Please post a 5-20 minute recorded Screencast-o-matic video narrating a PowerPoint presentation on the bioethical issue explored in your Issue Paper ( Should Prisoners be Allowed to Participate in Research) . In your video, storyboard the two sides of the issue and offer at least two ethical theories we have analyzed, explaining how they could be used to support or deny this ethical issue. (9 slides maximum)Final paper should include a summary and explanation of the background of the biomedical ethical issue, how each side argues its points, which ethical theory they may be applying and where there may be flaws in the argumentation.
In Week 7 Unit 14, you had an opportunity to post a narrated PowerPoint presentation of your bioethical issue and provide a peer review of your classmates’ work. In Week 7 Unit 15, you are asked to re
PHIL 201: Final Bioethical Issue Project: Paper and Presentation Detailed Description of the Final Bioethic al Issue Project: P aper and Presentation The Final Bioethic al Issue Project consists of four parts: 1. Identifying a biomedical ethical issue that can be evaluated from two sides, outlining two sides of the argument. Due Week 5 (Unit 9) as an Assignment . 2. Presenting and explaining yo ur applied ethical issue positions in a narrated PowerPoint using Screencast-o-matic. Due Week 7 (Unit 13) in the Discussion area. 3. Giving productive feedback to at least two classmates as if you were a peer reviewer. Due Week 7 (Unit 13) in the Discussion area. 4. Writing an Issue Paper that considers research sources from both sides and explains how ethical theories evaluated during the semester may be applied to each side. Due Week 7 (Unit 14) . Planning for the Final Bioethical Issue Project (What You Must Do Checklist): Identify and research a biomedical ethical issue; write a compelling statement about why this issue can be argued from two different sides and which of the ethical theories we have analyzed in the course might justify each side’s answer. Write an outline for how you will present this issue and the evidence each side uses in arguments to deny or support this ethical issue. Create a short video presentation (9 slides maximum; refer to presentation rubric in Course Information for specifics on what should be included) that storyboards the two sides and offer at least two ethical theories we have analyzed, explaining how they could be used to support or deny this ethical issue. Provid e productive and substantive feedback to at least two of your classmates in the ro le of peer reviewer. Receive and incorporate your peers’ feedback from this presentation to enhance the paper you are writing. Turn in the final, edited version of your paper with proper APA citations, summary and explanation of the background of the biomedical ethical issue, how each side argues its points, which ethical theory they may be applying and where there may be flaws in the argumentation. I will guide you through your selection of the applied biomedical ethical issue and the development of your outline and appropriate references along the way. Three weeks prior to your outline being due, I will provide a list of acceptable biomedical ethical case studies from which you can choose to base your project on. It will be key to meet every deadline I have PHIL 201 : Final Bioethic al Issu e Project: Paper and Presentation created for you as w e progress throughout th e semester becaus e you cannot start this project at th e very last two weeks of th e cours e when it is du e. This is a “scaffolded ” writing project that w e work on in pieces throughou t th e semester. After you receiv e feedback on your outlin e, you then cr eate a presentation to shar e with th e class and begin drafting your paper. Your peers (at least two other students) and I will giv e you written feedback that you can incorpor ate into your final paper. Becaus e of thes e incremental steps , you ar e improving your final product along th e way. Optional Consultations : I am always happy to look at drafts befor e you even g et to th e final presentation. However , you hav e to plan ahead in order to giv e m e tim e. Toward th e end of th e semester , I need it at least two weeks befor e you ar e submitting it to allow ampl e tim e in my schedule to give constructive feedback. This means you would need to submit a draft to me no later than Week 6 Unit 11 so you can finalize the entire presentation and draft paper by Week 7 when you present your video summary of the ethical issue to the class. PHIL 210: Bioethics This rubric is used to evaluate the Final Bioethical Issue Project: Presentation Portion CONTENT Accomplished 90.00 to 100.00 % Proficient 80.00 to 90.00 % Developing 65.00 to 80.00 % Novice 0.00 to 64.00 % Introduction and Overview (Maximum 1 slide) (5 %) Presenter introduces self and ethical dilemma professionally with appropriate vocabulary and speed. Interesting and well – considered summary that meets the requirements. Topic is summarized with some thought and care. Does not explain the project. Presen ts conflicting, incoherent or non -existent overview. Background of Issue (Maximum 2 Slides) (15 %) Bioethical dilemma is fully explained and each side is well articulated with reference to appropriate ethical theories discussed throughout the course. Materials are relevant; ethical dilemma explained, but with some considerations omitted; some course theories made relevant. The extent of the bioethical issue is not fully articulated; viewers are left with unclear vision of what is at stake. Little -to-no explanation of the ethical dilemma and why it is important. Presenting yes and no sides (Maximum 4 slides) (30 %) Fully detailed explanation of two opposing viewpoints to ethical dilemma is presented; detailed account of relevant ethical theories covered in class are also presented for each side. Satisfactory explanation of two opposing viewpoints are presented with some missing details, mention of ethical theories, but not a detailed explanation of how they relate to the applied ethical d ilemma. Two viewpoints mentioned are not fully fleshed out; there are some errors in the details of how the arguers make their points. Neither of the opposing viewpoints are not explained properly or at all. There is little – to-no detail in how the opposi ng sides relate to ethical theories. Identifying Weaknesses in Arguments, Suggestions for Improvement (Maximum 2 slides) (15 %) Flaws in logic and evidence are articulated in clear understandable terms; suggestions for strengthening arguments are backed by research and clear, logical argumentation. Weaknesses in arguments are mentioned, but not well articulated. At least one sugg estion for improvement is mentioned. Weaknesses are irrelevant to the dilemma, and not well articulated. Suggestions for improvement missing. No time is spent identifying why arguments are faulty. PHIL 210: Bioethics This rubric is used to evaluate the Final Bioethical Issue Project: Presentation Portion CONTENT Accomplished 90.00 to 100.00 % Proficient 80.00 to 90.00 % Developing 65.00 to 80.00 % Novice 0.00 to 64.00 % Design, Grammar, Spelling (15 %) Slides display effecti ve use of colors and graphics; not too busy; if pictures or graphics are included, they are made accessible for people with disabilities; presentation is free of grammar and spelling errors. Any quotations are properly cited with APA immediately underneath quote. An error or two may be present, but nothing that distracts the viewer from the content; some slides are more loaded in text than others. There are multiple errors in spelling and grammar; too many words and images on each slide. Very difficult to follow or comprehend due to inconsistent slide themes, overuse of words or graphics and numerous errors in grammar, spelling and syntax. Reply #1 (10%) Student provides a clear, respectful reply and critique using proper grammar and spelling. Student offers productive, thorough feedback on the content of the presentation. Student provides a respectful reply and critique using proper grammar and spelling . Student offers feedback on the content of the presentation. Student provides a respectful reply but an element of their reply is unclear/poorly communicated and/or the student does not offer helpful feedback on the content of the presentation. Studen t does not reply, offers a very short reply that does not add anything new to the discussion, has a disjointed reply, or provides a disrespectful reply that is more attacking than critiquing the classmate’s presentation. Reply #2 (10%) Student provides a clear, respectful reply and critique using proper grammar and spelling. Student offers productive, thorough feedback on the content of the presentation. Student provides a respectful reply and critique using proper grammar and spelling. Student offers feedback on the content of the presentation. Student provides a respectful reply but an element of their reply is unclear/poorly communicated and/or the student does not offer helpful feedback on the content of the presentation. Student does not reply, offers a very short reply that does not add anything new to the discussion, has a disjointed reply, or provides a disrespectful reply that is more attacking than critiquing the classmate’s presentation.
In Week 7 Unit 14, you had an opportunity to post a narrated PowerPoint presentation of your bioethical issue and provide a peer review of your classmates’ work. In Week 7 Unit 15, you are asked to re
Running Head: PRISONERS DILEMMA 1 Prisoners Dilemma Student Name Institution Date Should Prisoners be Allowed to Participate in Research? The power inequalities among researchers, type of supervised workers, and prisoners, as well as the consequences this would have on acquiring permission from the participants to research, are the key ethical hurdles that investigators must overcome and the difficulties in maintaining the security and dignity of participants in the study who are incarcerated to tackle these questions, one basic stage might be to establish open and unambiguous methods for ethical public health, which should have been guided by several organizations, especially inmates, law enforcement officers, and investigators themselves (Brosens, 2019). Prisoners indicated that they participated since they had limited options once detained or are just unhappy with both the therapy options provided by the facility. If the existing medication is inadequate, some convicts may believe that they have no option except to volunteer in research to acquire care (Edelstein, 2019). While it is tempting to think of this kind of dilemma, deciding between participating in a study and preceding proper treatment as intimidation (corcesion), we genuinely think it is far more factual and meaningful to shape the ethical considerations to provide opportunities for exploitation with the need to guarantee those research findings have such a risk management proportion in the context of the study. On framing the ethical challenge as exploitation, it more correctly reflects whatever happens in the interactive engagement between investigator and research (Gansterer & Hartl, 2021). To some extent, weighing the pros and cons resolves exploitation, but compulsion could still exist in prisoner research. Although some of the volunteers seemed desperate, quite terrified, or excessively frightened more about potential repercussions of the conditions if it is not cured, they were also not pushed into partaking in preclinical research methods (Huang, Cauley & Wagner, 2017). They claim that when inmates are given the tough decision to participate in the research or forego appropriate treatment, it is not coercion because they are not blackmailed with worsening their situation if they refuse to take part. According to the ethical theory, coercion represents deontological ethics, and exploitation represents virtue ethics. References Brosens, D. (2019). Prisoners’ participation and involvement in prison life: Examining the possibilities and boundaries. European Journal of Criminology, 16(4), 466-485. Edelstein, J. (2019). The Prisoner Dilemma: A Bioethical Analysis of the Access to Healthcare of Incarcerated Populations. Temple University. Gansterer, M., & Hartl, R. F. (2021). The Prisoners’ Dilemma in collaborative carriers’ request selection. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 29(1), 73-87. Huang, E., Cauley, J., & Wagner, J. K. (2017). Barred from better medicine? Reexamining regulatory barriers to the inclusion of prisoners in research. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(1), 159-174.




Why Choose Us

  • 100% non-plagiarized Papers
  • 24/7 /365 Service Available
  • Affordable Prices
  • Any Paper, Urgency, and Subject
  • Will complete your papers in 6 hours
  • On-time Delivery
  • Money-back and Privacy guarantees
  • Unlimited Amendments upon request
  • Satisfaction guarantee

How it Works

  • Click on the “Place Order” tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.
  • Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER DETAILS" section.
  • Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline, and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.
  • Click “CREATE ACCOUNT & SIGN IN” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record-keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.
  • From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.