HSCI705 Entire Online Class Help Liberty University

HSCI705 Syllabus Ethical Issues in Health Science

The syllabus for HSCI705, titled “Ethical Issues in Health Science,” outlines the course objectives, expectations, and assignments for students enrolled in this course. The primary focus of the course is to explore the ethical challenges and considerations that arise in health science, particularly in the context of research involving human subjects. The course will cover various ethical principles, including respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, which are central to ethical decision-making in healthcare and research.

The syllabus details the various assignments that students will be required to complete, including a Course Requirements Checklist, a Mission, Vision, and Values Statement assignment, several discussion threads on key ethical issues, and a final Philosophy of Ethics in Research Assignment. Each of these components is designed to encourage students to engage critically with ethical issues and to develop a strong foundation in ethical reasoning and decision-making.

HSCI705- Assignments Course Requirements Checklist

The Course Requirements Checklist for HSCI705 is designed to ensure that students understand the expectations and commitments associated with the course. The checklist consists of several questions that students must answer to confirm their understanding of the course syllabus, student expectations, and academic integrity standards. Here are the key points from the checklist:

1. Question 1: Students acknowledge that by completing the Course Requirements Checklist or any other assignment in Canvas, they will no longer be able to drop the course. Completing this activity constitutes attendance, and if students are unable to continue attending, they must contact Academic Advising to initiate a withdrawal.
2. Question 2: Students confirm that they have read the information provided through the Student Expectations link and understand their rights and responsibilities as students.
3. Question 3: This question connects the course to the broader mission of Liberty University, emphasizing the importance of making contributions to workplaces and communities, following vocations as callings to glorify God, and fulfilling the Great Commission.
4. Question 4: After reviewing the Academic Integrity presentation in the Student Expectations link, students acknowledge their understanding of the content and the consequences of violating academic integrity standards.

Quiz Score: 10/10​(HSCI705- Assignments Co…)​

HSCI705- Assignment Mission, Vision, and Values Statement Assignment

Mission, Vision, and Values Statement

This assignment requires students to articulate their personal mission, vision, and values as they relate to their academic and professional goals. The student begins by reflecting on their upbringing and the ethical framework instilled by their parents, which emphasized treating everyone with respect and love. As a doctoral student and a follower of Christ, the student expresses a commitment to fostering healthy relationships, mentoring others, and conducting ethical research.

Mission: The student’s mission is to acquire the knowledge needed to be successful in their field and to help others. They aspire to inspire individuals around them and build a diverse network to solve issues. The mission statement also reflects a commitment to becoming the person God has intended them to be, using their knowledge and skills to inspire hope and be a beacon of light.

Vision: The student envisions being recognized as an honest, sympathetic, and significant leader in their field. They are dedicated to emerging as a leader and adding value to their field and community, fully invested in seeing this vision become a reality through hard work and faith.

Values: The student’s values include integrity, accountability, and honesty. They emphasize the importance of these values in conducting ethical research and in their professional conduct, drawing from their experience in the healthcare field.

Conclusion: The student concludes that having a mission, vision, and values statement will provide the framework needed to successfully navigate their academic program and career. They express confidence that as they progress in their studies, these statements will evolve and become more refined.

References:

• Bulger, R. E., Heitman, E., & Reiser, S. J. (2002). The ethical dimensions of the biological sciences: A textbook with case studies. Cambridge University Press.
• Bible Gateway. (n.d.). 2 Chronicles 20:17. New International Version. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Chronicles+20%3A17&version=NIV​:citation[oaicite:1]{index=1}​

HSCI705- Annotated Bibliography Assignment

Annotated Bibliography: Philosophy of Ethics in Research

This assignment involves creating an annotated bibliography that reviews literature on the philosophical underpinnings of research ethics. The bibliography includes 10 scholarly articles that provide a foundation for understanding key ethical principles in research.

1. Anon. (2017). Issue Information-Declaration of Helsinki. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 32(3), BM i-BM ii. This article presents the Declaration of Helsinki, emphasizing the ethical obligations of doctors conducting experiments on human subjects. The article discusses the importance of protecting participants' lives, confidentiality, and dignity in clinical research.
2. Clark, K. R. (2019). Ethics in research. Radiologic Technology, 90(4), 394-397. Clark discusses the ethics of scientific inquiry, highlighting the importance of protecting research participants and obtaining informed consent. The article also emphasizes the role of the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report in shaping ethical research practices.
3. Cocanour, C. S. (2017). Informed consent—It’s more than a signature on a piece of paper. The American Journal of Surgery, 214(6), 993-997. This article explores the concept of informed consent, arguing that it involves more than just obtaining a signature. It emphasizes the need for patients to be well-informed and competent to make decisions about their participation in clinical research.
4. Grady, C., Cummings, S. R., Rowbotham, M. C., McConnell, M. V., Ashley, E. A., & Kang, G. (2017). Informed consent. The New England Journal of Medicine, 376(9), 856-867. Grady et al. discuss the evolution of informed consent, highlighting the impact of technological advancements on the process. The article explores the use of electronic informed consent and its implications for research ethics.
5. Hofmann, B. (2021). The role of philosophy and ethics at the edges of medicine. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 16(1), 14-14. Hofmann examines the intersection of philosophy, ethics, and medical technology, arguing that the progress of medicine necessitates a rethinking of philosophical and ethical questions.
6. Lantos, J. D. (2020). The Belmont Report and innovative clinical research. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 63(2), 389-400. Lantos discusses the Belmont Report’s distinction between research and therapeutic treatment, emphasizing the ethical challenges that arise in innovative clinical research.
7. Lapid, M. I., Clarke, B. L., & Wright, R. S. (2019). Institutional review boards: What clinician researchers need to know. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 94(3), 515-525. This article provides an overview of the role and responsibilities of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in protecting the rights and welfare of research participants.
8. Rajab, M. H., Alkawi, M. Z., Gazal, A. M., Alshehri, F. A., Shaibah, H. S., & Holmes, L. D. (2019). Evaluation of a University’s institutional review board based on campus feedback: A cross-sectional study. Cureus, 11(10), e5829-e5829. This study evaluates the effectiveness of a university’s IRB, highlighting the challenges faced by researchers in gaining IRB approval.
9. Ulrich, C. M., Grady, C., Demiris, G., & Richmond, T. S. (2021). The competing demands of patient privacy and clinical research. Ethics & Human Research, 43(1), 25-31. Ulrich et al. discuss the ethical challenges of balancing patient privacy with the demands of clinical research, particularly in the context of data breaches.
10. Weisleder, P. (2022). Leo Alexander’s blueprint of the Nuremberg Code. Pediatric Neurology, 126, 120-124. Weisleder explores the historical context of the Nuremberg Code, emphasizing its significance in shaping modern research ethics.

Conclusion: The annotated bibliography provides a comprehensive review of literature on research ethics, highlighting the importance of justice, fairness, and the protection of research participants.

References:

• Heydt, C. (2018; 2017). Moral philosophy in eighteenth-century Britain: God, self, and other. Cambridge University Press.​(HSCI705- Annotated Bibl…)​

HSCI705- Discussion Thread Basic Ethical Principles

Analysis of the Basic Ethical Principles

This discussion thread focuses on the analysis of the three basic ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. These principles are fundamental to the ethics of research involving human subjects.

1. Respect for Persons: Respect for persons involves recognizing and protecting the autonomy of individuals. It requires that individuals be treated as autonomous agents, capable of making their own decisions. For those with diminished autonomy, such as individuals with disabilities, additional protections are necessary. This principle emphasizes the importance of informed consent, ensuring that participants are fully aware of the risks and benefits of their involvement in research.
2. Beneficence: Beneficence refers to the ethical obligation to protect individuals from harm and to maximize the benefits of research while minimizing potential risks. This principle is closely associated with the medical ethic of “do no harm” and requires a careful risk-benefit analysis in research involving human subjects. The principle of beneficence obligates researchers to design studies that prioritize the well-being of participants and to make decisions that enhance positive outcomes while reducing the likelihood of harm.
3. Justice: Justice in research ethics concerns the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of research. This principle demands that research subjects are selected fairly, and that vulnerable populations are not exploited. It also requires that the benefits of research, such as new therapies and medical advancements, are made available to all, not just those who can afford them. Historical examples, such as the Tuskegee syphilis study and Nazi concentration camp experiments, highlight the importance of ensuring justice in research practices.

Biblical Support: Each of these ethical principles is supported by biblical teachings. For example, respect for persons aligns with verses such as 1 Peter 2:17, which calls for honoring all people, and Ephesians 6:5, which emphasizes treating others with respect. Beneficence is supported by passages like Leviticus 19:11-18, which instructs individuals to love their neighbors as themselves. Justice is reinforced by verses such as Micah 6:8 and Isaiah 1:17, which call for fairness and righteousness in dealings with others.

References:

• Adams, D. P., & Miles, T. P. (2013). The application of Belmont Report principles to policy development. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 39(12), 16-21.
• Miracle, V. A. (2016). The Belmont Report: The triple crown of research ethics. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 35(4), 223-228.​(HSCI705- Discussion Thr…)​

HSCI705- Discussion Thread Ethical Code and Practices for Publication

Ethical Code and Practices for Publication

In this discussion thread, the focus is on the ethical considerations related to authorship and publication practices, particularly in the context of academic research. The scenario involves Dr. Hanz, who is faced with the ethical dilemma of whether to include the names of colleagues who contributed to a research project but did not play a significant role in the final publication.

Key Points of the Discussion:

1. Authorship and Responsibility: The discussion centers on whether it is ethical for Dr. Hanz to add the names of his colleagues to the title page of the publication, despite their limited contribution. Some argue that doing so would falsely represent who contributed to the research, which could be considered a form of academic dishonesty akin to plagiarism. Others suggest that acknowledging their contribution, even if minor, would avoid potential conflicts and maintain good relationships within the research community.
2. Ethical Ramifications: The potential consequences of including or excluding names are explored. If Dr. Hanz includes the names, it may set a precedent for future ethical dilemmas and could lead to a loss of trust among collaborators if they find out their contributions were misrepresented. Conversely, excluding names could damage professional relationships and reduce the likelihood of future collaborations.
3. Best Practices for Publication: The discussion highlights the importance of transparency and honesty in authorship decisions. It suggests that clear communication with collaborators about their roles and contributions is essential to avoid misunderstandings. Moreover, proper acknowledgment of all contributors, whether in the authorship or acknowledgment section, is crucial for maintaining integrity in the publication process.

References:

• Bonhoeffer, D. (2022). Ethics. Simon and Schuster.
• Pearn, J. (2020). Publication: An ethical imperative. BMJ, 310(6990), 1313-1315.
• Sammartino, N. K., O’Rourke, T. W., Pigg Jr., R. M., & Weinberg, A. D. (2019). Ethical issues in research and publication. Journal of School Health, 59(3), 101-104.​(HSCI705- Discussion Thr…)​