Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
This discussion focuses on the reading “The Road from Quinlan to Schiavo Download The Road from Quinlan to Schiavo.” I have randomly divided you into smaller groups for this discussion (aka small group discussion). Each of you has been assigned an excerpt from the reading:
Last name beginning with A-J – Read pp. 10-17 of pdf. Your initial post will be on the Nancy Cruzan case. At least one of your two peer responses should be on the Karen Quinlan case.
First Post Instructions:
In your post, briefly summarize your assigned case, including the key facts, the individuals involved, and the outcome. Explain how the courts approached the right-to-die issue. Were there any significant legal doctrines or rulings that shaped the outcome? You will then write a personal reflection on the case. You need to use at least two sources to support your arguments (one source can be the article). Sources should be cited in APA format.
Reflection Prompts
Do you agree with the outcome?
How do you think this case has impacted healthcare law and the rights of patients?
Would the existence of a living will or similar document have changed the outcome?
What are your thoughts on the importance of advance directives in healthcare decision-making?
Discuss the role that HIM may play in right-to-die cases.
Peer Response Instructions:
Review the discussion posts and select two peers to respond to. At least one of your responses should be on the case different from your own. Your two peer responses should be substantive. Substantive responses are those that further develop the topic and pursue an understanding of the domain. Simple messages that offer agreement or simple encouragement are considered conversant, but are not considered substantive. You should also continue the dialogue with anyone who responds to your posts.
Peer response prompts:
Compare the two cases. What similarities or differences do you see in how the hospitals/families/courts handled each situation?
Share your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree with their perspectives on the outcome and the role of advance directives?
Provide an alternate perspective or play devil’s advocate. Discuss how different perspectives or beliefs might influence cases involving right-to-die and advance directives.
Read the excerpt on Terri Schiavo (pp. 17-19 of pdf) and compare the two cases (note: only one peer response may discuss the Schiavo case).
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.