Guido’s moral model | Nursing homework help

Uncategorized

Assignment:

Complete both case studies:

1. Apply Guido’s MORAL model to resolve the dilemma presented in the case study described in EXERCISE 4–3 (Guido textbook). How might the nurses in this scenario respond to the physician’s request? How would this scenario begin to cause moral distress among the nursing staff, and what are the positive actions that the nurses might begin to take to prevent moral distress?

2. Read the case study entitled You be the Ethicist, presented at the end of Chapter 3 (Guido textbook). What are the compelling rights that this case addresses? Whose rights should take precedence? Does a child (specifically this competent 14-year-old) have the right to determine what will happen to him? Should he ethically have this right? How would you have decided the outcome if his disease state had not intervened? Now, examine the scenario from the perspective of health care policy. How would you begin to evaluate the need for the policy and the possible support or lack of support for the policy from your peers, nursing management, and others who might be affected by the policy? Do the 10 framework questions outlined by Malone in chapter 4 (Guido textbook) assist in this process? Create a process proposal for the organization with possible guidelines, procedures, and policies to address the issues you have identified.

EXERCISE 4–3

Mrs. R., an 87-year-old patient, has a past history that includes coronary artery disease, a previous stroke, and advanced Alzheimer’s disease. Ten days ago, Mrs. R. was hospitalized for aspiration pneumonia and has been ventilator dependent since being admitted to the intensive care unit in a small rural hospital. Family members visit daily and have repeatedly voiced their concern to the nursing staff about the continued ventilator support that Mrs. R. is receiving, most notably the fact that Mrs. R. would never have wanted such care. They also note that Mrs. R. has not recognized them in past months and that they plan to visit less in future days, but can be contacted should any change in Mrs. R.’s condition occur.

Her primary physician has practiced in this community for multiple years; he is well-known for his reluctance to discontinue any type of life support for any patient. When questioned, Dr. G.’s consistent response is, if this were his frail 92-year-old mother, he would prescribe the very same treatment for her. Dr. G. has now requested that the nurses talk to the family about moving Mrs. R. to a major medical center, where she can receive more advanced care, including vigorous rehabilitation and physical therapy, so that she may eventually return to a long-term nursing care facility.

How might the nurses in this scenario respond to the physician’s request? How would this scenario begin to cause moral distress among the nursing staff and what are the positive actions that the nurses should begin to take to prevent moral distress?

You be the Ethicist

Until recently, Tyrell Dueck was a normal eighth-grader in Canada, hoping that his favorite team would win the Stanley Cup for the third time. Then, early in the school year, he slipped climbing out of the shower and discovered a lump on his leg. He was then diagnosed with bone cancer.

After receiving two rounds of chemotherapy and being told that further therapy would mean the amputation of his leg, he announced that he wanted therapy stopped. He and his parents, devout fundamentalist Christians, decided to leave his health in God’s hands and seek alternative therapy. The decision sparked a court battle between his parents, who supported Tyrell’s decision, and the health care team, who sought to compel continued medical treatment and the planned amputation. The battle ultimately ended when doctors said that his cancer had spread to his lungs and that there was little more that could be done for Tyrell.

TEXTBOOK:

Legal and Ethical Issues in Nursing

Ginny Wa Guido

Continue to order Get a quote

July 1, 2023

Distinguishing Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:

· Textbook: Chapter 8, 9, 17 (Introduction)

· Lesson

· Minimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook)

Click on the following tabs to review the concepts that will be addressed in this activity:

A valid structure is the way in which an argument is put together that assures it will pass the test of logical strength.

Deductive: In deductive arguments, the speaker asserts that her premises are true and, therefore, her conclusion must be accepted. Remember that in a deductive argument, logical strength does not depend on the literal truth of the premises. When we test for logical strength, we assume the premises are true. Once we determine that the argument is logically valid, we can then look at the actual – not presumed – truth of the premises.

Inductive: In inductive arguments, the speaker presents evidence that she claims support the probable truth of her conclusion – that her conclusion is the most likely true – and so you should accept it.

The Basic Structure of Deductive and Inductive Arguments
Argument examples:

Deductive Argument Example: “Tightening laws restricting the use and possession of firearms does not protect average law-abiding citizens; it only puts them at greater risk. Enforcing licensing restrictions, trigger locks, and waiting periods makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, and, as a result, encourages criminal activity. Only criminals benefit when ordinary citizens are deprived of their right to own a firearm and protect themselves, their homes, and their families" (Lott, 2000, p. 169)

Lott, J., (2000). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws. University of Chicago Press.

The argument boils down to this:

· Laws that are obeyed by ordinary citizens and not obeyed by criminals are laws that put ordinary citizens at risk.

· Tight gun laws are laws that are obeyed only by ordinary citizens.

· Tight gun laws put ordinary citizens at risk.

However, the argument itself is composed of three intertwined syllogisms:

Only ordinary citizens are persons who respect tight gun laws.
Criminal persons are not ordinary citizens.
Therefore, criminals do not respect tight gun laws.

Tight gun laws restrict only ordinary citizens.
No criminal is an ordinary citizen.
No criminal is restricted by tight gun laws.

Laws that disfavor the good are laws that favor the bad.
Tight gun laws favor the bad.
Therefore, tight gun laws disfavor the good.

Notice that you cannot remove any of the “legs” and maintain the claim. Notice, also, that the reasons are closely connected and depend on or follow from each other. Notice, also, that the first premise (called the major premise) must be accepted as true, or the entire argument fails.

Inductive Argument: The United States is too dependent upon foreign oil. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, we rely on imported foreign oil for about 45% of our needs. Of the imported oil, most comes from Canada, but 22% comes from countries in the Middle East. Undeniably, this dependence shapes our foreign policy. We have vast oil reserves that could make us energy independent. Development of these resources would produce much-needed jobs, many of them in areas of the country suffering most from the recession. We should be developing an energy policy that makes us energy independent.

· Reason: We import 45% of our oil.

· Reason: Middle East oil imports shape our foreign policy.

· Reason: Our vast oil reserves could make us energy independent.

· Reason: Development of oil reserves could produce much needed jobs.

· Conclusion: For any or all of the above, independent reasons, we should become energy independent.

Notice that any one of these reasons, standing alone, could support the conclusions; they are not logically related to one another as they would be in a syllogism.

Initial Post Instructions
For the initial post, address the following:

· Find and post examples of deductive and inductive arguments. Do NOT use an argument example which clearly indicates it is an example of an inductive/deductive argument.

· For each example, evaluate its logical strength, using the concepts and ideas presented in the textbook readings, the lesson, and any other source you find that helps you to evaluate the validity (deductive) or strength (inductive) of the argument. You can use examples from the text, or you can find examples elsewhere.

oEditorials and opinion columns are a good source, as are letters to the editor. Blogs will also often be based on arguments.

oUse mapping and evaluative techniques to make sure it is an argument.

· Is it inductive or deductive? Explain why.

· Does it pass the tests of validity and strength? Explain.