posts but only on one day of the week. Comments are substantive, meaning they reflect and expand on what the other student wrote. Comments to two or more classmates’ initial posts on more than one day. Comments are substantive, meaning they reflect and expand on what the other student wrote. Comments to two or more classmates’ initial posts and to the instructor's comment (if applicable) on two or more days. Responses demonstrate an analysis of peers’ comments, building on previous posts. Comments extend and deepen meaningful conversation and may include a follow- up question. Writing No Submission 0 points Emerging (F-D: 1-13) 13 points Satisfaction (C: 14- 16) 16 points Proficient (B: 17-18) 18 points Exemplary (A: 19-20) 20 points Criterion Score 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402679&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 3/4 Total / 80 Writing No Submission 0 points Emerging (F-D: 1-13) 13 points Satisfaction (C: 14- 16) 16 points Proficient (B: 17-18) 18 points Exemplary (A: 19-20) 20 points Criterion Score Writing Mechanics (Spelling, Grammar, Citation Style) and Information Literacy / 20No postings for which to evaluate language and grammar exist. Numerous issues in any of the following: grammar, mechanics, spelling, use of slang, and incomplete or missing citations and references. If required for the assignment, did not use course, text, and/or outside readings (where relevant) to support work. Some spelling, grammatical, and/or structural errors are present. Some errors in formatting citations and references are present. If required for the assignment, utilizes sources to support work for initial post but not comments to other students. Sources include course/text readings but outside sources (when relevant) include non- academic/authoritative, such as Wikis and .com resources. Minor errors in grammar, mechanics, or spelling in the initial posting are present. Minor errors in formatting citations and references may exist. If required for the assignment, utilizes sources to support work for both the initial post and some of the comments to other students. Sources include course and text readings as well as outside sources (when relevant) that are academic and authoritative (e.g., journal articles, other text books, .gov Web sites, professional organization Web sites, cases, statutes, or administrative rules). Minor to no errors exist in grammar, mechanics, or spelling in both the initial post and comments to others. Formatting of citations and references is correct. If required for the assignment, utilizes sources to support work for both the initial post and the comments to other students. Sources include course and text readings as well as outside sources (when relevant) that are academic and authoritative (e.g., journal articles, other text books, .gov Web sites, professional organization Web sites, cases, statutes, or administrative rules). 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=402679&evalObjectType=5&userId=4901&groupId=0&rubricId=6574&d2l_b… 4/4 Overall Score No Submission 0 points minimum There was no submission for this assignment. Emerging (F to D Range) 1 point minimum Satisfactory progress has not been met on the competencies for this assignment. Satisfactory (C Range) 56 points minimum Satisfactory progress has been achieved on the competencies for this assignment. Proficient (B Range) 64 points minimum Proficiency has been achieved on the competencies for this assignment. Exemplary (A Range) 72 points minimum The competencies for this assignment have been mastered. 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=411450&evalObjectType=1&userId=4901&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=248268&… 1/3 Close Print RubricSU MHA6060 Week 2 Project Rubric Course: MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 Criteria No Submission 0 points Emerging (F through D Range) (1–10) 10 points Satisfactory (C Range) 11 points Proficient (B Range) (12–13) 13 points Exemplary (A Range) (14–15) 15 points Criterion Score Includes all assignment components and meets graduate level critical thinking. A purpose statement is identified for the response. / 15Student did not submit assignment. Work minimally meets assignment expectations. No purpose statement is provided. Assignment meets some expectations with minimal depth and breath. Purpose statement is vague. Assignment meets most of expectations with all components being addressed in good depth and breadth. Purpose statement is present and appropriate for the assignment. Assignment meets all expectations with exceptional depth and breath. A comprehensive purpose statement delineates all requirements of the assignment. Criteria No Submission 0 points Emerging (F through D Range) (1–10) 10 points Satisfactory (C Range) 11 points Proficient (B Range) (12–13) 13 points Exemplary (A Range) (14–15) 15 points Criterion Score Integrates and understands assignments concepts and topics. / 15Student did not submit assignment. Shows some degree of understanding of assignment concepts. Demonstrates a clear understanding of assignment concepts. Demonstrates the ability to evaluate and apply key assignment concepts. Demonstrates the ability to evaluate, apply and integrate key assignment concepts. Criteria No Submission 0 points Emerging (F through D Range) (1–10) 10 points Satisfactory (C Range) 11 points Proficient (B Range) (12–13) 13 points Exemplary (A Range) (14–15) 15 points Criterion Score 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=411450&evalObjectType=1&userId=4901&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=248268&… 2/3 Total / 50 Criteria No Submission 0 points Emerging (F through D Range) (1–10) 10 points Satisfactory (C Range) 11 points Proficient (B Range) (12–13) 13 points Exemplary (A Range) (14–15) 15 points Criterion Score Synthesizes, analyses, and evaluates resources to apply concepts in the assignment. / 15Student did not submit assignment. Does not interpret, apply, and synthesize concepts and strategies. Summarizes information gleaned from sources to support major points, but does not synthesize. Provides minimal justification to support major topics. Uses one credible resource in the assignment. Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates, confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major points presented. Uses a minimum of two credible resources in the assignment. Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates, confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major points presented. Uses three credible resources for the assignment, including at least one scholarly peer-reviewed resource. Criteria No Submission 0 points Emerging (F through D Range) (1–2) 2 points Satisfactory (C Range) 3 points Proficient (B Range) 4 points Exemplary (A Range) 5 points Criterion Score Uses correct spelling, grammar, and professional vocabulary. Provides credible resources using correct APA format. / 5Student did not submit assignment. Contains many (≥5) grammar, spelling, punctuation and APA errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Contains a few (3–4) grammar, spelling, punctuation and APA errors. Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Contains a few (1–2) APA format errors. Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. Uses correct APA format with no errors. 8/24/2021 Rubric Assessment - MHA6060-Health Law and Ethics SU01 - South University https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/lms/competencies/rubric/rubrics_assessment_results.d2l?ou=80786&evalObjectId=411450&evalObjectType=1&userId=4901&viewTypeId=3&rubricId=248268&… 3/3 Overall Score No Submission 0 points minimum Emerging (F through D Range) 1 point minimum Satisfactory (C Range) 35 points minimum Proficient (B Range) 40 points minimum Exemplary (A Range) 45 points minimum