Interprofessional team working in healthcare delivery Essay

Interprofessional team working in healthcare delivery - Essay Example For this research, the case that will be analysed is the Case of Tom. This case has been chosen because of the following reasons. First, it puts into question the concept of patient–centeredness. In concrete experiences of patients, what does patient-centeredness means? Is it simply a mantra that we continuously repeat, but do not act upon or is it a reality for some patients and not for all? Second, because of the vagueness of the idea of patient-centeredness, the case highlights the wide divide between health policy and health care plan and that no matter hard policy makers think of coming up with ways that may theoretically realise patient centeredness of health care if it is not implemented in real cases, it is worth nothing. Third, it brings to the fore the issue of decision-making in cases of patients that are incapacitated in making the decisions for themselves. Fourth, it emphasises the unclear position of parents in decision-making when it comes to their child who is vulnerated by multiple learning disabilities. Fifth, it presents a stark contradiction to the ideal of interprofessional teamwork to achieve the best quality health care that can be provided to the patients. Finally, sixth, it brings us back to the basics of humanity – rights, dignity, respect, and human integrity. With these reasons, it will focus on the concept of interprofessional teamwork. The idea of patient-centred is the core of health care plan and interprofessional teamwork in health care services. ... These are 1. The issues pertinent to the autonomy, integrity, and dignity of Tom. 2. The ethical concern regarding decision-making in cases where in the patient is incapacitated to make an autonomous decision. 3. The issue of double standards in care vis-a-vis neglect in providing care. 4. The ethical issue of duty of people who are primarily responsible in providing the necessary care for Tom’s condition and 5. The ethical issue of malfeasance as a result of the negligence of the primary health care providers of Tom. All of these ethical issues are manifested by the failure of the health care team to assess, address and treat the expressions of pain by Tom, which is repeatedly re-affirmed by his parents. In this failure, the entire team failed to recognise and respect the dignity and integrity of Tom as a patient (Gaskell & Nightingale 2010). Tom is in a vulnerated condition of profound and multiple learning disabilities, which places him in a constant situation wherein his d ignity and integrity as a person is injured. In this context, treatment should be made available and accessible indiscriminately (Kottow 2010). In his condition, dignity in disease should not be equated with ‘dignity in uprightness’, but it is a differing dignity where â€Å"it is not so important whether we are sick or healthy; what matters is to be sick in a healthy way, and not healthy in a sick manner. In the question of autonomy, it is apparent that Tom is incapable of making an autonomous decision. As such, in his behalf, his parents have consistently shown that they are advocating for their child. Beauchamp and Childress (2009) have explained that the norm in disregarding parental decision in terms of treatment is when the decision is refusal of treatment that is

Hate Speech Summary Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Hate Speech Summary - Essay Example However, there are those who say that speech should be restricted if it encourages hatred or prejudice against someone of a different race, sex, religious group, or sexual orientation. One example that the article uses is that of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor from 1987. Racist fliers were distributed that used foul language such as saucer lips, porch monkeys, and jigaboos. Many universities responded to this outrage by banning hate speech through the use of speech codes. The reasoning for this is that hate speech may encourage people to go out and attack certain individuals based on their ethnic or religious background. The article uses statistics to prove that the number of hate groups is on the rise in the U.S. Some of the major groups that it mentions include the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and the Nation of Islam. The problem with acting against these hate speech groups is that it would be a violation of their First Amendment rights, which protects them from prosecution fo r any words that they might say about another group of people. In my opinion, banning people from freedom of speech opens up a whole can of worms. This is because once you ban one group from speaking out, it would only seem fair to ban the next one, and the next one, and so on. Also, the matter of who is the authority to decide what type of speech is allowed and what type of speech is not allowed becomes a dividing issue. In fact, cracking down on hate speech could result in an increase of even more hate speech; this is one outcome that those who champion restricting hate speech would not want to see. I agree with the views of David Cole, a law professor at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., who says that the restriction of hate speech would only take away the rights of one particular group only to give even more rights to another. This would be biased because it would be treated