Introduction to the Final Project Part A – Case Analysis:Part A consists of four mini-case study ana

Introduction to the Final Project Part A – Case Analysis:Part A consists of four mini-case study analysis questions, which are based on topics we havediscussed in various modules throughout the course. For each question, you will analyze thescenario using the template provided. Your responses should be approximately between 350-500words each. Rather than simply stating an opinion, you must include scholarly sources to supportyour discussion. You are welcome to use your textbook and any materials used throughout thecourse; researching additional sources is allowed but not required. To assist your reflection, eachquestion lists the reading that pertains to the topic.Your project should include a title page (project title, your name, class, date and instructor’sname), APA formatted inline citations as appropriate and a bibliography for any references used.You may list your references for each question at the end of the individual responses. Pleasedouble-space your responses.Part A of your final project is due at the end of Module 7.Instructions:Use the following template to develop your project for Questions 1, 2 and 4. Use the modifiedtemplate provided in Q3 to respond to that case study. The questions you will be answering arelinked below the template information:Copy/paste the title of the question.Describe the most relevant ethical dilemma(s) presented (no more than two).Briefly describe the primary issue or issues that are relevant in the scenario with respect to thedilemma.Identify the most relevant stakeholder(s) (no more than 3) and briefly describe the situation fromtheir perspective.Analyze the scenario, using scholarly discussion, from the perspective of the primary stakeholder(typically the patient). Include a discussion of at least two ethical theories or bioethics principlesstudied in the course that relate to the dilemma and issues you identified. Include any relevantlegal concerns or requirements outlined in the readings.Present your assessment, resolution or potential solutions for resolving the issue. Remember thatthere are no right answers, per se, so reflective questions can be as appropriate as a firmconclusion.Title page + APA formatted reference(s).You must answer questions in each of the following cases. Click on the question title to accesseach case:Q1: Paternalism v.s. Autonomy – Dax CowartQ2: Confidentiality, Disclosure and Livid LovebirdsQ3: Morally Wrong or Ethically Challenging?Q4: The Emily Dilemma – AbortionQuestion 1: Introduction to the ActivityI would like to introduce you to the story of Dax Cowart. Attached is an excerpt from a speechthat Dax Cowart made several years ago, a speech that remains poignant for contemporaryreflection. The story is heart breaking and challenges all the bounds of ethics and health care. Asyou listen to Dax, or read the transcript of his talk, think about the issues Dax discusses,especially in connection with capacity and the right to decline medical treatment (which we willdiscuss in greater detail later on in the course). These are the stories and circumstances whereethics and health care collide and individuals are forced to make tough decisions. In thinkingover your responses to the Discussion Board questions, consider the concepts we have talkedabout in this Module and in Module I, such as personal moral values; bioethical principles; theneed to weigh and prioritize competing moral interests; a physician’s charge to provide ethicalcare and a patient’s right to self-determination.Related Reading from Module 2:Munson text: pp. 3-6; 38-40 (end at State Paternalism); 41-42 (end at Informed Consent); 891904;UVA News Makers – Dax Cowart (Note: you may either watch the video, or read the followingtranscript and Hastings Center Report: Confronting Death: who chooses, who controls?)Instructions to LearnersPlease respond to the following questions (approx. 350-500 words) using the template formatprovided for the assignment:You are Dax’s physician. How would you respond to Dax’s requests that you let him dieâ€?Would you continue to treat him against his wishes? Why or Why Not?Use the following template for your assignment:Use Microsoft Word to create a document.Copy/paste the title of the question.Describe the most relevant ethical dilemma(s) presented (no more than two).Briefly describe the primary issue or issues that are relevant in the scenario with respect to thedilemma.Identify the most relevant stakeholder(s) (no more than 3) and briefly describe the situation fromtheir perspective.Analyze the dilemma, using scholarly discussion, from the perspective of the primarystakeholder (typically the patient). Include a discussion of at least two ethical theories orbioethics principles studied in the course that relate to the dilemma and issues you identified.Include any relevant legal concerns or requirements outlined in the readings.Present your assessment, resolution or potential solutions for resolving thQuestion 2: Final Case Analysis: Confidentiality, Disclosure and Livid LovebirdsInformed consent requires not only that a patient receive all of the information necessary to makea reasoned decision, but also that they are able to process and understand the informationprovided. Language or cultural differences may impede understanding, and a blanket reliance ona doctor’s judgment may subvert the intent of the disclosure. Other barriers to informed consent,such as denial, fear and even family dynamics are often more difficult to spot, but equally if notmore detrimental. Relationships between patients, family members and healthcare providersoften morph over time into roles and role reversals that present special challenges in healthcareethics and the doctor-patient relationship. In this activity, you will consider the standards ofprofessional responsibility, medical ethics and the doctor-patient relationship as they apply whenthe boundaries between the roles become blurred.Related Reading from Module 3:Module NotesMunson text: pp. 46-47 (end at Parents & Children).AMA Opinion 10.01 – Fundamental Elements of the Patient-Physician RelationshipMitnick, S., Leffler, C., & Hood, V. (2010). Family caregivers, patients and physicians: ethicalguidance to optimize relationships. Journal Of General Internal Medicine, 25(3), 255-260.Principles of Medical Ethics. (2001).Schwartz, P. H. (2011). Questioning the Quantitative Imperative: Decision Aids, Prevention, andthe Ethics of Disclosure. The Hastings Center Report, (2), 30. doi:10.2307/41059016Instructions to LearnersPlease read the case scenario:Mr. and Mrs. Lovebird were approaching their 65th wedding anniversary when it was discoveredthat Mr. Lovebird was battling Stage IV lung cancer, with metastasis to his colon. Vowing to“Fight this thing!†the Lovebirds sought out the best specialists and Mr. Lovebird underwent twosurgeries, chemotherapy and several rounds of radiation. Mr. Lovebird did quite well for a while,but lately he has experienced severe fatigue and discomfort. He has also lost his appetite,resulting in a 15lb weight loss in just two months. Concerned, the Lovebirds went to see Dr.Friendly, their primary care physician for over 30 years, whom they trust implicitly. Knowingthat the Lovebirds are in denial to some extent, but also believing that medicine is an inexactscience, Dr. Friendly told them both about an experimental treatment option that might be worth“checking into,†even though the chances were slim that it would provide much benefit.At a dinner party for a mutual acquaintance, Dr. Friendly is approached by Lancelot, theLovebird’s only child. Dr. Friendly is aware of the close relationship between Lancelot and theLovebirds, so he is concerned for their welfare when Lancelot approaches him. Once alone,Lancelot appears upset and tells Dr. Friendly that he is concerned about the experimentaltreatment option Dr. Friendly mentioned to the Lovebirds, given Mr. Lovebird’s fatigue andweight loss. From Lancelot’s perspective, it is obvious that even if successful, it would only buyMr. Lovebird a few months and those months may not be very good ones. He is also concernedthat Mr. Lovebird is tired of treatments, but goes along to please Mrs. Lovebird. Dr. Friendlysmiles and shakes his head “Your mother has always been a force to be reckoned with,†he says“But, in reality, a few months is better than no months!†He also assures Lancelot that if theOncologist does not think Mr. Lovebird is a good candidate for the procedure, the Oncologistwill tell them so.When Lancelot suggests that Dr. Friendly’s professional judgment may be colored by theLovebird’s denial, Dr. Friendly becomes defensive, stating that as their doctor all he can do isprovide them with information and statistics on the disease prognosis and the benefits and risksof any potential options. He admonishes Lancelot, stating “if your parents want to believe inmiracles, I am not going to take that away from them, and you shouldn’t either!â€Visibly upset, Lancelot insists that Dr. Friendly discuss the Hospice option with the Lovebirds,preferably with Mr. Lovebird, first. Although Dr. Friendly is concerned that the idea of Hospicecould be more lethal to the Lovebirds than any experimental treatment, he agrees, on thecondition that Lancelot raise it with the Lovebirds first. “If your parents seem open to theconversation, give me a call or have them call me, and I will sit down with them to discuss theoptions.â€The next day, Lancelot goes to see Mr. and Mrs. Lovebird, and shares his conversation with Dr.Friendly, telling them that both he and Dr. Friendly agree that it may be time for Hospiceservices. Both the Lovebirds become very angry that he was discussing them with Dr. Friendlywithout them knowing it. They are also devastated that Dr. Friendly would conspire withLancelot to force a decision on them that is clearly premature. When he leaves, Mrs. Lovebirdcalls Dr. Friendly and tells him that she is furious with his breach of confidentiality and that heshould stick to family practice, as he is not an oncology expert.Please respond to the following questions (approx. 350-500 words) using the template formatprovided for the assignment:Given Dr. Friendly’s longstanding relationship with the Lovebirds, his insight into theirprocessing and coping mechanisms, and the close family relationship he has witnessed betweenthe Lovebirds and their son, did Dr. Friendly’s breach his professional responsibility to Mr. andMrs. Lovebird by suggesting that Lancelot discuss the Hospice option with the Lovebirds first?Use the following template for your assignment:Use Microsoft Word to create a document.Copy/paste the title of the question.Describe the most relevant ethical dilemma(s) presented (no more than two).Briefly describe the primary issue or issues that are relevant in the scenario with respect to thedilemma.Identify the most relevant stakeholder(s) (no more than 3) and briefly describe the situation fromtheir perspective.Analyze the dilemma, using scholarly discussion, from the perspective of the primarystakeholder (typically the patient). Include a discussion of at least two ethical theories orbioethics principles studied in the course that relate to the dilemma and issues you identified.Include any relevant legal concerns or requirements outlined in the readings.Present your assessment, resolution or potential solutions for resolving the issue. Remember thatthere are no right answers, per se, so reflective questions can be as appropriate as a firmconclusion.Title page + APA formatted reference(s).Question 4: Final Case Analysis: The Emily Dilemma – AbortionIntroduction to the ActivityRecall, that an ethical dilemma can be defined as two morally acceptable choices, both ofwhich will result in morally disturbing and unwelcome consequences. Often when weconsidering our position regarding an ethical dilemma, it is helpful to consider not only theissue presented, but whether we can justify our position based on an extreme, yet realisticset of conditions. Abortion is perhaps one of the most disturbing and confounding of issuesfor engaging in such an exercise, as it is sometimes difficult to justify the inconsistencies inour moral intuitions when confronted with situations that define an ethical dilemma.Related Reading from Module 7:Module notes and assigned textbook pagesVideos:Ankele, J. (Producer), & Macsoud, A. (Producer) (2010). Beyond the politics of life andchoice: A new conversation about abortion (link available in Mod 7)Tsiaras, A. (Director) (2011, November 14). Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -visualized TedTalks. [Video podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 (apprx. 10min)Iadarola , J. (Performer) (2012, November 25). Study: What happens to women deniedabortions? The Young Turks. [Audio podcast]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWBjQ7P9SSs (apprx. 5 min)Instructions to LearnersPlease read the case scenario:Twenty year old Emily who suffers from Bi-polar disorder and Schizophrenia lives at homewith her parents, but is fairly independent. Last year, Emily had a breakdown while livingaway at school and required hospitalization. Due to a complex mix of anti-psychotics,antidepressants and other medications to control her condition, Emily is now working parttime at a local bookstore and taking two classes at the community college. Emily loveschildren and hopes eventually to become a kindergarten teacher. Although Emily is onbirth control pills, she had missed a few days last month, during a brief ‘lapse’ in her mood,but then resumed taking them when she realized her mistake. Because she was veryconcerned about getting pregnant, she insisted that her boyfriend wear a condom. Thecondom broke and Emily is now 10 weeks pregnant.Emily’s doctors insist that the baby is at an exceptionally high risk for severe physical andmental impairments, including incomplete limb and/or brain development. At best, there isno solid data detailing teratogenicity risk for all of her medications, but the combinationsand inability to incorporate less harmful substitutes raise significant concern. Because sheis within the first trimester, there are no legal concerns based on the Roe v. Wade decisionso the doctors, her parents and her boyfriend are insisting that Emily have an abortion tospare the burden on the child. Emily, a devote Catholic, insists on carrying the baby andraising it once it is born. She has also personalized the arguments, finding that bydevaluing the life of her baby, her family and others devalue her as well.Emily’s parents have threatened to file for guardianship over her so that they can force theabortion, under their belief that she lacks decision-making capacity and the abortion is inher best interests. Although the doctors have no standing to join the suit, they have agreedto serve as expert witnesses for the parents. Emily’s boyfriend is considering petitioning thecourt–after the baby is born–for the right to be released from any parental responsibilities,given his lack of a position in the decision to abort.Emily’s Psychiatrist, Dr. Heady is very troubled by the case both for Emily and for thedeveloping fetus. Knowing that you are a famous ethicist, he contacts you informally andpresents the case as a hypothetical, maintaining Emily’s confidentiality. Dr. Heady isunsure whether the parents can legally force the abortion, but he is troubled on a muchmore fundamental level, which is why he is seeking your counsel.Please respond to the following questions (approx. 350-500 words) using the templateformat provided for the assignment:Presuming that Emily has decision-making capacity, Dr. Heady would like to hear yourthoughts on the following:Ethically, should Emily be able to reject the abortion in the first trimester, knowing that itis highly probable that continuing to take her necessary medications will severely andpermanently impair the baby?In reflecting upon the question, recall the court’s arguments in Roe v. Wade, and anycounter arguments provided in your materials. Also, consider the question of the fetus(encompassing all stages from conception through prebirth development) and the conceptof moral standing.Use the following template for your assignment:Use Microsoft Word to create a document.Copy/paste the title of the question.Describe the most relevant ethical dilemma(s) presented (no more than two).Briefly describe the primary issue or issues that are relevant in the scenario with respect tothe dilemma.Identify the most relevant stakeholder(s) (no more than 3) and briefly describe the situationfrom their perspective.Analyze the dilemma, using scholarly discussion, from the perspective of the primarystakeholder (typically the patient). Include a discussion of at least two ethical theories orbioethics principles studied in the course that relate to the dilemma and issues youidentified. Include any relevant legal concerns or requirements outlined in the readings.Present your assessment, resolution or potential solutions for resolving the issue.Remember that there are no right answers, per se, so reflective questions can be asappropriate as a firm conclusion.Title page + APA formatted reference(s).