Course Syllabus

Jump to Today

 

*Dear Students,

Anything in the syllabus that appears highlighted in red and yellow indicates the changes I have to make to the syllabus to have this course make sense.  We basically have about four more weeks to give you a solid understanding of ethics and healthcare.  Now my goal is not to work you like draft horses or give you an ethics bootcamp.  I just want you to learn as much as you can, have fun, and be able to continue on in your careers feeling like you have a strong foundation in ethical understanding.  So with that being said, let's jump right in...

 

Winter 2015


RELE 457

Healthcare Ethics

Loma Linda University, School of Religion

Dates:  January 5 – March 20, 2015

Classroom:  Online

Units:  2-3 units

 

Instructor:   Whitny M. Braun, PhD(c), MPH, MA, NREMT

Mobile Phone:   (909) 667-4413 (work)  (562) 243-2227 (cell)

Email:  wbraun@llu.edu

 

Course Description: This is an undergraduate course designed to survey current ethical, legal and religious trends in society and their application to the delivery of healthcare in a Christian context. Students can take the course at the undergraduate level and for 2 units of credit. The course is conducted on Canvas.

Course Objectives:

  1. To survey the medical ethical issues from Christian perspective
  2. To identify the major ethical challenges of health care professionals
  3. To utilize ethical principles in the moral decision process
  4. To develop a personal philosophy of ethics

 

Course Requirements 

  1. Attendance: Each module must be completed on deadline. If you have an emergency situation or have a scheduling conflict please contact me via e-mail or phone.  Please work through the five new modules that have been uploaded and simply have them completed by the final day of the term on March 20th, 2015.  Doing so will equate to earning full attendance.
  2. Class Participation/Quizzes: Ethics is not a spectator sport. You are encouraged to participate as much as possible in the class discussions and activities but in order to give you points for participation there is a quiz each week.  Five quizzes will be added and you can take each quiz as many times as you need to in order to earn full points.  Final Test: You will write a final test that will include objective questions and short answer questions.  There will be NO FINAL TEST.  
    1. Reading Assignments: The reading assignment will be in two forms. There will be reading assigned from the text book as well as case studies and other materials posted on CANVAS. You are expected to review both before class. You are expected to complete the weekly reading assignments.  Because the reading assignments do not match the text that was assigned please disregard the textbook reading assignments.  Simply review the PowerPoints uploaded to each module and peruse any articles that are uploaded as well.  All of the answers to the quizzes can be found in the PowerPoints.
  3. There will be NO FINAL EXAM.
  4. 3rd Unit Students:  If you are taking the course for three units please read the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and write a 2 to 3 page reflection paper on it.  No references are necessary, simply your honest opinion of the book.  

Course Schedule

 

Date          Topic/Assignment

 *Five new modules will be uploaded.  Please work through them at your own pace, completing reading through them by March 20th, 2015.

Final Exam   *Remember, there is no final exam.  Simply work through the modules.      

The third unit reflection paper based on the The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is due on March 20th.   

 

CourseText  *Disregard the Groves & Edge text.

Ethics of Health Care: A Guide for Clinical Practice, 3rd Edition.  Raymond S. Edge & John Randall Groves (Delmar, 2006)

The Holy Bible, New International Version (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 1978)

 

 

 

 

Grading Scale

 

Scale:

 

A

95-100%

C

73-76%

A-

90-94%

C-

70-72%

B+

87-89%

D+

67-69%

B

83-86%

D

63-66%

B-

80-82%

D-

60-62%

C+

77-79%

F

61% and below

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Study #1

P O S T- M O R T E M S P E R M C O L L E C T I O N1

 

Mr. Jamison suffered a severe head injury in an accident and died without regaining consciousness soon after being brought to the emergency room. Upon his death, his wife requested postmortem sperm procurement, telling doctors that the couple had been trying desperately to conceive a child. Mr. Jamison had no advance directive stating, or implying, his wish to father a child, or specifying his agreement to this procedure in case of his death.

 

The hospital ethics committee noted that, under State law, the spouse of the deceased is the surrogate decision maker, and concluded, for this reason, that the decision rested with Mrs. Jamison. Mr.

Jamison's parents argued that their son would never have wished to father a child who would be raised with only one parent. Mrs. Jamison's physician expressed the opinion that the Jamison's efforts to conceive a child demonstrated Mr. Jamison's desire that his wife have his child. The hospital's social worker suggested that it would be unfair to bring a child into the world with only one parent. The hospital chaplain pointed out, however, that many children live in stable, loving single parent homes. The hospital has the equipment to do the procedure and offers services for sperm collection and storage for various reasons, including posthumous fatherhood. However, it has no policy for this situation, where the father is not a competent participant in the consent process.

 

The medical staff is divided. Some feel that allowing the procedure respects Mr. Jamison's wishes to father a child with his wife. Others believe it is wrong to be an agent of conception without the explicit consent of both parents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Written by Dr. Robert Ladenson for use at Eighth Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl at The Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical And Professional Ethics in Cincinnati, Ohio on February 28, 2002.

Retrieved from: http://ethics.sandiego.edu/resources/cases/Detail.asp?ID=77 on March 28, 2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Study #2

One Heart, Two Transplant Candidates

 

The hospital ethics committee was convened to decide the fate of a donor heart that was being flown to the hospital. The ethical dilemma they faced was that they would soon have heart-transplant candidates in the hospital who were both matches for the donor heart. One patient was a 55-year-old man known as Mr. Morris and the other patient was a 32-year-old woman named Ms. Lee.

 

Mr. Morris had been on the transplant waiting list for three years and his health was declining rapidly. Ms. Lee had only been on the waiting list for one month and doctors believed she could be kept alive with medication for quite some time, possibly until another heart became available. To many on the committee it seemed an obvious choice: give the heart to Mr. Morris.

However, a number of the members of the committee did not agree with that Mr. Morris should receive the heart. They argued that time on the transplant list should be only one factor considered. They saw a problem in Mr. Morris’ medical history.

 

Mr. Lee was a middle-aged man who had suffered from a heart condition for years. He had had two angioplasties and two bypass operations to correct a blockage of the heart's blood vessels. Mr. Morris still smoked, ate fatty foods, and was very overweight. Mr. Morris had been warned several times that he must change his life-style, and that if he didn't, his condition would worsen. He never stopped smoking, and never changed his diet. He said it was too hard. Ms. Lee was a model for healthy living. Aside from the heart condition she suffered as a result of a congenital defect she had no other secondary conditions. She ate only low-fat organic foods, abstained from drinking and smoking and prior to being hospitalized had practiced yoga daily.

 

 

Course Summary:

Date Details Due