Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– 2 years ago
**files (2)**
– ## EthicalDecisonsinHealthCare.docx
– ## EthicalDecisionsinHealthCareRubric.pdf
**## EthicalDecisonsinHealthCare.docx**
Your health care team is presented with the following case:
A 6-year-old develops a high fever accompanied by violent vomiting and convulsions while at school. The child is rushed to a nearby hospital. The attending physician makes a diagnosis of meningitis and requests permission from the parents to initiate treatment. Both parents are Christian Scientists, and they insist that no medical treatment be given to the child. The physician initiates treatment anyway, and the parents later sue the physician and the hospital.
In a formal, written paper of 1,250-1,500 words, provide the following:
1. Explain the ethical dilemma portrayed in this case and how Uustal's "Ethical Decision-Making Model" can assist in navigating the situation.
2. Describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations of each of the following health care stakeholders: (a) child, (b) parent, (c) physician, (d) health care staff, (e) hospital, (f) administrator, and (g) attorney.
3. Summarize potentially conflicting values and principles that exist in this case based upon ethical theories and principles you have learned in this course.
4. Assuming the role of the hospital administrator, provide a solution to resolve the identified ethical dilemma in this case.
Here are some articles you can use:
a. Applying Kidder’s Ethical Decision-Making Model
b. Box 9.5 Clinical Ethical Decision-Making Model
c. Ethical Decision Making for Nurses Treating Acute Pain in Patients with Opioid Abuse History
d. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Research Studies
e. Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles
f. Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research
g. Should We Worry About the Possible Framing Effect of Ethical Theories?
h. The Ethic of Care: A Christian Perspective
**## EthicalDecisionsinHealthCareRubric.pdf**
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 1 of 9about:srcdoc
Ethical Decisions in Health Care – Rubric
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model
of Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can be
applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can
be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately explain how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of
Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
Collapse All
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 2 of 9about:srcdoc
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care
Stakeholders
16.2 points
Criteria Description
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care Stakeholders
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and
expectations of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital,
administrator, and attorney.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a
child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child, parent,
physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child,
parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations
of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 3 of 9about:srcdoc
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in
the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately summarize potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 4 of 9about:srcdoc
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma 16.2 points
Criteria Description
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical
dilemma in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital
administrator.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately provide a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma
in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 5 of 9about:srcdoc
Thesis Development and Purpose 6.3 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent 6.3 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good 5.35 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. Satisfactory 4.73 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 4.1 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 6 of 9about:srcdoc
Argument Logic and Construction 7.2 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent 7.2 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive
and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good 6.12 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. Satisfactory 5.4 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. Less Than Satisfactory 4.68 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable
credibility.
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.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 7 of 9about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good 3.82 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. Satisfactory 3.38 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. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is
correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 8 of 9about:srcdoc
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good 3.82 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting
style.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor
errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely
followed correctly.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 9 of 9about:srcdoc
Documentation of Sources 4.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.82 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format
is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although
some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 90 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## EthicalDecisionsinHealthCareRubric.pdf**
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 1 of 9about:srcdoc
Ethical Decisions in Health Care – Rubric
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model
of Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can be
applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can
be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately explain how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of
Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
Collapse All
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 2 of 9about:srcdoc
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care
Stakeholders
16.2 points
Criteria Description
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care Stakeholders
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and
expectations of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital,
administrator, and attorney.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a
child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child, parent,
physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child,
parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations
of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 3 of 9about:srcdoc
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in
the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately summarize potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 4 of 9about:srcdoc
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma 16.2 points
Criteria Description
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical
dilemma in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital
administrator.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately provide a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma
in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 5 of 9about:srcdoc
Thesis Development and Purpose 6.3 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent 6.3 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good 5.35 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. Satisfactory 4.73 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 4.1 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 6 of 9about:srcdoc
Argument Logic and Construction 7.2 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent 7.2 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive
and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good 6.12 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. Satisfactory 5.4 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. Less Than Satisfactory 4.68 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable
credibility.
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.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 7 of 9about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good 3.82 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. Satisfactory 3.38 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. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is
correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 8 of 9about:srcdoc
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good 3.82 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting
style.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor
errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely
followed correctly.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 9 of 9about:srcdoc
Documentation of Sources 4.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.82 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format
is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although
some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 90 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## EthicalDecisonsinHealthCare.docx**
Your health care team is presented with the following case:
A 6-year-old develops a high fever accompanied by violent vomiting and convulsions while at school. The child is rushed to a nearby hospital. The attending physician makes a diagnosis of meningitis and requests permission from the parents to initiate treatment. Both parents are Christian Scientists, and they insist that no medical treatment be given to the child. The physician initiates treatment anyway, and the parents later sue the physician and the hospital.
In a formal, written paper of 1,250-1,500 words, provide the following:
1. Explain the ethical dilemma portrayed in this case and how Uustal's "Ethical Decision-Making Model" can assist in navigating the situation.
2. Describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations of each of the following health care stakeholders: (a) child, (b) parent, (c) physician, (d) health care staff, (e) hospital, (f) administrator, and (g) attorney.
3. Summarize potentially conflicting values and principles that exist in this case based upon ethical theories and principles you have learned in this course.
4. Assuming the role of the hospital administrator, provide a solution to resolve the identified ethical dilemma in this case.
Here are some articles you can use:
a. Applying Kidder’s Ethical Decision-Making Model
b. Box 9.5 Clinical Ethical Decision-Making Model
c. Ethical Decision Making for Nurses Treating Acute Pain in Patients with Opioid Abuse History
d. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Research Studies
e. Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles
f. Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research
g. Should We Worry About the Possible Framing Effect of Ethical Theories?
h. The Ethic of Care: A Christian Perspective
**## EthicalDecisionsinHealthCareRubric.pdf**
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 1 of 9about:srcdoc
Ethical Decisions in Health Care – Rubric
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model
of Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can be
applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can
be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately explain how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of
Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
Collapse All
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 2 of 9about:srcdoc
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care
Stakeholders
16.2 points
Criteria Description
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care Stakeholders
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and
expectations of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital,
administrator, and attorney.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a
child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child, parent,
physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child,
parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations
of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 3 of 9about:srcdoc
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in
the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately summarize potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 4 of 9about:srcdoc
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma 16.2 points
Criteria Description
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical
dilemma in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital
administrator.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately provide a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma
in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 5 of 9about:srcdoc
Thesis Development and Purpose 6.3 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent 6.3 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good 5.35 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. Satisfactory 4.73 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 4.1 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 6 of 9about:srcdoc
Argument Logic and Construction 7.2 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent 7.2 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive
and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good 6.12 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. Satisfactory 5.4 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. Less Than Satisfactory 4.68 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable
credibility.
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.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 7 of 9about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good 3.82 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. Satisfactory 3.38 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. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is
correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 8 of 9about:srcdoc
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good 3.82 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting
style.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor
errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely
followed correctly.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 9 of 9about:srcdoc
Documentation of Sources 4.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.82 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format
is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although
some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 90 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
**## EthicalDecisonsinHealthCare.docx**
Your health care team is presented with the following case:
A 6-year-old develops a high fever accompanied by violent vomiting and convulsions while at school. The child is rushed to a nearby hospital. The attending physician makes a diagnosis of meningitis and requests permission from the parents to initiate treatment. Both parents are Christian Scientists, and they insist that no medical treatment be given to the child. The physician initiates treatment anyway, and the parents later sue the physician and the hospital.
In a formal, written paper of 1,250-1,500 words, provide the following:
1. Explain the ethical dilemma portrayed in this case and how Uustal's "Ethical Decision-Making Model" can assist in navigating the situation.
2. Describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations of each of the following health care stakeholders: (a) child, (b) parent, (c) physician, (d) health care staff, (e) hospital, (f) administrator, and (g) attorney.
3. Summarize potentially conflicting values and principles that exist in this case based upon ethical theories and principles you have learned in this course.
4. Assuming the role of the hospital administrator, provide a solution to resolve the identified ethical dilemma in this case.
Here are some articles you can use:
a. Applying Kidder’s Ethical Decision-Making Model
b. Box 9.5 Clinical Ethical Decision-Making Model
c. Ethical Decision Making for Nurses Treating Acute Pain in Patients with Opioid Abuse History
d. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Research Studies
e. Return of Genetic Research Results to Participants and Families: IRB Perspectives and Roles
f. Seeing Beyond the Margins: Challenges to Informed Inclusion of Vulnerable Populations in Research
g. Should We Worry About the Possible Framing Effect of Ethical Theories?
h. The Ethic of Care: A Christian Perspective
**## EthicalDecisionsinHealthCareRubric.pdf**
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 1 of 9about:srcdoc
Ethical Decisions in Health Care – Rubric
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Applying the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model
of Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal
can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can be
applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely explains how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of Uustal can
be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately explain how the Ethical Decision-Making Model of
Uustal can be applied to navigate the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario.
Collapse All
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 2 of 9about:srcdoc
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care
Stakeholders
16.2 points
Criteria Description
The Perspectives, Needs, and Expectations of Health Care Stakeholders
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and
expectations of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital,
administrator, and attorney.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a
child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child, parent,
physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely describes the perspectives, needs, and expectations of a child,
parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and attorney.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately describe the perspectives, needs, and expectations
of a child, parent, physician, health care staff, hospital, administrator, and
attorney.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 3 of 9about:srcdoc
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario 15.3 points
Criteria Description
Potentially Conflicting Values and Principles in the Scenario
5. Excellent 15.3 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4. Good 13.01 points
Essay thoroughly summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in
the presented scenario.
3. Satisfactory 11.48 points
Essay summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 9.95 points
Essay vaguely summarizes potentially conflicting values and principles in the
presented scenario.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately summarize potentially conflicting values and
principles in the presented scenario.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 4 of 9about:srcdoc
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma 16.2 points
Criteria Description
Solution to the Ethical Dilemma
5. Excellent 16.2 points
Essay clearly and thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical
dilemma in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital
administrator.
4. Good 13.77 points
Essay thoroughly provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
3. Satisfactory 12.15 points
Essay provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the presented
scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 10.53 points
Essay vaguely provides a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma in the
presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Essay does not adequately provide a solution to resolve the ethical dilemma
in the presented scenario from the perspective of a hospital administrator.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 5 of 9about:srcdoc
Thesis Development and Purpose 6.3 points
Criteria Description
Thesis Development and Purpose
5. Excellent 6.3 points
Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis
statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
4. Good 5.35 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. Satisfactory 4.73 points
Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 4.1 points
Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 6 of 9about:srcdoc
Argument Logic and Construction 7.2 points
Criteria Description
Argument Logic and Construction
5. Excellent 7.2 points
Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive
and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
4. Good 6.12 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. Satisfactory 5.4 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. Less Than Satisfactory 4.68 points
Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity.
There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable
credibility.
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.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 7 of 9about:srcdoc
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar,
language use)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
4. Good 3.82 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. Satisfactory 3.38 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. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies
in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is
correct but not varied.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of
meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 8 of 9about:srcdoc
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and
assignment)
4.5 points
Criteria Description
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
All format elements are correct.
4. Good 3.82 points
Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting
style.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor
errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A
lack of control with formatting is apparent.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely
followed correctly.
4/21/25, 2:39 PM
Page 9 of 9about:srcdoc
Documentation of Sources 4.5 points
Criteria Description
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as
appropriate to assignment and style)
5. Excellent 4.5 points
Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to
assignment and style, and format is free of error.
4. Good 3.82 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format
is mostly correct.
3. Satisfactory 3.38 points
Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although
some formatting errors may be present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory 2.93 points
Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to
assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.
1. Unsatisfactory 0 points
Sources are not documented.
Total 90 points
© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.© 2025. Grand Canyon University. All Rights Reserved.
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)
[https://www.gce.com/](https://www.gce.com/)