Is it appropriate for nonmembers of the Makah tribe to evaluate the morality of the Makah whale hunt? Explain.

/in /by

Written Case 5

1. The Makah tribe claim to have hunted gray whales for more than 2,000 years. They stopped in the 1920s due to a decline in the number of gray whales. Now they want to return to the hunt to provide food for their tribe and to restore the young men’s sense of discipline and pride in their traditions. Pro-ponents of the hunt claim that a majority of the tribe support the hunt, which is expected to take fewer than the five whales they are permitted by law to kill. Tribal leaders claim they will take no pregnant or nursing females. Some Makah elders disagree, however, pointing out that the tribe survived for most of the twentieth century without eating whale meat and claiming that there are better ways to instill pride and discipline. The environmental community argues that the whale hunt is immoral because it violates the whales’ right to exist on the planet. Is it appropriate for nonmembers of the Makah tribe—for example, students in your class—to evaluate the morality of the Makah whale hunt? Explain.

2. In each of the following cases, the behavior illustrated seems to suggest that the people’s values differ significantly from our own. Consider the possibility that, beneath appearances, the values are similar. Develop a plausible explanation for the difference in behavior.

3. Your Written Case Analysis on this case needs to be at least 500 words. One thing you need to do is identify the parties at stake and the moral issues at stake.

4. In addition to talking about the parties at stake and the moral issues at stake in this case, you need to do one more thing. You need to need to analyze this case in terms of two of the following (you pick the two): utility, duties, and rights. Here’s how to do that.

a) If you choose the principle of utility, think about how the happiness of the Makah in favor of whaling is at stake in this case. Also, think about how the happiness of the Makah not in favor of whaling is at stake. Also, think about the happiness of the environmental community and any other significant parties involved. Then explain what, ultimately, the principle of utility would say to do in this case.

b) If you choose duties, think about the duties that pertain to the Makah in favor of whaling in this case. Also, think about the duties that pertain to the Makah not in favor of whaling in this case. Also, think about the duties that pertain to the environmental community and any other significant parties involved. Then explain what, ultimately, you think should be done in this case from the point of view of the duties involved.

c) If you choose rights, think about the rights that pertain to the Makah in favor of whaling in this case. Also, think about the rights that pertain to the Makah not in favor of whaling in this case. Also, think about the rights that pertain to the environmental community and any other significant parties involved. Then explain what, ultimately, you think should be done in this case from the point of view of the rights involved.

5. Your essay needs to be at least 500 words minimum and it needs to use proper MLA documentation.

Examine the scandal and provide a brief historical overview of the events, followed by an analysis of the events by applying all of the concepts and theories that we learned during the course.

/in /by

WE Charity scandal

The Case Description
In May of 2021, federal Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion delivered his long-awaited report on the role of former federal Finance Minister Bill Morneau in the WE Charity scandal. The commissioner found that Morneau breached various sections of the Conflict of Interest Act by ”improperly furthering WE’s private interests, by failing to recuse himself from decisions relating to WE, and by giving WE preferential treatment.” Morneau failed to recuse himself from the 2020 cabinet decision to pay the WE Charity $43.5 million to manage a $912 million student summer service program, despite their close personal family connections to the charity. The federal government’s decision to sole-source the program that was originally aimed at awarding grants to students who could not find summer work due to COVID-19 ended up embroiling the Liberal minority government in a parliamentary ethics scandal and controversy for months.

Instructions
There are two parts to this final capstone assessment:

Students are to examine the scandal and provide a brief historical overview of the events .
Followed by an analysis of the events by applying all of the concepts and theories that we learned during the course.
The overview must be a minimum of 1500 words to no more than a maximum of 2000 words, contain a proper title page, bibliography, and properly cited throughout (APA format). Proper spelling and grammar.

A copy of the Ethics Commissioner’s report can be accessed at:

https://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/en/investigations-enquetes/Pages/Morneau2Report.aspx

Consider the difficulty of the policy-making process. Does this change your view of our political system?

/in /by

Healthcare Policy Making

Consider the difficulty of the policy-making process. Does this change your view of our political system?

State this ethical approach on the slide and explain why the approach is the right. Ex. “Utilitarian approach” focuses on consequences of abortion, more infant deaths vs. reduced back-alley deaths; deontology approach, does a fetus have rights vs. rights of mother; etc.

/in /by

Landmines

Presentation Outline
Your presentation must follow this outline:

I. Title Slide – This first slide must include the presentation title, your full name, and the date.

II. Body Slide- The next slides will contain an explanation and summary of both sides of the issue. Use your research to objectively (your opinion will come later) present the facts and opinions of both sides fairly. In your slides, cite (current APA format) the research you use, including citations. Your explanation and summaries should be in-depth, thus taking up several slides (should be 3+ slides). Use the notes section of the slide if you feel the slides are becoming crowded with too much text. Relate any principles, concepts, or information from your textbook into your presentation.

III. Reference Slide – This next slide must list all sources in the current APA format.

IV. Opinion Slide – This next slide is your opinion. Present your own opinion about the controversy. You must explain why you believe what you do. Also, tie your opinion to one or more of the ethical approaches discussed in the textbook. State this ethical approach on the slide and explain why the approach is the right. Ex. “Utilitarian approach” focuses on consequences of abortion, more infant deaths vs. reduced back-alley deaths; deontology approach, does a fetus have rights vs. rights of mother; etc. Use the text or another professional source to support your stance. Be sure to properly cite your sources accordingly.

V. Conclusion and Discussion Questions Slide – Provide a summary of your presentation and close your presentation with three discussion questions about the topic. Think about these questions. Your questions must be ethically challenging and tough. You want your questions to really invoke a great deal of discussion.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing?

/in /by

Dilemma

Instructions
Return to the topic you chose in the week three assignment. Articulate a specific dilemma in a situation faced by a particular person based on that topic. The situation can be real or fictional.

Summarize the dilemma.
Define any needed key terms associated with the dilemma.
Analyze the conflicts or controversies involved in the dilemma.
Revise and rewrite based on any feedback you received in your previous draft (week three). Reference and discuss any professional code of ethics relevant to your topic such as the AMA code for doctors, the ANA code for nurses, etc. State whether and how your chosen topic involves any conflicts between professional and familial duties or conflicts between loyalty to self and loyalty to a community or nation.

What in your view is the most moral thing for that person to do in that dilemma? Why is that the most moral thing? Use moral values and logical reasoning to justify your answer

Next, apply the following:

Aristotle’s Golden Mean to the dilemma
Utilitarianism to the dilemma
Natural Law ethics to the dilemma
Which of those three theories works best ethically speaking? Why that one?

Why do the other two not work or not work as well?

Is it the same as what you said is the most moral thing earlier? Why or why not?

Use the 5 articles from your annotated bibliography to support your answers. (Additional academic scholarly research from the past 5 years can be included as well.)

What rights do these people have that are relevant to this case? Moreover, are the rights that these people have able to be exercised freely, or are any of them being violated or broken?

/in /by

Case Analysis 5

1. You need to read case 4 on page 172 in our book Thinking Critically about Ethical Issues.

CASE 4. A California Superior Court judge ordered a Sacramento woman to stop smoking around her 5-year-old son. The decision came during a custody dispute. The boy’s father claimed that breathing secondhand smoke could harm the boy’s health. Do moral considerations support the judge’s ruling?

2. Your Written Case Analysis on this case needs to be at least 200 words. One thing you need to do is identify the parties at stake and the moral issues at stake.

3. In addition to talking about the parties at stake and the moral issues at stake in this case, you need to do one more thing. You need to think about the rights involved in this case. To do that, do two things. First, think about the woman in this case, the boy involved, and the boy’s father. What rights do these people have that are relevant to this case? Moreover, are the rights that these people have able to be exercised freely, or are any of them being violated or broken? Second, from the point of view of the rights of the different parties involved, discuss whether you think the judge’s decision was justified or not.

4. Your essay needs to use proper MLA documentation.

How much did you know about what you read about this week and how does this information change or reinforce your feelings about marginalized and vulnerable populations?

/in /by

Module 6: Exploring Culturally Marginalized and Vulnerable Populations

For this week react to the reading but also consider how the reading this week has expanded your understanding. How much did you know about what you read about this week and how does this information change or reinforce your feelings about marginalized and vulnerable populations?

Interpret the impact that this case has had (or will have) on medical practice and/or healthcare organizations.

/in /by

Research Paper

Research a healthcare lawsuit that involves medical malpractice or insurance fraud. The case can be one that occurred and was resolved within the last 5-to-10 years, or it can be one that is currently being negotiated or presently in an appealed stage.

Perform a search for a lawsuit and prepare a 2-page summary of the details.
In your summary, interpret the impact that this case has had (or will have) on medical practice and/or healthcare organizations.
The information should include the following:
specific details of what led to the case, information about the Plaintiff, Defendant, details of the outcome, and state if you agree/disagree with the outcome along with an explanation of your decision.
All sources must be cited using APA format.

If the patient in the above scenario also was on dialysis, is there an ethical distinction between withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition and withdrawing dialysis? Explain your answer.

/in /by

To Withdraw or Not To Withdraw 

Case:

Beauchamp and Childress (2019) describe the case of a comatose elderly man with major medical problems and little chance of recovery. Artificial nutrition and hydration and intravenous antibiotics maintain his life. His family agreed to a “do not resuscitate” order. Disagreement arose among nursing and medical personnel about continuing artificial nutrition and hydration and intravenous antibiotics, and what to do should the patient’s IV infiltrate and need replacement. Some of the staff believe it is not ethical to stop sustenance treatment and they would be “killing” the patient if they did so. Other staff believes that with little chance of recovery, stopping artificial nutrition and hydration and intravenous antibiotics is “letting the patient die” and allowing nature to take its course.

Prepare

Answer the following questions:

  1. Is withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration and intravenous antibiotics from the patient justified? In your answer, address the ideas expressed in Lessons 6.2 and 6.3 and the required readings about withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and optional and obligatory treatment.
  2. If the patient in the above scenario also was on dialysis, is there an ethical distinction between withdrawing artificial hydration and nutrition and withdrawing dialysis? Explain your answer.

Post

Share your responses to the discussion forum below. Your post should be a total of 300–400 words. Use all references 2019 and newer.

What should you do and why? What would you think about a person who does not save the child?

/in /by

Suppose you are walking by a pond and see that a small child has gone into the pond and is in difficulties; she is too young to swim and will drown if not pulled out soon. Nobody else is around, or at least not near enough to pull the child out in time. The pond is shallow, so there is no danger in your going in, even if you can’t yourself swim. However, you are on your way to you second interview for the job that you have wanted all your life. You are wearing your new expensive clothes and shoes, and these will be ruined; additionally, if you stop to do anything, you will miss your appointment.

What should you do and why?

What would you think about a person who does not save the child?