Part I
For the first part, revise the essay you submitted for the second exam. Recall that this essay required you to apply Ackerman’s view from his article “Why Doctors Should Intervene” to the case of the physician, Dr. Emanuel, refusing medical screening and treatment for certain serious illnesses after turning seventy-five. Your revisions should address the comments received. (As a rough guide, the revised version should be around three pages, double-spaced.)
Part II
For the second part, I want you to expand on your revised essay from Part I. One of the issues discussed in the course is the challenge of allocating medical resources when there is scarcity. Suppose that a community adopted Dr. Emanuel’s position as a community-wide policy. That is, to address scarcity concerns regarding medical resources, persons over seventy-five in the community will not be screened or treated for certain medical conditions. Would such a policy be acceptable according to the guidelines adopted by White et al. in their article “Who Should Receive Life Support During a Public Health Emergency”?
In answering the above question, make sure to (a) explain the guidelines advocated by White et al. and (b) provide an argument for why you think this policy would or would not be acceptable according to these guidelines. Make sure to support your argument. (As a rough guide, your answer to this question should be between 2-3 pages, double-spaced. You do not need to re-explain Dr. Emanuel’s position, as this should already be included in your answer to Part I. You can jump right into assessing whether adopting Dr. Emanuel’s position (as a community-wide policy) would be acceptable according to the guidelines of White et al.)
The post Part I
For the first part, revise the essay you submitted for the second exam. R appeared first on essaynook.com.