DQ 2 : What ethical and philosophic challenges exist for health care leaders working to create a strong collaborative external community?
Two words, two different kinds of problem. Philosophic asks what the organisation is for and who its community is; ethical asks how to act once competing obligations are on the table.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 18, 2026
Ethical and philosophic — two different challenges
Treat philosophic and ethical as separate categories, because the prompt names both and the post that merges them answers half a question. The philosophic challenges are prior: what is this organisation for, and who counts as its community? A non-profit health system with a community benefit obligation and a for-profit system accountable to shareholders will answer differently, and the answer decides everything downstream. Is the community the patients who come through the doors, the population in the catchment area including those who never arrive, or the region the marketing department claims? Is a health system responsible for the social determinants that produce the admissions it treats, or only for treating them? Answer that question badly and every ethical judgement downstream inherits the error, which is why it comes first.There is no neutral answer, and saying so is the philosophic work this prompt is asking for.
The ethical challenges follow once the philosophic ones are settled, and they are about competing obligations rather than about right and wrong. Collaboration with an external community partner means sharing data, and patient privacy runs against community benefit immediately. It means allocating resources to a population initiative that could have funded a clinical service, which is a distributive justice problem with identifiable losers. It means power asymmetry: a health system convening community organisations sets the agenda whatever the rhetoric of partnership says, and a genuine partner has to be able to say no. And it means the collaboration can serve the organisation's reputation more than the community's health, which is the challenge worth naming explicitly because it is the one nobody minutes. Pick two or three, name the obligations in conflict, and say how a leader would decide — a decision rule, not a value statement.
Likely learning objectives
- Distinguish philosophic questions of purpose from ethical questions of obligation.
- Define the boundary of an organisation's community and show that it is contestable.
- Name conflicts of obligation that collaboration creates.
- Propose a decision rule rather than a value statement.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
HCA 822 Topic 7 DQ 2 DQ 2 : What ethical and philosophic challenges exist for health care leaders working to create a strong collaborative external community? What ethical and philosophic challenges exist for health care leaders working to create a strong collaborative external community? Explain.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, 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. HCA 822 Topic 7 DQ 2 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! Name: Discussion Rubric Grid View List View 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%) Communication 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%) Communication 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%) Communication 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%) Communication 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
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01At least one philosophic challenge about purpose or community boundary.
- 02At least two ethical challenges stated as conflicts of obligation.
- 03A named tension — privacy, distributive justice, power asymmetry or reputation.
- 04A decision rule a leader could actually apply.
- 05An account of how organisational form changes the answers.
The philosophic question first, then the ethical ones
What is the organisation for?
Open with the purpose question and show how organisational form changes it.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A contrast between two organisational forms with different answers.
Who counts as the community?
Show the boundary is contestable and consequential.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A group included on one definition and excluded on another.
Privacy against community benefit
Set out the data-sharing conflict concretely.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A specific data element and the benefit it would buy.
Allocation and power
Name the distributive and asymmetry problems in partnership.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Identifiable losers, and a mechanism for a partner to refuse.
A rule for deciding
Close with a rule a leader could apply to the next case.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A rule that produces different answers in different cases.
Sources on community benefit and health system obligation
Recommended databases
- PubMed Central
- World Health Organization
- NCBI Bookshelf
- Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Search sequence
- 1.Find a source on the social determinants of health to test the responsibility question.
- 2.Look for evidence on equity programmes in health institutions and their measured effects.
- 3.Read a framework on collaborative practice for the partnership expectations being set.
- 4.Choose the two ethical conflicts with the most concrete examples available.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice
World Health Organization · 2010
The WHO framework, for the claims made about what collaboration is supposed to achieve.
Effect and outcome of equity, diversity and inclusion programs in healthcare institutions: a systematic review protocol
PMC / National Library of Medicine · 2024
Equity, diversity and inclusion programmes in healthcare institutions and what they measurably do.
Closing the health equity gap: evidence-based strategies for primary health care organizations
International Journal for Equity in Health (via PMC) · 2012
Evidence-based strategies for closing the health equity gap in primary care organisations.
Browse Evidence-Based Resources - Healthy People 2030
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 2025
Population-level resources, for the allocation argument between clinical and community spending.
Fostering interprofessional identity formation to support interprofessional collaboration
Advances in Health Sciences Education · 2026
Interprofessional identity formation, relevant to the power-asymmetry problem in convened partnerships.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating 'philosophic' as emphasis and answering only the ethical half.
- Listing ethical principles without a conflict between them.
- Assuming the community is obviously the catchment area.
- Ending on a values statement instead of a rule that decides cases.
Submission checklist
- Have you answered the philosophic half separately?
- Is each ethical challenge a conflict between two obligations?
- Have you said who the losers are in your resource example?
- Does your decision rule tell a leader what to do in a specific case?
- Have you addressed power asymmetry in the partnership?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.

Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.