Please read these assignment instructions before writing your paper, and re-read them often during and after the writing process to make sure that you are fulfilling all of the instructions. Please also utilize the assignment guidance and the outlined model provided.

Overview

 In the Week One Assignment, you formulated a concrete ethical question, took a position on that topic, and identified a reason supporting and a reason opposing that position. In the Week Three Assignment, you discussed either deontological or utilitarian theory, applied that theory to the question, and raised a relevant objection.

By engaging with the course material, you now have had a chance to refine your thinking and broaden your understanding of the problem by approaching it from the perspective of multiple ethical theories.

In this paper, you will demonstrate what you have learned by writing an essay in which you

•Present a revised formulation of the ethical question and introduction to the topic.

•Explain the kind of reasoning you think is the best way to approach this question, and how that reasoning supports the position you think is strongest.

•Raise an objection, and be able to respond to it.

Instructions

 Write an essay that conforms to the requirements below. The paper must be 1500 to 2000 words in length (excluding the title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center.

The paragraphs of your essay should conform to the following guidelines:

•Introduction

 Your first paragraph should begin with the topic question, suitably revised. It should be focused, concrete, and on a relevant moral problem. You should then introduce the topic in the way described by the Week One instructions, but reflecting the developed understanding and information you have gained about the topic and any necessary refinement of the scope.

 Follow this with a thesis statement that states your position, and a brief description of the primary reason(s) supporting your position. (See the handout on thesis statements provided). Finally, provide a brief preview of the overall aim and procedure of your paper.

•Explanation and Demonstration of Moral Reasoning

 This section of the Final Paper will explain and demonstrate what you believe to be the best way of reasoning about the question you have chosen, and showing how that reasoning supports the position you have taken on the question. You might explain the principles, rules, values, virtues, conceptions of purposes and ends, and other general ideas that you find persuasive, and show how they support concrete judgments.

 In the course of doing so, you must make reference to at least two of the approaches that we have examined in the course (such as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue-based), and utilize at least one resource off the provided list for each of the two approaches. One of these theories may be the theory you discussed in your Week Three Assignment, but your discussion here should be more refined.

 For example, you might find the reasoning associated with Aristotelian virtue ethics to be the most compelling, and reference Aristotle in the process of showing how that reasoning supports a certain conclusion. In the course of this, you could contrast that with a utilitarian approach, referencing Mill for instance.

•Objection and Response

 After explaining the ethical reasoning that supports your position, you should raise an objection and respond to it. An objection articulates a plausible reason why someone might find the argument weak or problematic. You should explain how it brings out this weakness, and do so in a way that would be acceptable to someone who disagrees with your own argument. Then, provide the best response you can to the objection, showing how it does not undermine your position. Your response should not simply restate your original position or argument, but should say something new in support of it.

•Conclusion

 Provide a conclusion that sums up what you presented in the paper and offers some final reflections.

Resource Requirement

 You must use at least four scholarly resources. Two of the resources must be drawn from the list of acceptable primary resources on each of the two theories you discuss. For example, if you discuss deontology and virtue ethics, you would need at least one resource under the “Deontology” list and at least one resource under the “Virtue Ethics” list. The other two may be from either the Required or Recommended Resources, or scholarly resources found in the Ashford University Library.

•The textbook may be cited, but it does not count toward the resource requirement. If you cite the textbook, you will still need to cite at least four more sources that fulfill the requirements stated above.

•If you need help with finding additional resources, or are unsure about whether a particular resource will count toward the requirement, please contact your instructor.

•For sources to count toward the resources requirement, they must be cited within the text of your paper and on the reference page. Sources that are listed on the references page, but not cited within the paper, do not count toward fulfilling the resources requirement.

•For information regarding APA, including samples and tutorials, visit the Ashford Writing Center.

Security and Privacy Paper

As an information systems manager, you will need to consider a very important aspect of your operation—patient information, privacy, and security. Review the following case scenarios and select one to use for your management plan for security and privacy.

Case Scenario 1 (Security Breach)

The administration at St. John’s Hospital takes pride in its sound policies and procedures for the protection of confidential client information. In fact, it serves as a model for other institutions in the area, however, printouts discarded in the restricted-access IS department are not shredded. On numerous occasions, personnel working late have observed the cleaning staff reading discarded printouts. What actions, if any, should these personnel take toward the actions of the cleaning staff? What actions, if any, should be taken by IS administration?

Case Scenario 2 (Natural Disaster):

Living on the Gulf Coast is a benefit that many residents of this small Southern town enjoy, however, natural disasters are a concern. The town has just been struck by a hurricane and the entire basement of your operation is flooded by the storm surge. Patient files were destroyed or washed away with the receding water. What actions do you take when patients ask for their health records? What processes did you have in place to protect your records in anticipation of such an event?

Choose one of the scenarios above and develop a process for maintaining patient privacy and security.

Include a detailed management plan in the case of a security breach (Case Scenario 1) or a natural disaster (Case Scenario 2). In your plan, address the following questions:

·         How can you respond to these situations?

·         What training can you provide to your staff?

·         How can you implement your management plan?

Include a code of conduct with your plan.

Write a 1,750- to 2,100-word description of your facility’s patient data privacy and security plan.

Use a minimum of four references that directly support your analysis.

Format  paper consistent with APA guidelines.

•  Group Observation Paper

  You write this paper by yourself.

  You will provide a short analysis of the interaction of group members that you observe in action. For example, you could attend a Killeen City Council Meeting, or tune in to local Channel 10 in the Killeen area to view the meeting there.  You could go to a county courthouse to watch a celebrity’s trial, or you could watch Court TV and follow the proceedings there. After you have completed your observation, write a short critique of what you have observed. 

  1. Briefly describe what group meeting you observed as well as where and when the meeting took place. [For example, “I observed the Killeen City Council meeting on March 1, 2005 at Killeen City Hall.] 
  2. What organizational plan was employed? [For example, Parliamentary Procedure was employed with the reading of the minutes, old business, new business, etc.]
  3. How were the decisions made? [For example, majority rule, consensus, leader-dictated, etc.] 
  4. How was information about topics gathered? [For example, research was provided by group members, research was provided by staff or outsiders, or testimony was provided, etc] 
  5. Was there a formal designated leader? Did certain members seem to play particular roles and assume specific responsibilities? [For example, the Mayor was the leader of the City Council.] 
  6. Were there conflicts or disagreements between group members and/or outsider sand how were they resolved? [For example, some council members wanted to annex property into the city limits, while some other council members as well as the citizens testifying, were opposed. The council decided to discuss the issue in executive session.] 
  7. Did the group tend to digress (get off the topic)? Did someone get them back to the subject, and if so, who did so? 
  8. Did the group seem thorough and complete in its treatment of the subjects that it addressed? 
  9. Were the group members clear in expressing themselves by phrasing their ideas carefully and by presenting their ideas in a vivid manner?
  10. Would you personally feel comfortable addressing this group? Why or why not? Explain.

   

   

   

   

  and i need a discussion board about the project that is 200 word.

  Discuss your ideas and organize your projects.  You will get credit for discussing which option you are going to choose for your group project

Your answers to each of these questions should be at least one paragraph (6-7 sentences) long, and it should show some thoughtful consideration regarding the matters raised in the questions.  Your total set of answers to these questions needs to be at least 200 words.  Also, when you reply to these questions, be sure to insert the letter for each question next to your answer corresponding to that question.

You will also need to reply to at least two students.  When you reply to another student, you do not need to reply to that student’s answers to every single question for this week.  You can just pick their reply to one question and reply to their answer to that question.  Your replies to other students should be at least 100 words long each.

A. Clifford says this at one point:

And no one man’s belief is in any case a private matter which concerns himself alone. Our lives our guided by that general conception of the course of things which has been created by society for social purposes. Our words, our phrases, our forms and processes and modes of thought, are common property, fashioned and perfected from age to age; an heirloom which every succeeding generation inherits as a precious deposit and a sacred trust to be handled on to the next one, not unchanged but enlarged and purified, with some clear marks of its proper handiwork. Into this, for good or ill, is woven every belief of every man who has speech of his fellows. A awful privilege, and an awful responsibility, that we should help to create the world in which posterity will live (500).

Explain what Clifford is saying here in your own words, and explain how this supports Clifford’s view that we need evidence for all of our beliefs.

B. Clifford thinks that we need evidence for all of our beliefs in order to be rational.  One of the main ways that he reaches this conclusion is by reflecting on one example involving a ship owner and the lessons that we can learn from it.  What do you think about this argument?  Do you think that Clifford has argued convincingly for the conclusion that we need evidence for all of our beliefs in order to be rational?  Why or why not?

C. Often in the course of discussing Clifford, philosophers discuss the following example.  Suppose that someone is diagnosed with cancer and told he or she only has three weeks left to live.  However, suppose that this person refuses to believe she will die in three weeks even though the doctors tell him or her that this is what the evidence indicates.  Suppose that, in the face of the evidence, the person believes that she will live longer than three weeks, and suppose that as a result of this belief this person in fact ends up living longer than three weeks.  This sort of thing happens in the real world.  Do you think that this person is rational or irrational in what he or she believes about living longer than three weeks, and do you think that this example shows that Clifford is wrong that we must have evidence for all of our beliefs to be rational?

D. Often in discussing Clifford, people reply by saying, “As long as your beliefs aren’t hurting anyone, it is rational to believe whatever you want even if those beliefs have no evidence.”  Do you agree with this?  Why or why not?