NURS 8100 Discussion Individual Right Versus the Collective Good

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Discussion Individual Right Versus the Collective Good

Most of the recent successes in improving the public’4 s health have had to address the tension of individual rights versus the collective good. Anti-smoking campaigns and laws banning smoking in public places protect people from the negative health effects of second-hand smoke, yet some believe that they infringe on the individual rights of those who choose to smoke. Requiring childhood immunizations has helped prevent diseases such as polio and measles, but some parents assert that they have the right to decide if being immunized is in the best interest of their children.

This tension also exists in the allocation of scarce resources, from providing adequate staff coverage to making decisions about the amount of health care to provide. Given the nurse’s involvement in policy and health care delivery, it is important to understand the dynamics of this tension, as well as the legal and ethical implications.

To prepare:When have you encountered a tension between the individual right and the collective good in your nursing practice?
With information from the Learning Resources in mind, consider relatively recent examples of health care policy that demonstrate this tension. For this Discussion, select one example of timely health care policy that allows you to evaluate the tension between individual rights and the collective good. Conduct additional research as necessary using credible websites and the Walden Library.
By Day 3

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

In the first line of your posting, identify a health care policy.
Explain the tension between individual rights and the collective good.
Analyze the ethical and legal considerations of the policy.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ postings.

By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues posting adding to the discussion of the tension and legal and ethical considerations (beneficence, malfeasance, autonomy, and justice).

Note: Please see the Syllabus and Discussion Rubric for formal Discussion question posting and response evaluation criteria.

Return to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you learned and/or any insights you gained as a result of the comments made by your colleagues.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NURS 8100 Discussion Individual Right Versus the Collective Good

Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources and any additional sources.

Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 6 Discussion Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 6 Discussion

Covid-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers gained a lot of publicity towards the end of last year. It was very important to have a policy that would guide health care workers due to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy that was rampant in all population sectors for different reasons. A regulation was established to ensure all staff who were eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine would do so by January of this year before providing any care or treatment (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 2021). It was the responsibility of companies especially skilled long-term care facilities to establish a policy that would ensure those who qualified to be exempted did so in alignment of the guidelines established by the federal laws.

Tension between Individual Rights and the Collective Good.

In the health care world, herd immunity has been promoted especially in community nursing. It is very important because with herd immunity not everybody but the majority of the people can receive vaccination that leads to immunity of a disease. This makes infection transmission to be unlikely leading to the entire population being protected. This would cover even those who are not eligible for vaccinations. It is therefore important for bedside staff to be vaccinated. However according to Farah, Breeher, Shah, Hainy, Tommaso & Swift (2022), there are major disparities in actual vaccination rates among different health care workers (HCWs). Advanced practice staff who spend the least amount of time with patients have statistically received the vaccines than nurses and support staff. The probability of an infected support staff spreading COVID-19 would likely be higher because the close proximity of proving care with activities of daily living like showers may not be completed with full personal protective equipment (PPE) in place.

There are HCWs who are hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Bellanti (2021), refers a delay in acceptance or outright refusal of vaccines as vaccine hesitancy. Those staff members who decline to receive the vaccine even when they are eligible to get it cannot work in some hospitals or nursing homes. This creates a further challenge with staff shortage already being a major concern.

It is an undeniable fact that every person has a right to choose what goes in their body but it would not be wise to put people at risk if it was avoidable. To decline to get a vaccine because of misinformation, fallacies, or myths is unfortunate. This is relevant to the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ethical and Legal Considerations of the Policy.

There are different factors that surround the mandate for COVID-19 vaccination policy among HCWs. Perez, Paul, Raghuraman, Carter, Odibo, Kelly & Foeller (2022), point out the nature of HCWs make them have a high occupational risk for contracting and transmitting the COVID-19 infection after exposure. Legally and ethically it would therefore be fair to give them a priority to receive the vaccines first.

Getting to a point of herd immunity would also be critical. This is not achievable if the vaccine is not accessible on a global level. According to Hosseini (2021), one of challenges of COVID-19 vaccine is whether the manufactures of the vaccine can be forced to share information with competitors so that availability of the vaccine across the globe can be reached quickly. It would be ethically meaningful to look at infectious diseases as public rights instead of individual needs.

Education is key to knowledge. It is important to acknowledge vaccinations have been an important tool that has been used to contain some dangerous diseases in the past. According to Gurenlian, Eldridge, Estrich, Battrell, Lynch, Morrissey, Araujo, Vujicic & Mikkelsen (2022), it would be for the greater good to further educate HCWs on topics like virology and epidemiology.

Reference

Bellanti, J. A. (2021). COVID-19 vaccines and vaccine hesitancy: Role of the allergist/immunologist in promotion of vaccine acceptance. Allergy and Asthma Proceedings, 42(5), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2021.42.210063

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (November, 2021). Biden-Harris Administration Issues Emergency Regulation Requiring COVID-19 Vaccination for Health Care Workers.https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/biden-harris-administration-issues-emergency-regulation-requiring-covid-19-vaccination-health-care#:~:text=All%20eligible%20staff%20must%20have,beliefs%2C%20observances%2C%20or%20practices.

Farah, W., Breeher, L., Shah, V., Hainy, C., Tommaso, C. P., & Swift, M. D. (2022). Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among health care workers. Vaccine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.03.045

Gurenlian, J. R., Eldridge, L. A., Estrich, C. G., Battrell, A., Lynch, A., Morrissey, R. W., Araujo, M. W. B., Vujicic, M., & Mikkelsen, M. (2022). COVID-19 Vaccine Intention and Hesitancy of Dental Hygienists in the United States. Journal of Dental Hygiene, 96(1), 5–16.

Hosseini, M.(2021). A Covid Competition Dilemma: Legal and Ethical Challenges Regarding the Covid-19 Vaccine Policies during and after the Crisis. Public Governance, Administration and Finances Law Review, 6(1), 51–63. https://doi.org/10.53116/pgaflr.2021.1.5

Perez, M. J., Paul, R., Raghuraman, N., Carter, E. B., Odibo, A. O., Kelly, J. C., & Foeller, M. E. (2022). Characterizing initial COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among pregnancy-capable healthcare workers. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100557

Name: NURS_8100_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Excellent Good Fair Poor

RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.

CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and · demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; –lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.

CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION

Points Range: 8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.

Points Range: 7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas

QUALITY OF WRITING

Points Range: 6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.

Points Range: 4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30
Name: NURS_8100_Week6_Discussion_Rubric