Discuss the following

Part 1

The Threaded Discussions are like mini-classroom presentations. Each week a question will be presented for your consideration. You must submit your first post by Thursday; posts two and three must be posted by Sunday. All three posts must be on three separate days, and must be supported by a reference (i.e. a citation to your source). Your posts should be very formal, with proper use of citations, grammar, and spelling. Casual conversations should be limited to the Open Bar.

This is the CRITERIA that your posts will be graded on:

• The depth of understanding you display
• The accuracy of your cites (citations are mandatory)
• Your writing skills (grammar / spelling)
• Proper word count (between 150 – 250 words ONLY)
• The quality of your interaction with other students in the discussion

Week 1 Law Talk Topic: State of Emergency

You should refer to page 62 in your text for a basic understanding of false imprisonment and contagious diseases before completing this assignment. Remember, you must do outside research in order to thoroughly understand the issues involved.

Scenario

This week, we will discuss the ethical considerations surrounding the forced containment of those who may become infected with the Ebola virus.

For this assignment, you will first play the role of a senior advisor to the President of the United States. He has asked you to assist him in persuading the American people that containment is ethical.

You will then play the opposing role – a private citizen who opposes containment. Your job here will be to argue that containment is not ethical.

Finally, for your third post, respond to one of your classmates’ post and argue against the position in the post you respond to. You will either argue in favor containment or against containment.

Be sure to title your posts accordinglyLet the class know if it is Post 1, Post 2, or Post 3.

Here is a summary of the three posts you will submit this week:

POST 1:

Provide the American people (i.e. class members) with your justifications for containment. You should persuade them to believe that containing their sick family members is ethical.

POST 2:

For post 2, you are no longer a presidential advisor. You are now a private citizen who opposes containment. Choose a fellow student’s post, and state your objections. Your job is to persuade that particular presidential advisor (i.e. that student’s post) that containment is unethical. Be sure to choose a post that has not already been responded to.

POST 3:

Now you choose a side; you can either be a presidential advisor, or a private citizen. Review the posts submitted by your colleagues, and respond to one. This is your final opportunity to persuade your audience in either direction. If you’re a presidential advisor, convince us that containment is ethical. If you’re a private citizen, convince us that containment is not ethical.

Here is an example of a post that meets criteria:

Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. The Supreme Court at that time determined that a woman had a right to choose. One of the “underpinning” issues of Roe is a right to privacy. The right to privacy is addressed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, 13th and 14th Amendments.

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed Roe v Wade 38 times (1). In 1992, Casey v Planned Parenthood,14 F.3d 848, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the core of Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy. In this case, the Supreme Court stated, “the ability of women to participate equally in economics and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives and that this ability to control their reproductive lives was enough of a reliance to sustain Roe.”(2). This conclusion by the court specifically affirmed the doctrine stare decisis as it applies to Roe v Wade.(3)

In my opinion the original ruling in 1973, 38 reaffirmations, the 1992 affirmation of Roe v. Wade doctrine of Stare Decisis , the rights to privacy as indicated above, along with the fact that this law has become a law that has come “to be relied on”(4), makes it obvious that this is “settled law”. However, Judge Alito’s refusal to commit to one side or the other, has enabled him to avoid hanging himself with either the pro-life or the pro-choice side. In my opinion, Judge Alito is not correct in his refusal to acknowledge Roe v Wade as settled law.

1. & 4.)www.talkleft.com
2. & 3.)www.democracynow.com

Word Count: 204

Part 2

Chapter Review Questions

Please complete the following REVIEW QUESTIONS from your textbook. You do not have to write out the questions. However, your answers should be in complete sentences. All Chapters should be submitted in ONE DOCUMENT and in MS WORD

FORMAT.

• Chapter 2 Review Questions
• Chapter 3 Review Questions
• Chapter 9 Review Questions

Part 3

Open Bar Discussion

This is your assignment…..

1. Choose two topics from this week’s review (posted below).
2. Answer ONE review topic PER post
3. You will need TWO posts, so you will outline TWO review topics in total.3) Start each post with the topic number that you are answering. For example: Topic 1. This will help students readily identify which topics remain unanswered.
4. Each post must be a minimum of 100 words.
5. In your posts, be sure to cite the textbook page number where you found the information.
6. Try to have both posts submitted by Thursday of this week (this way you will have time to make outlines for the exams).
7. Do not outline a topic that has already been explained by a fellow student.
8. If all of the topics have been explained, pick a topic that you feel needs further explanation. Add more information on that topic by way of outside research, examples, and more detail.
9. You will not get credit for repeating information that has already been stated in another post. You want to complete this assignment early. That way, you are not restricted by what other students have already discussed.
10. Points will be deducted for poor grammar, spelling, failing to cite accurately, and failing to meet the word count.

• When submitting a casual post, be sure to start it with the title:

• CASUAL POST (instead of a topic review number).
• This way, students can select your post if they just want to socialize, or select the review posts if they want to study.

Review Topics for Week 1

• What are the different sources of law, such as:

• Common law
• Statutory law
• Administrative law
• Standard of care
• What are the elements of negligence?
• What is the theory of respondent superior?
• What are the various forms of authority held by health care corporations?
• What do these terms mean:

• Res judicata
• Res ipsa loquitur
• Stare decisis
• Independent contractor
• How does a plaintiff win a strict liability claim?
• What is the Department of Health and Human Services responsible for?
• What is the Department of Labor responsible for?
• What are torts?
• Who is liable in a products liability case, and to whom?
• What do the following cases hold:

• Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital
• Leavitt v. St. Tammany
• Dickinson v. Mailliard

Part 4

Project Description – Due in Week 3

For your final project, you will be discussing issues related to ethics. These are controversial and heated topics, so there will be plenty to discuss. Specifically, you will be reading about Theresa Schiavo, which was a very heated case in 2005.

Please follow these directions:

1. Read the timeline of the Schiavo case at: https://bioethics.miami.edu/clinical-and-research-ethics/terri-schiavo-project/timeline-of-key-events/index.html
2. Do some of your own independent research on Terri Schiavo. You must have at least five (5) sources cited in your paper.
3. Analyze the research in order to determine who was ethically correct in your opinion; the husband or the parents.
4. Write a persuasive research paper on your findings, thoughts, and opinions. Pick a side, and defend it.
5. Your paper should be at least three (3) full pages, but no more than five (5) full pages. You should have two additional pages: one with your sources, and one as a cover page.
6. Please cite to all sources using either footnotes or endnotes. If you are unfamiliar with this, please refer to the APA website for formatting help: (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html)
7. Use quotation marks properly when citing your sources. Again, please refer to the site above for help with quotations.
8. No more than 20% of your paper can be a direct quote. I want YOUR analysis, not something that is copied from a website.
9. Submit your paper by 11:59 PM (EST) on Sunday of Week Three.
10. Your paper should have one-inch margins all around, typed in Times New Roman (12″) font, and must be saved as an MS Word document (doc.).