The purpose of this assignment is to understand how ethics and the law affect a variety of health care professions. The ethical code for each profession demands a high level of honesty, integrity, and responsibility. Professional behavior facilitates the resolution of ethical dilemmas, and each health care professional should have access to the board’s code of ethics regulating the specific profession. Personal behavior should be maintained at its highest standards,andhealth care professionals should comply with all governmental rules and regulations.
Read the “Poor Judgement” case study, located at the end of Chapter 9 of the textbook, and evaluate the ethical and legal issues in the case. In a 750- to 1,000-word reflection on the case study, address the following:
- Examine the different ethical codes for health care professionals.
- Compare prevailing ethical codes and principles.
- Apply ethical codes and principles to health care situations.
- Explain how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct.
Support the assignment with 2–3 scholarly resources.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in theAPAStyle Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Code of Ethics and Conduct: Poor Judgement - Rubric Ethical Codes for Healthcare Professionals 30 points Criteria Description Ethical Codes for Healthcare Professionals 5. 5: Excellent 30 points The examination of the different ethical codes for health care professionals is thorough and includes substantial relevant supporting details. 4. 4: Good 25.5 points The examination of the different ethical codes for health care professionals is complete and includes relevant supporting details. 3. 3: Satisfactory 22.5 points The examination of the different ethical codes for health care professionals is included, but lacks description and relevant supporting details. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 19.5 points The examination of the different ethical codes for health care professionals is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points The examination of the different ethical codes for health care professionals is not included. Prevailing Ethical Codes and Principles 30 points Criteria Description Prevailing Ethical Codes and Principles Collapse All 5. 5: Excellent 30 points The comparison of prevailing ethical codes and principles is thorough and includes substantial relevant supporting details. 4. 4: Good 25.5 points The comparison of prevailing ethical codes and principles is complete and includes relevant supporting details. 3. 3: Satisfactory 22.5 points The comparison of prevailing ethical codes and principles is included but lacks description and relevant supporting details. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 19.5 points The comparison of prevailing ethical codes and principles is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Applying Ethical Codes and Principles 30 points Criteria Description Applying Ethical Codes and Principles 5. 5: Excellent 30 points The application of the ethical codes and principles to health care situations is thorough and includes substantial relevant supporting details. 4. 4: Good 25.5 points The application of the ethical codes and principles to health care situations is complete and includes relevant supporting details. 3. 3: Satisfactory 22.5 points The application of the ethical codes and principles to health care situations is included, but lacks description and relevant supporting details. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 19.5 points The application of the ethical codes and principles to health care situations is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points The application of the ethical codes and principles to health care situations is not included. Minimizing Bias and Developing Objectivity 30 points Criteria Description Minimizing Bias and Developing Objectivity 5. 5: Excellent 30 points The explanation of how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct is thorough and includes substantial relevant supporting details. 4. 4: Good 25.5 points The explanation of how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct is complete and includes relevant supporting details. 3. 3: Satisfactory 22.5 points The explanation of how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct is included but lacks description and relevant supporting details. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 19.5 points The explanation of how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct is incomplete. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points The explanation of how to minimize bias and develop objectivity based on the different codes of ethics and codes of conduct is not included. Thesis Development and Purpose 7.5 points Criteria Description Thesis Development and Purpose 5. 5: Excellent 7.5 points Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 4. 4: Good 6.38 points Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. 3. 3: Satisfactory 5.63 points Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.88 points Thesis is insufficiently developed and/or vague. Purpose is not clear. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Argument Logic and Construction 7.5 points Criteria Description Argument Logic and Construction 5. 5: Excellent 7.5 points Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 4. 4: Good 6.38 points Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. 3. 3: Satisfactory 5.63 points Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.88 points Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 7.5 points Criteria Description Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) 5. 5: Excellent 7.5 points Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 4. 4: Good 6.38 points Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. 3. 3: Satisfactory 5.63 points Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.88 points Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. 1. 1: Unsatisfactory 0 points Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. Documentation of Sources 7.5 points Criteria Description Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) 5. 5: Excellent 7.5 points Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 4. 4: Good 6.38 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. 3. 3: Satisfactory 5.63 points Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. 2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory 4.88 points Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. 1 1 U i f 0 i Total 150 points