In BHS365, you were introduced to the concept of critical thinking, and were tasked with applying the first two steps in the process. In BHS414, you reinforced the concepts and steps applied in BHS365, by having you again apply those early steps, but then take the process one step further.
Identify and clarify an ethical dilemma associated with the chosen topic of your course project. To achieve this, the students will be expected to gather and evaluate relevant information (e.g., peer review and credible sources). Furthermore, the students will be asked to consider alternatives for addressing the dilemma and the implications of each. Finally, the students will be expected to choose and most appropriate alternative and describe its proposed implementation.
Length: This assignment should be between 2-3 pages (500-750 words) in length, excluding references.
References: At least two references should be included from academic sources (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles).
Organization: Subheadings should be used to organize your paper
Format: APA format is recommended. While APA formatting of references is not a requirement, the references need to be presented in order using a standard citation style (APA, AMA, MLA etc). When material is copied verbatim from external sources, it MUST be enclosed in quotes. The references should be cited within the text and also listed at the end of the assignment in the References section. See Syllabus page for more information on APA format.
Grammar and Spelling: While no points are deducted, assignments are expected to adhere to standards guidelines of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and sentence syntax. Points may be deducted if grammar and spelling impact clarity.
Your paper will be evaluated based on the rubric criteria.
At the bottom of this page, there is a link to a writing rubric. The rubric WILL BE USED to assess the quality of your paper and assign a grade for this assignment. Please review it carefully before you begin this assignment. Your paper will be graded on the following attributes: organization, contextual awareness, knowledge of conventions, and appropriate use of sources and evidence. The point value for each attribute and what you’ll need to do in order to earn the maximum possible points on this assignment can be found in the writing rubric.
The purpose of using this rubric is to assist you in strengthening your written communication skills. As you know, this is a skill set that’s essential for establishing a successful career. If you have any questions regarding the expectations as outlined in the rubric, please don’t hesitate to bring them to my attention.
BHSH Writing Rubric
|Organization||Demonstrate the ability to organize content logically, concisely, and in a manner appropriate to the assignment.||Little organizational control is apparent in the document.||Significant organizational flaws are apparent in the document.||Minor organizational flaws are apparent in the document.||Clear organizational strategy is apparent in the document.|
|Demonstrates the ability to support a central point or viewpoint throughout the document.||Insufficient elaboration and/or support (e.g., summaries, listings) in the document.||Limited elaboration and/or support in the document.||Support with some specific details and elaboration in the document.||Support through both specific details and elaboration apparent in the document.|
|Demonstrates the ability to effectively use transitions to aid the reader’s comprehension.||Ineffective attempt to provide transitions in the document.||Transitions provide some guidance to the reader of the document.||Transitions guide the reader through the text of the document.||Transitions actively contribute to the reader’s understanding of the text within the document.|
|Contextual Awareness||Demonstrate the ability to express one’s intended purpose clearly and consistently in writing.||The purpose is not identified, is unclear, or inappropriate in the document.||Purpose is occasionally unclear in the document.||Clear purpose, but not consistently sustained throughout the document.||Clear purpose sustained throughout the document.|
|Demonstrate the ability to present information to varying audiences in such a way that the information is meaningful to that group.||Doesn’t respond to the needs of the audience.||Limited sense of the needs of the audience.||Addresses the needs of the audience.||Effectively addresses the needs of the audience.|
|Demonstrate the ability to discover, assemble, evaluate, and explain competing ideas or explanations.||Competing ideas or explanations aren’t present in the document.||Limited inclusion and analysis of competing ideas or explanations, and no linkage back to the central theme or viewpoint in the document.||Effectively presents, explains, and analyzes competing ideas or explanations, but doesn’t clearly relate back to the central theme or viewpoint in the document.||Effectively presents, explains, and analyzes competing ideas or explanations, and then relates them to the central theme or viewpoint in the document.|
|Demonstrate breadth and depth of understanding of the assigned topic in writing.||There is no clear focus on the central theme or viewpoint presented in the document. It isn’t apparent that the author knows the topic of the document.||There is evidence of a broad based understanding of the central theme or viewpoint, but no evidence of an in-depth understanding in the document.||Provides a broad based understanding of the central theme or viewpoint, but few details or specificity is furnished in the document.||Clear evidence that the document contains a general and detailed understanding of the central theme or viewpoint with ample examples and appropriate evidentiary support.|
|Knowledge of Conventions||Demonstrate the use of standard written English.||Errors interfere with comprehension of the text within the document.||Numerous distracting errors within the document.||Few errors and no interference with the comprehension of content within the document.||Successful use of sophisticated grammar and mechanics within the document.|
|Demonstrate the ability to use appropriate sentence structure within the document.||Poor or repetitious sentence structure throughout the document.||Some use of appropriate sentence structure, not adequate to the purpose or audience.||Sentence structure is appropriate to purpose and audience.||Sentence structure effectively matches the purpose and audience.|
|Sources and Evidence||Demonstrate the ability to appropriately incorporate quality, relevant sources in support of ideas within the document.||Attempt to use sources which support ideas within the document.||Attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.||Consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.||Skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing|
|Demonstrate the ability to properly cite in-text citations and record them on the list of references.||Failure to cite in-text citations in the document; references page not present.||Inconsistently cites in-text citations; fails to consistently list sources on the reference page.||Cites all in-text citations, but fails to use a consistent format; does list sources on reference page, but is inconsistent in format.||Accurately cites all in-text citations and consistently lists them on the reference page.|
|Demonstrate the ability to use one’s own words in support of the text and not be overly dependent on outside sources.||Less than 70% of the text is in the author’s own words.||70% to 79% of the text is in the author’s own words.||80% to 89% of the text is in the author’s own words.||90% or more of the text is in the author’s own words.|
Harold G. Koenig. (2000). Editorial: Exploring Psychobiological, Psychosocial, and Cultural Aspects of Patient Care: The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine in the 21st Century. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 30(3), 195-202.
MOONEY, G.. (2009). Is it not time for health economists to rethink equity and access? Health Economics, Policy and Law, 4(2), 209-221.
Katharine V Smith. (2005). Ethical Issues RELATED TO HEALTH CARE: The Older Adult’s Perspective. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 31(2), 32-9.
Norma Stephens Hannigan (2006). Blowing the whistle on healthcare fraud: Should I? Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 18(11), 512-7.
Brad Beauvais, Rebecca Wells, Joseph Vasey, Jami L Dellifraine. (2007). Does Money Really Matter? The Effects of Fiscal Margin on Quality of Care in Military Treatment Facilities. Hospital Topics, 85(3), 2-15.