Ethical Evaluation
Checklist (120 total points):
Part 1: Summary of the Case (20 points)
_______ Summary of the Case to be Evaluated(10 points)
– Grading here will focus on whether your summary is clear and concise. Does your writing, for example, avoid mentioning unnecessary or irrelevant details of the case? The length of this section should be approximately half a page at most.
_______ Statement of the Ethical Dilemma Involved (5 points)
Part 2: Ethical Evaluation (100 points)
¬¬¬¬¬¬_______ Application of Ethical Theories and/or Moral Principles from Division I:
Section 1-2 of the Munson text (10 points)
Ex. Ross’s ethical theory and prima facie duties, Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Feminist Ethics, etc.
_____Clearly stated thesis, i.e. your answer/conclusion to the ethical dilemma (5 points)
Ex. Given the stated reasons, Terry Schiavo’s family members acted unethically according to Ross’s ethical theory.
______3supportingreasons/premises for your answer/conclusion (15 points)
Ex. Terry Schiavo’s parents and husband ignored the duty of beneficence during the course of Terry’s medical treatment.
______Well researched evidence supporting each premise(45 pts. total)
Note: “Well researched evidence” consists of but is not limited to reliable, non-biased sources, relevant premises, and approaching and defending against counter arguments. *
______At least THREE cited sources (15 pts.)
– Your first source will be the case itself
– Your second source will be our Munson text (Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Bioethics (Concise Edition); by: Ronald Munson, ISBN: 9781285071381)
– Your third source (and any additional) MUST be from your own outside research*
______ Proper MLA or Chicago Style citations (10 pts.)
______ Proper Grammar Usage (10 pts.)
______ Separate title page (5 pts.)
______ Work Cited page (5 pts.)
Tips for Ethical Evaluation:
Finding Your Case Study:
Tip 1: Determine Your Area of Interest. (This will help you narrow down your search criteria for Tip 2)
1. Formulating a particular question you would like to answer is a helpful way of narrowing down your research and focusing your writing. So you might ask something like, “Should patients with the financial ability be able to purchase needed organs?”
Tip 2: Searching for Your Case Study(Search Methods)
(Remember, your case as well as at least one additional source must come from your own outside research.)
1. You will find links to the Journal of the American Medical Association (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/journal.aspx) as well as American Psychological Association website (http://www.apa.org/about/index.aspx)
a. These are excellentpeer-reviewed sources for finding current medical cases, research trials, and ethical topics. Instructions for navigating these sites are included below each link.
b. Always make use of peer-reviewed articles.
Ensuring that you have “Well-Researched Evidence” supporting your position:
There are three main methods of meeting this requirement, which, as you see in your rubric, is worth the highest number of points for any given criteria.
Tip 1: Use non-biased sources
You should use the suggested websites and databases suggested in Tips 1 & 2 under “Searching for you Case Study” to meet this goal. To emphasize the point further – make sure your sources come from peer-reviewed journal articles.NEVER use Wikipedia as a source!!!!
Tip 2: Find sources with relevant reasons, a.k.a premises, as support.
Don’t get distracted by superfluous ideas. This is probably one of the harder things to avoid in your work. I strongly suggest you take a look at the PowerPoint, “Learning the Language of Logic” to see some of the common mistakes made when forming arguments. By avoiding these mistakes you can make sure your reasons supporting your position are relevant.
Tip 3: Consider Counter-Arguments
Try to write your work as though someone from the other perspective is going to respond to your argument. Anticipate objections they might raise and try to answer to these potential objections in your work first. For example, if you were evaluating the Terry Shiavo scenario and you believe based on autonomy that the husband and parents acted unethically, the other side might say that Terry was no longer subject to the principle of autonomy as her rational capabilities were severely impaired. How would you defend this objection? Include this answer in your paper too using research to back up your answer.
Tip 4: Ideally each of your reasons (which must be at least 3 in number) supporting your conclusion will present its own researched source as evidence for their relevance to your argument.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂