The practice of health care providers at all levels brings you into contact with people from a variety of faiths. This calls for knowledge and acceptance of a diversity of faith expressions.
The purpose of this paper is to complete a comparative ethical analysis of George’s situation and decision from the perspective of two worldviews or religions: Christianity and a second religion of your choosing. For the second faith, choose a faith that is unfamiliar to you. Examples of faiths to choose from include Sikh, Baha’i, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc.
In your comparative analysis, address all of the worldview questions in detail for Christianity and your selected faith. Refer to Chapter 2 of Called to Carefor the list of questions. Once you have outlined the worldview of each religion, begin your ethical analysis from each perspective.
In a minimum of 1,500-2,000 words, provide an ethical analysis based upon the different belief systems, reinforcing major themes with insights gained from your research, and answering the following questions based on the research:
- How would each religion interpret the nature of George’s malady and suffering? Is there a “why” to his disease and suffering? (i.e., is there a reason for why George is ill, beyond the reality of physical malady?)
- In George’s analysis of his own life, how would each religion think about the value of his life as a person, and value of his life with ALS?
- What sorts of values and considerations would each religion focus on in deliberating about whether or not George should opt for euthanasia?
- Given the above, what options would be morally justified under each religion for George and why?
- Finally, present and defend your own view.
Support your position by referencing at least three academic resources (preferably from the GCU Library) in addition to the course readings, lectures, the Bible, and the textbooks for each religion. Each religion must have a primary source included. A total of six references are required according to the specifications listed above. Incorporate the research into your writing in an appropriate, scholarly manner.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Case Study on Death and Dying
Less Than Satisfactory
|20.0 %Identification of Ethical Issues as They Relate to the Four Principles of Principlism||The ethical issues are incorrectly organized.||Ethical issues are adequately organized according to the four principles of principlism. Some of the categorization is suspect.||Ethical issues are organized according to the four principles of principlism.||Ethical issues are organized according to the four principles of principlism. A distinction between the four principles is clearly stated, but the reasoning of the categorization is merely adequate.||Ethical issues are organized according to the four principles of principlism. A distinction between the four principles and the reasoning of the categorization is clearly stated.|
|20.0 %Description of the Christian Worldview and the Other Worldview||The description of the Christian worldview and the selected worldview address little to none of the seven worldview questions and the description is mostly incorrect or irrelevant.||The description of the Christian worldview and the selected worldview address most of the seven worldview questions with little evidence of a surface-level understanding.||The description of the Christian worldview and the selected worldview adequately address all seven worldview questions, but the description has a surface-level understanding.||The description of the Christian worldview and the selected worldview address all seven worldview questions with evidence of basic understanding utilizing a detailed description.||The description of the Christian worldview and the selected worldview address all seven worldview questions with evidence of a deep understanding utilizing a detailed description.|
|20.0 % Analysis of Ethical Issues through Christian Worldview and the Other Worldview||The primary principles and values in the decision making process of each worldview have little to no relevance. Ethical reasoning seems to have no connection from the worldview considerations.||The primary principles and values are acknowledged in the decision making process of each worldview. Ethical reasoning is loosely based from the worldview considerations.||The primary principles and values surface in the decision making process of each worldview. Ethical reasoning is implied from the worldview considerations.||The primary principles and values are recognized in the decision making process of each worldview. Ethical reasoning is explained from the worldview considerations. Most implications of the principles and values are given consideration.||The primary principles and values are clearly distinguished in the decision making process of each worldview. Ethical reasoning is clearly delineated from the worldview considerations. The implications of the principles and values are given complete consideration.|
|10.0 % Personal Recommendation||The personal recommendation from the student’s worldview is stated, but the justification has little to no relevance.||The personal recommendation from the student’s worldview is stated with proper justification.||The personal recommendation from the student’s worldview is stated with proper justification with some implications explained.||The personal recommendation from the student’s worldview is stated with proper justification. The primary principles of the student’s worldview are clearly described with most implications explained.||The personal recommendation from the student’s worldview is stated with proper justification. The primary principles of the student’s worldview are clearly described with all implications explained.|
|20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness|
|7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose||Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim.||Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear.||Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose.||Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. They are descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose.||Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.|
|8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction||Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources.||Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility.||Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis.||Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative.||Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.|
|5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use)||Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.||Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.||Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.||Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.||Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.|
|5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment)||Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly.||Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent.||Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present.||Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style.||All format elements are correct.|
|5.0 %Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style)||Sources are not documented.||Documentation of sources is inconsistent and/or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors.||Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present.||Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct.||Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error.|