. We came up with 2 questions peers must answer which nobody has answered yet. This is a masters ethics health administration class and I’m a pediatric nurse btw. Please let me know if more page is needed or any confusion Instructions: final consensus position on the case, 1) developed based on your research and points raised during the class discussion. List three reasons supporting your position. Since nobody posted yet which they may post Thursday which I’ll let you know Friday am. We just might assume what peers would say about the case in order to start the next question. This is due Saturday so people don’t post until Thursday or Friday am so I needed a head start. Open for suggestions from writer who is amazing. 1) The main objective of the group consensus is taken into account during the week what has happened, what did you take away from this discussion, what is your opinion or did your opinion changed since having a discussion with your peers and hearing what they have to say. Everyone will have different opinions. The Professor said for example, we can even say the questions that was presented to the class, majority of the class felt this way while the other half felt another way however our group still has questions and we feel a different way. All of that is an analysis of the week on how the discussion went. Since my peers have not answered any of the questions which I uploaded. developed based on your research and points raised during the class discussion. List three reasons supporting your position. Research base on the topic of the week In lecture which are (Common patient rights include autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, confidentiality, truthfulness, and fidelity (promise keeping). There are others. But the key to remember about rights is that they always create a responsibility/duty/obligation. So you must ask, not only who deserves the right, but also who fulfills it. The second point about rights is to clarify the criteria for holding the right or obligation. The third point is to determine what the right entails. Is it a liberty right (negative) or an entitlement right (positive). For example, confidentiality is largely a liberty right. One has the liberty of retaining control over who accesses your private information and the right to expect that others won’t interfere with that liberty. However, if there is a security breach at an institution, causing the possible public dissemination of private patient information. Those patients are entitled to receive measures designed to reduce the harm of that release, such as free security monitoring of their credit information. This would be an additional positive right due to the wrong that occurred. This brings us to the fourth point. Rights originate from many sources, including private relationships, public relationships/roles, regulations, socio-cultural norms, law, contracts, and human nature. The origin of a right helps to determine when a right applies, when and if it can be overridden, etc. For example, if a right is a "human right," then in theory it applies no matter what the law in a country states. If health care is a human right, then we should not deny health care services to people based on their immigration status. Along similar lines, many clinicians believe that their role as healer creates an obligation to provide health care to those who ask for and need it. Rights are rarely absolute and unconditional. John Stuart Mill stated that the State can only justify limiting individual liberty to the extent necessary to limit harm to others. If your action harms someone else (against their will) then you are violating that other person’s right to liberty. In order to respect the right to liberty, one must respect the conditions necessary for liberty, including the freedom of others. (Mill, JS, On Liberty) 2) What recommendations would you recommend for helping administration going forward if a case like this is presented in our hospital. 3) I listed the opinions of some group members to help answer question #1. You can reworded however sounds great esp if everyone agrees on the same thing. Like we as a group agree etc. but group member #1 opinion is: I side on the rights of Angela.It is considered ‘constitutionally unacceptable’ if the rights of the fetus outweigh the mother’s right to receive adequate care. A fetus should not be granted any rights that would limit the rights of the mother. Being pregnant should not mean you have fewer rights- every individual has the right to refuse treatment. Group member #2 opinion: In this case this case, I would be with Angela because A mother has a right to choose the well being of her fetus, putting a pregnant woman’s extensive moral responsibility for her fetus into a legal obligation may not be advisable.All specified professionals shall respect the mother’s preeminent right to accept or reject any decision affecting the development, wellness, or guidance of the fetus. Everyone has the right to refuse the treatment for their own good. Group member #3 (me): please write anything you want but I am a pediatric nurse. Apa 7th edition, please note I uploaded my group post of the case summary and discussion question peers are suppose to answer but nobody has I uploaded a peer response that was just posted in order to help answer question I of the group consensus: (The main objective of the group consensus is taken into account during the week what has happened, what did you take away from this discussion, what is your opinion or did your opinion changed since having a discussion with your peers and hearing what they have to say). Please forward to writer