Assessment Task 3 Question 1. Access to healthcare should be restricted for people that do not...

Question

Assessment Task 3
Question
1. Access to healthcare should be restricted for people that do not participate in a national vaccination program.
Information for assignment.
In the essay you must offer a “balanced view” of the topic, which means that you must include alternative ethical perspectives that may not match your ultimate ethical stance but require consideration. You are not being asked to write an unsubstantiated opinion piece but are developing a logical evidenced ethical position.
Start with a clear introduction that tells the reader what to expect. A good introduction contains:
• Some
ief background information on the ethical importance of the topic.
• A clear thesis-statement, where you tell the reader
iefly where your ultimate ethical stance
on the issue. Frame this in a way which ‘advises the reader where your argument is going to end up’ - for example “A range of ethical arguments will be presented to support the assertion that.....” (Note: You should not even determine your ethical stance (intro & conclusion) until you have written the body of your essay. Don’t go in with pre-conceived assumptions).
The body of your essay:
• This is where you explore in detail how each of the bioethical principles relates to the topic
of your essay. This may ultimately support your central argument, or it may be presenting alternate/opposing views (all should be included).
i. Autonomy: Is the patient’s autonomy being respected or not? Can it be respected? Are there challenges in supporting this ethical principle?
ii. Beneficence: Is the intention to achieve the best possible outcome for the patient? Are there challenges in supporting this ethical principle?
iii. Non-Maleficence: Is un-necessary harm to the patient being avoided? Is it necessary to ‘harm’ the patient? Are there challenges in supporting this ethical principle?
iv. Justice: Are patients receiving equitable care regarding their needs and the available resources? Are there valid reasons for treating certain patients inequitably?
• In the body of the essay, you also need to include discussion of other ethical concepts such as human dignity, veracity, codes of ethics, and professional codes of conduct. Ideally, these are integrated through the discussion.
• At some point you will have to justify the values judgment that you make in determining what takes ethical precedence, and why you may have to compromise on any of the four bioethical principles. This is where the other ethical theories become useful.
i. Utilitarian thinking: Are you aiming for the best possible outcome for the greatest good
enefits for the greatest number? Can you demonstrate ethically that it is, indeed, a “good” outcome?
ii. Deontological thinking: Is there a duty or rule that necessitates or fo
ids a particular type of action? Can you explain why this duty exists?
iii. Virtue-Ethics thinking: Does the proposed action conform to what we might expect of the moral character virtues of health-care professionals?
iv. Ethics-of-Care thinking: Is the patient being consulted with a benevolent attitude, and is there sufficient dialogue with the patient to work out what is morally best in his or her specific situation? Is there potential for conflict with any general rules of moral conduct?
v. Natural Law: Are there applicable universal and objective moral norms to which each person, when acting reasonably and responsibly, should respond?
Your conclusion should summarise and round-off your discussion on the topic. You should:
· Concisely summarise how your ideas collectively support your ethical stance
· State your ethical stance. Frame this in stronger language than in the introduction - for
example “...as demonstrated in the ethical arguments presented, it is/is not....”.
· offer some
ief concluding remarks on the topic.
    Length
    1500 words +/- 10% (includes intext citations)
    task
    In relation to your selected topic:
Consider the application of the bioethical principles that have been discussed in the unit.
· Consider the application of ethical theories and other ethical concepts to
the chosen topic.
· Based on the evidence, construct a written discussion that clearly presents
these ethical considerations and the ethical dilemma/s. You need to
present multiple perspectives on the topic.
· Based on the evidence determine and then specify your ethical stance.
· Present your work in a formal academic essay using APA referencing that
includes an introduction, discussion, and conclusion
    Structure
    Introduction: Provides an introduction and
ief background to the topic and ethical discussion, identifies the ethical stance to be argued.
Body: Provides the content of the ethical arguments incorporating diverse perspectives on the bioethical principles, ethical theories, other ethical concepts. Conclusion: identifies the key ethical points argued and re-iterates the ethical stance taken. Does not introduce new ideas.
Reference List: Includes all the sources identified within the essay. Use APA 7th edition.
    Minimum References
    There is no set number of references that must be used as a minimum for this task, but as a rough guide only, if you have utilized less than 10-12 unique quality peer-reviewed sources then you have not read widely enough.
All arguments must be supported using a variety of high-quality primary evidence. Avoid using any one source repetitively.
Most references for this task should be published within the last 5 years, however the appropriate use of older evidence sources (e.g., seminal theoretical ethical work) is acceptable.

assessment-task-3-written-essay-sb3tgty4.docx

Ayan · Accepted Answer

WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT		2
WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT
Table of contents
Introduction	3
Body	3
I. Autonomy	3
II. Beneficence	4
III. Non-Malfeasance	4
IV. Justice	5
Other Ethical Concepts	6
Ethical Theories	7
I. Utilitarian Thinking	7
II. Deontological Thinking	8
III. Virtue Ethics Thinking	8
IV. Ethics-of-Care Thinking	9
V. Natural Law	9
Conclusion	10
References	11
Introduction
	Complicated ethical questions are raised when the subject of healthcare access is discussed in connection to taking part in a national vaccination campaign. The four bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice will be examined in this article as we examine this topic in relation to them. We'll also examine other ethical ideas including human dignity, truthfulness, codes of ethics, and standards of behavior for professionals. We will also use moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, ethics of care, and natural law in order to offer a thorough comprehension. We'll give a range of viewpoints throughout the article to foster a well-rounded conversation. Finally, we will outline our ethical position on whether those who refuse to take part in a nationwide vaccination program should have less access to healthcare.
Body
I. Autonomy
	A fundamental bioethical notion known as autonomy emphasizes a person's freedom to make their own educated healthcare decisions (Zimet et al., 2021). Autonomy implies that people should have the freedom to decide whether or not to get vaccinations in the context of vaccination programs. However, difficulties occur when public health concerns demand a high vaccination rate to develop herd immunity, especially for illnesses with a high risk of serious effects, as COVID-19. Those who favor limiting unvaccinated people's access to medical treatment contend that doing so is important for the protection of the public's health. They claim that unvaccinated people may expose vulnerable patients to illnesses that can be prevented by vaccination when they seek healthcare. An individual with a compromised immune system, for instance, may be at danger if exposed to an unvaccinated person having a contagious disease. Respecting individual autonomy, however, is still essential. People may have legitimate reservations about the efficacy of vaccines, mistrust of the healthcare system, or ethical issues. One may argue that requiring vaccinations or restricting access to healthcare is a paternalistic tactic that infringes on people's liberty.
II. Beneficence
	The obligation to work toward a patient's best potential result is emphasized by the beneficence principle (Ismail et al., 2020). Beneficence contends that universal vaccination can shield the populace against infectious illnesses and their possible side effects in the context of immunization programs. The healthcare system may save needless suffering and fatalities by limiting the spread of illnesses like measles or influenza. However, the ethical conflict between beneficence and free choice manifests itself when people decline vaccination. Mandatory vaccination proponents contend that some sacrifices are necessary for the greater good, including limiting access to healthcare for those who are not vaccinated. They assert that the goal is to minimize the spread of disease in order to maximize the advantages to the public health. On the other hand, detractors argue that beneficence shouldn't compromise personal choice. They contend that coercive methods can damage people's faith in healthcare institutions and have unforeseen results. For instance, if people believe that these measures are unduly invasive, they may be less inclined to seek medical attention or follow public health recommendations.
III. Non-Malfeasance
	The avoidance of patient injury is required under the non-malfeasance principle, which guides healthcare practitioners. By reducing the potential damage of infectious illnesses through immunization, non-malfeasance is used in the context of vaccination. The safety of vaccines is extensively evaluated, and in most cases, the advantages of immunization outweigh the dangers. However, when taking into account possible vaccination damage, ethical issues surface. Some people may develop negative side effects, which can range from minor injection site pain to more severe allergic responses. These unfavorable outcomes might be alarming, and people might worry that vaccinations would hurt them. Beneficence and non-malfeasance must be balanced (Warren, Kisely & Siskind, 2021). Vaccines may have certain dangers, but they are usually seen to be safe, and the potential harm from illnesses that may be prevented by vaccination is sometimes far larger. Healthcare providers must be open and honest with patients, addressing their worries and giving them accurate information about the dangers and advantages of immunization.
IV. Justice
	Equitable access to medical resources is required by the justice concept.

Question attached below in a file?

Solution

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

Submit New Assignment