USF Brain Death Committee Standards

USF Brain Death Committee Standards

Instructions:

USF Brain Death Committee Standards

How death has been defined has changed over time, the materials in the course discuss.  Please imagine yourself as part of the new USF Brain Death Committee charged to reevaluate Brain Death.  The committee has been convened to reassess the standard of definition for death originally developed by the Harvard Criteria and develop a new policy that defines Brain Death or reaffirms the current standard definition. Your post is the position that would you bring to the committee’s discussion before the group votes.

Brain Death

The USF Brain Death Committee has three policy approaches under consideration:

Will you retain the current standard?

Will you change the definition and Eliminate Brain Death?

Will you change the definition so that Death equals “loss of higher consciousness”?

You will want to review the Harvard Criteria, all the readings for Determining Death, Organ Donation, and Withdrawal of Treatment and Consent as you consider which approach you will adopt as your position for your statement to the Committee.

Discussion Post

The discussion post has two key parts, the choice of the policy approach from the three above that informs your position and then a section that clearly identifies the ethical principle prioritized in your position.

Section 1:

Please clearly choose one of the following questions as you formulate your position.

Will you retain the current standard?

Would you make any modifications to the standard in practice? If so, what are they are and why?

Will you change the definition and Eliminate Brain Death?

How would you change the definition and why?

Will you change the definition so that Death equals “loss of higher consciousness”?

What would a change in the definition mean to patients in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and newborns with anencephaly?

Section 2:

When discussing the ethical issue, please consider the impact with respect to the following principles. Please choose 1 ethical issue to address; you do not need to address all provided below.

Beneficence: Is your obligation to one patient, or is your obligation to society?

Nonmaleficence: Would one patient be harmed, or would society be harmed?

Allocation and justice: What impact would your policy have on organ transplantation or on medical care costs and availability of scare resources?

Autonomy: What would patients want?  How would they want to live, die, and be declared dead?

Trust and transparency: Patients should trust in the medical profession and believe in the honesty of clinical judgments.  How does your policy impact trust and transparency?

USF Brain Death Committee Standards

RUBRIC
Excellent Quality 95-100%	Introduction 45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.		Literature Support 91-84  points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.			Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score 50-85%	40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.		83-76  points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.			52-49  points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality 0-45%	37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.		75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.			48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow USF Brain Death Committee Standards

USF Brain Death Committee Standards

PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!