ASSIGMENT W2
Write a 750-1000 word analysis of “Case Study: Fetal Abnormality.” Be sure to address the following questions:
- Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? Explain.
- How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendation for action?
- What theory do you agree with? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Jessica is a 30-year-old immigrant from Mexico City. She and her husband Marco have been in the U.S. for the last three years and have finally earned enough money to move out of their Aunt Maria’s home and into an apartment of their own. They are both hard workers. Jessica works 50 hours a week at a local restaurant and Marco has been contracting side jobs in construction. Six months before their move to an apartment, Jessica finds out she is pregnant.
Four months later, Jessica and Marco arrive at the county hospital, a large, public, nonteaching hospital. A preliminary ultrasound indicates a possible abnormality with the fetus. Further scans are conducted and it is determined that the fetus has a rare condition in which it has not developed any arms, and will not likely develop them. There is also a 25% chance that the fetus may have Down syndrome.
Dr. Wilson, the primary attending physician, is seeing Jessica for the first time, since she and Marco did not receive earlier prenatal care over concerns about finances. Marco insists that Dr. Wilson refrain from telling Jessica the scan results, assuring him that he will tell his wife himself when she is emotionally ready for the news. While Marco and Dr. Wilson are talking in another room, Aunt Maria walks into the room with a distressed look on her face. She can tell that something is wrong and inquires of Dr. Wilson. After hearing of the diagnosis, she walks out of the room wailing loudly and praying aloud.
Marco and Dr. Wilson continue their discussion, and Dr. Wilson insists that he has an obligation to Jessica as his patient and that she has a right to know the diagnosis of the fetus. He furthermore is intent on discussing all relevant factors and options regarding the next step, including abortion. Marco insists on taking some time to think of how to break the news to Jessica, but Dr. Wilson, frustrated with the direction of the conversation, informs the husband that such a choice is not his to make. Dr. Wilson proceeds back across the hall, where he walks in on Aunt Maria awkwardly praying with Jessica and phoning the priest. At that point, Dr. Wilson gently but briefly informs Jessica of the diagnosis, and lays out the option for abortion as a responsible medical alternative, given the quality of life such a child would have. Jessica looks at him and struggles to hold back her tears.
Jessica is torn between her hopes of a better socioeconomic position and increased independence, along with her conviction that all life is sacred. Marco will support Jessica in whatever decision she makes, but is finding it difficult not to view the pregnancy and the prospects of a disabled child as a burden and a barrier to their economic security and plans. Dr. Wilson lays out all of the options but clearly makes his view known that abortion is “scientifically” and medically a wise choice in this situation. Aunt Maria pleads with Jessica to follow through with the pregnancy and allow what “God intends” to take place, and urges Jessica to think of her responsibility as a mother.
Unsatisfactory
0.00%
| 2 Less Than Satisfactory 65.00% | 3 Satisfactory 75.00% | 4 Good 85.00% | 5 Excellent 100.00% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70.0 %Content | |||||
| 25.0 % Determination of Moral Status | Theory/Theories that determine the moral status of the fetus are incorrectly identified. | Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for at least a few of the people listed in the case study, but explanation is lacking. | Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for at least a few of the people listed in the case study. Some explanation is provided. | Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for all of the people listed in the case study, including adequate explanation. | Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for all of the people listed in the case study, including a detailed explanation. |
| 25.0 % Recommendation for Action | Recommendation for action shows little to no relevance to the case study. | Recommendation for action is present, but lacks explanation. | Recommendation for action is present, with some explanation. | Recommendation for action is present, with explanation. | Recommendation for action is present, with detailed explanation that shows a deep understanding of the subject. |
| 20.0 % Personal Response to Case Study | Personal response to the case study shows little to no relevance, and does not detail how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. | Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree but does not detail how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. | Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and an explanation on how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. | Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and a detailed explanation on how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. | Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and a detailed explanation that shows a deep understanding of the subject including how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. |
| 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. It is 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 progression. 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. |
| 10.0 %Format | |||||
| 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 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. |
| 100 % Total Weightage |
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!
NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
