Discussion postHealth policy

Ethics in Endorsing Health Reforms

Two questions, and the second is about you. Judging the quote is straightforward once you check what the provision actually said; explaining what drove your judgement is the harder and more interesting half.

Editorial process

Last reviewed · August 22, 2026

Written by

Maren Caldwell

MSN, RN, CNE

Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation

Reviewed by

Dr. Tessa Redmond

DNP, RN, CNE

Evidence-based practice and clinical education

On this page

Interpret the task
Assignment instructions
Deliverables
Proposed outline
Research plan
Reference shortlist
Final review

Check what the provision actually said before judging

Start with the factual position, because the ethical judgement depends on it and the facts here are not in serious dispute. The provision the claim referred to would have paid clinicians for voluntary advance care planning conversations, in which a patient says what treatment they would want if they could not speak for themselves. It created no panel and no body with authority over anyone's care, and the claim was widely rated false at the time. Establish that plainly, and then notice the consequence that makes this a nursing ethics question rather than a political one: the provision was withdrawn, and advance care planning conversations went unreimbursed for years, a measurable harm falling hardest on exactly the patients the claim invoked. Note that reimbursement was eventually introduced, which tells you the objection was never really about reimbursement was eventually introduced, which tells you what the objection was really about.

The question about effective strategy or unethical scaremongering is a false choice worth naming, since it was demonstrably effective and that is part of what makes it an ethical problem. Judge it in professional terms rather than partisan ones: the harm was the loss of conversations that improve concordance between care received and care wanted, and reduce family distress in bereavement. Then answer the second question honestly, because it is the one that distinguishes a reflective post from an opinion. If your judgement rests on the facts, you should be able to say what would change it; if it rests on a commitment to advance care planning, you should notice that you would judge a false claim on the other side of the debate the same way; and if political position is doing part of the work, saying so is more credible than claiming to have reasoned from evidence alone.

Likely learning objectives

Establish the factual position before making an ethical judgement.
Recognise a false choice in the way a question is framed.
Identify the measurable harm of a successful misleading claim.
Examine the basis of your own judgement honestly.

Assignment instructions

Read the full question

Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.

Assignment Ethics in Endorsing Health Reforms Ethics in Endorsing Health Reforms Read the section titled “Reflective Practice: Pants on Fire” from chapter “Health Policy, Politics, and Professional Ethics” and address the questions below: •How do you judge Palin’s quote? [“And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s death panel so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their level of productivity in society, whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.] Effective strategy to oppose Democrats’ plans for health care reform or unethical scaremongering? •Reflect on what informs your judgment: commitment to advance care planning, analysis of facts, and/or political party loyalties? •Is it right for nurses to endorse health reform legislation even if the legislation is not perfect? Does this apply to the recently failed American Health Care Act? Ethics in Endorsing Health Reforms Flag this Question Question 172 pts In a reanalysis of published studies, Twenge and Im (2007) found that for the time period 1958–2001, the need for social approval of people in the United States was negatively correlated with the U.S. violent crime rate during the same period (the correlation coefficient was –0.31). This correlation means that: as the need for social approval went up, the number of violent crimes also increased. the need for social approval prevented people from committing violent crimes. the need for social approval spurred people to commit violent crimes. as the need for social approval went up, the number of violent crimes decreased. Flag this Question Question 182 pts Imagine that you’ve just read the results of a study that finds a positive correlation between gum chewing and life expectancy. Which of the following statements would be a statistically appropriate response to the results of the study? You bemoan the possibility of living so long that you will have to chew lots of gum. You become curious about what third variables might cause both increases in gum chewing and increases in life expectancy. You purchase a lifetime supply of gum because chewing gum is good for your health. You tell all your friends and family members to chew gum because it is good for their health.

Course-wide instructions that accompany this question

Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Assignment Ethics in Endorsing Health Reforms Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!

Turn the brief into deliverables

01What the provision actually proposed.
02The fact-check status of the claim.
03A judgement of the claim in professional ethics terms.
04The harm caused by the provision's withdrawal.
05An honest account of what informs your judgement.
06A statement of what would change your view.