Continuum Of Care Outline Essay Example for Free

Continuum Of Care Outline Essay I. Introduction II. Stakeholders A. The â€Å"description of the roles of various stakeholders in the health care industry who are involved in the continuum of care† (University of Phoenix, 2015). 1. Who the patients are. 2. Who the employees are. 3. Who the payers are. 4. Who the providers are. B. â€Å"How the component contributes to or detracts from the overall management of health care resources† (University of Phoenix, 2015). 1. Is this a positive or negative affect? III. Services provided and employees’ role(s). A. â€Å"Discuss the services provided and how these services fit into the continuum of care† (University of Phoenix, 2015). 1. What services are provided? 2. How do these services fit into the continuum of care? 3. â€Å"The role of transitioning patients from one level of care to another in the health care continuum† (University of Phoenix, 2015). See more: 5 paragraph essay format B. â€Å"Description of the health care delivery components role in providing services† (University of Phoenix, 2015). 1. Who provides these services? 2. How the services are delivered. IV. Current and Future of Home Health Care A. What are the current trends and how they are changing? B. What the potential trends are. 1. How these potential trends will change delivery components and services in the future. 2. Accommodating for the future trends. V. The Characteristics of Integrated Delivery System (IDS) A. Health Care organizations. B. Community health. VI. Conclusion References University of Phoenix. (2015). Continuum of Care Presentation. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, HCS/235-Health Care Delivery in the U.S. website.

The Case for Mercy-Killing Essay -- Euthanasia, Mercy-killing, Assiste

Two patients share a hospital room. By miraculous circumstance, they are both suffering identical cases of late stage terminal cancer, and both have expressed firmly that they don’t want their lives to be artificially extended. Patient A has contracted a hospital-borne infection, and will die quickly if this infection is not treated. This being the case, the doctors decide to take no action, allowing Patient A to die from the infection. This raises the question: what does this choice imply for Patient B? Should he be allowed to choose active euthanasia to combat his suffering? I will argue that there is no moral distinction between letting Patient A die and â€Å"killing† Patient B. I will do so by looking at each patient’s circumstances individually, then applying arguments about euthanasia to their cases, and ultimately bringing them back together to consider a verdict. While some may argue that there is a difference between killing Patient B and lettin g Patient A die, I assert that any such claims are based in irrelevant reasoning. First, let’s consider the reasoning behind the patients choosing to forego extraordinary treatment for their cancer. They have decided, as Beauchamp would put it, that refusing to prolong their lives in the face of pain and suffering â€Å"neither harms nor wrongs [them] and may provide a benefit† (Beauchamp, 76). They â€Å"intend to quit life because of its bleak possibilities† (Beauchamp, 77). The doctor readily complies with their wishes out of moral, legal, and professional obligation. A choice has been made to let both patients die, as a response to their â€Å"competent and authoritative refusal of treatment† (Beauchamp 74). In Patient A’s case, he was lucky enough (in the most morbid way possible) to... ...es out of mercy. Beauchamp puts it eloquently when he says â€Å"From a moral point of view, causing a person’s death is wrong when it is wrong not because the death is intended or because it is caused, but because an unjustified harm or loss to the person occurs† (Beauchamp, 76). The objection that killing Patient B is worse than allowing Patient A to die does not survive, because such a claim is based on the assumption that a killing would be unjust. The doctor and the patients have decided that death is preferable to life, and there is no injustice involved in any possible outcome from there on out. Squeamishness about the doctor being responsible for killing Patient B, directly, has no place in the discussion, because by the time the discussion is taking place, that would be like being squeamish over the doctor prescribing morphine to reduce a patient’s suffering.

Discussing Frankenstein Essay

Living in a society, we are accustomed to completing tasks within minutes if not seconds. With this fact in mind, it is very difficult to comprehend the amount of painstaking labor of Victor Frankenstein. The long days eventually turned into months and then into years. Victor observed worms in a graveyard, collected materials, and painstakingly created a being, complete with the intricacies of a human body and mind. After the realization of his greatest achievement, Victor looked upon the lifeless individual as his creation. As the father of this illegitimate being, Victor is already physically and morally responsible for the creature. Since the very beginning of the experiment, Victor was entrusted with this being. Once the creature opened his yellow eyes, Victor relinquished his task to educate his design. Instead of worrying over the creature’s welfare and the interest of others, he drove from his mind all thoughts of the experiment. The monster was left to fend for itself, learning the basic essentials of survival by what he saw an the only food he could find. Only until the monster hurt something of significance to Victor, did the scientist feel accountable. It is no doubt the monster is now evil. His unanswerable question in life is â€Å"why am I here? † The man who gave him life fled from his side just like the rest of society. Victor, at this point in the story, has a choice. The scientist can either make another life form or suffer earthly torments from the monster. By not completing the request of the creation, Victor handed over the lives of his family and friends. Again, Victor can be held morally responsible for the deaths. Creation tells him to make another life form and everything will be alright. The scientist never realized his mistakes. If he has only taken care of his creation, the deaths of his father, wife, brothers, and sisters could have been avoided. With such a brilliant mind, Victor could have been one of the brightest minds in science. If it were not for the irresponsible beginnings of the experiment, the evil in the creature may have never surfaced. Throughout the novel, Frankenstein, the theme of life and death is pervasive in connection to the moral ignorance of Victor and his monster. Evidently both characters showed a great quantity of wrongdoing; however the awaiting actions are all start from one: the creation of life from science. This was thought of as an impossible task, but would prove to be Frankenstein’s foremost dream and goal for his youth and adolescence. Not realizing the severity of the consequences; Victor succeeded in breeding his creature, which would ironically lead to his future destruction. Being unaware to what a creature might do without the proper nourishment from family or friends, Dr. Frankenstein shunned his own creation even though he had the obligation as a parent to foster his child. However, not only did Victor overlook the proper care for his creation, but he also cursed and criticized the appearance of the wretched monster. Frankenstein assembled the beast to look inhuman and rejected what he purposely created. The grotesque look of his child not only repelled his master, but also disgusted the rest of society. Although Victor did not physically commit murder, his denial as a father to his imperfect being was in fact killing the monster from the start. mention the part when F sees monster for the first time It is now obvious that Victor was the most morally irresponsible. He tried to forget his past, as he did not want to be linked with that daemon which was created by his own hands. Frankenstein exhibited selfishness along with small-mindedness. He first ignored his family upon creating his child and then ignored his child upon escaping his workplace. Victor did not think twice and failed to resolve the problem before it augmented. Just a baby being brought into a new and evidently prejudice world, his creation did not know what to do. The monster had to survive in the dangerous world alone with no one to love or give love in return. He had no one to help him, no one to teach him, no one to feed him, no one to even talk to him. Whenever he helped humans, he would always receive harm. He harmed mankind because they harmed him first. Unquestionably, if he were treated with love, he would return the love tenfold. However, Frankenstein was responsible for the miss-education of the child and for the actions of the child. Moreover, Frankenstein was responsible for the deaths of his friends and family. Being the cause of his own unfortunate destiny, Dr. Victor Frankenstein is clearly the one who demonstrated the least moral responsibility. Show preview only The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Mary Shelley section.

The Merchant of Venice Film vs Script Essay - 851 Words

By tracing back the early roles of Shylock done in the Elizabethan stage, we are able to appreciate the complexity of Shakespear’s character, Shylock, and how he has the greatest impact than any other character. In the early Elizabethan era Shylock was portrayed as an archetypical Jew of that time. He would be played by the performer wearing a red wig and large false nose. This look created the foundations of Shylock’s personality during the Elizabethan era; a comic villain not to be taken seriously or sympathetically, he was the figure of a pantomime. Shylock was later played as a terrifying, cruel and malicious figure. This dominated the view on how Shylock was seen until in 1814, Edmund Kean performed the character of Shylock as†¦show more content†¦This shows how Shylock is shrewd, by playfully suggesting the forfeiture of the bond which is actually a cunning plan to murder Antonio with the law on his side. Michael Radford’s 2004 film adaption is different to how Shakespeare’s script portrayed Shylock, as a bloodthirsty villain. It shows the human qualities of Shylock allowing us to sympathise with him as a victim of prejudice and racism of the shameful times he lived in. Al Pacino recites â€Å"Yes to smell pork†¦news on the Rialto?† with a mellow tone showing little to no emotion. This could be because Shylock is used to the daily prejudice and harsh life of living in a Jew-hating nation; allowing us to evaluate his human qualities, making us sympathise with him as a victim. Also, in the original script, Shylock’s line â€Å"Yes to smell pork† implies that it should be read with sarcasm, mocking Bassanio for asking him to dine with Christians. However, Al Pacino says this with no emotion and his voice is lost under the hubbub of the market place, meaning Bassanio probably can’t even hear him. This could be because Shylock has given up trying to be seen as a human and is now metaphorically invisible in the eyes of society. Throughout the play Shylock is presented in different ways: a victim who lives in a prejudice and intolerant society, a villain who deserves scorn and rejection and a tragic figure who has admiral traits worthy of respect but destroys himself by giving in to his flaws and weaknesses. ThisShow MoreRelatedMarketing Management130471 Words   |  522 Pagesreligional people and are extremely helpful to the people from their own caste. They are famous for being one of the richest communities in the country and at the same time maintain a Spartan lifestyle. It is not uncommon to find rich diamond merchants travelling in the 2nd class compartment of the train or by bus. There used to be saying, â€Å"If you see a Gujarati driving a car you should know he is a karorepati.† Such simple is their life style. Gujarati businessmen have been extremely successful