Ethical Decision-Making Model Discussion

Ethical Decision-Making Model Discussion.

In this assignment, you will be able to identify and comprehend the steps in Bush et alproposed .’s (ethical) decision-making model (2006). You will also be able to discuss the proposed model’s strengths and weaknesses.

Tasks for Ethical decision-making model:

Write a 3- to 4-page paper, including the following points:
* A summary of the eight steps in the model proposed by Bush et al. (2006).
* A critical analysis of the decision-making model (i.e., analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the model in ethical decision making).

Ethical Decision-Making Models
In the face of ethical challenges, ethical decision-making models provide a framework for critical thinking and planning. A tool that health-care personnel can use to increase their capacity to think through ethical challenges and make ethical decisions is an ethical decision-making model. There are a range of models in the ethical literature, the majority of which are similar in design and substance. The goal of each model is to provide a framework for making the best option in a given situation presented by a health care provider. The majority of these models use Beauchamp and Childress’ principle-based reasoning process. 7 These models take ethical principles, obligations, and values into account. They encourage dentists to use resources such as published evidence, clinical data, and peer consultation. Whether in a single private practice, a large clinical setting, or a dental advocacy group, some of these models contain four, five, or seven phases for resolving challenges, but they all stimulate critical reasoning through the structure of a decision model.

The model proposed in this module is a six-step strategy developed from decision-making literature as interpreted by Atchison and Beemsterboer and used with dental and dental hygiene students in a combined ethics course since the early 1990s. It’s a well-thought-out strategy founded on theory and philosophy. 8 The model is depicted as a circle to stress the impact of previous knowledge and experiences on current and future decision-making (Figure 1).
Figure 1 shows how past information and experiences can be applied to current and future decision-making.
The decision-making process is fluid, changing as new information becomes available. Dentists and dental hygienists are faced with a plethora of questions to ponder, all of which need them to weigh the code of ethics as well as their personal principles and views before making a decision. When a practitioner is faced with a clinical or scientific challenge, the evaluation process is similar to that which occurs when they are faced with an ethical dilemma. The health care practitioner will be able to make an appropriate decision by paying close attention to and doing a systematic study of the evidence, facts, and details. The decision-making model provides a tool that can be used throughout one’s career.

Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : Discussion: Ethical Decision-Making Model

Model for Making Decisions in Six Steps

Determine the ethical dilemma or issue. Stage 1 is the most important step in the process since it is necessary to be aware of an issue in order to progress through the steps. Many circumstances are simply not considered ethical issues or problems. Once the problem has been identified, the decision maker must explain the ethical dilemma clearly and simply, taking into account all relevant components of the situation. If the ethical question does not include a conflict of values, it is just a matter of right and wrong, and no ethical decision-making process is required. If you’ve already decided if something is right or wrong, you can go to step 2.
Gather information. To make an informed decision, the decision maker must gather information. This could be accurate information on how the scenario unfolded, and it could come from multiple sources. It’s necessary to know about the values of all parties involved, including the health-care provider’s.
Specify your choices. Following the collection of the relevant data, the third step is brainstorming to identify as many alternatives or possibilities as feasible. The best option isn’t always the first one that comes to mind. There is also a propensity to believe that a question has just one answer. This stage forces us to take a step back and look at the situation from all sides in order to see what other people could see as possible solutions to the problem. It takes an enlightened and open mind to see that there are often multiple solutions to a problem.
Use the Ethical Principles to Evaluate the Alternatives. Focus on ethical values and conceptions (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and veracity) as well as ethical principles (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and veracity) (paternalism, confidentiality, and informed consent). In most ethical decisions, one or more of these will be considered.
Create a list of pros and drawbacks for each possibility to show how it will effect the ethical concept or norm. Show alternatives in the pro column that defend or maintain each principle or value. Explain how an alternative would violate the principle or value in the con column. Carry out this procedure for each choice. You’ll be able to see which ethical standards are at odds in this case if you go through this method. For more information, consult the applicable code of ethics. Discussing the problem with a trustworthy colleague can help you get a more complete picture of the situation and possible solutions.

Make your choice. When the advantages and disadvantages of each option are clearly stated, a suitable framework for making a selection emerges. After then, each alternative must be analyzed one by one, keeping in mind how many benefits and drawbacks each decision would entail. The dental hygienist must next assess the pros and negatives, keeping in mind that, as a professional, he or she is obligated to put the patient’s interests first. The appropriate solution to an ethical challenge is frequently clear just by carefully evaluating the possibilities. Before putting the choice into action, the practitioner should compare each principle to the decision to see if it stands up to scrutiny.
Put the decision into action. The third phase entails following through on the choice made. If no action is taken, the decision-making process will be useless. Because this phase is skipped, many good decisions are never executed. It’s important to remember that no action constitutes tacit approval of a situation.

Excellent
90–100		 Good
80–89		 Fair
70–79		 Poor
0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.		 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.		 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.		 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.		 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing		 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.		 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.		 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.		 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation		 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.		 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.		 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.		 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.		 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.		 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.		 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing		 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.		 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.		 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.		 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation		 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.		 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.		 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.		 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.		 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.		 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.		 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.		 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing		 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.		 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.		 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.		 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation		 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.		 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.		 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.		 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100

Name:  Discussion Rubric

24/7 Nursing Homework Help

Stuck with your nursing assignment? From Essays to Complicated Dissertations? Our accredited nursing paper writers can answer it all!

Get nursing paper writing help