Discussion – Week 6 Top of Form Advocating for Social Justice Consider

Discussion – Week 6

Top of Form

Advocating for Social Justice

Consider the following topics. In many U.S. communities, low-income populations use the emergency room instead of going to a physician or mid-level provider’s office. They often do not pay the bill for their service, which shifts the cost of their care to other, paying patients at the hospital. This practice drives up the cost of health care, but what else can hospitals do? They have to have a certain amount of income to keep their doors open. Is this fair? What if these sick people remain untreated and infect others? Is this just? Do they deserve care so that they don’t infect others? We talk about a culture of poverty in this country. What does this mean to you? What about those people who seem to bilk or misuse the health care system? Do they deserve care? If so, who should pay for it? Shouldn’t everyone be forced to carry health insurance so that everyone has a pay source? Can we expect people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

Post your response to the following:

What does social justice mean to you? Is social justice the same as socialized medicine or even communism?

The notion of social justice is fairness so that everyone can achieve a certain level of health and wellness. After all, the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to pursue happiness. Is the health care system fair?

If you could wave a magic wand and fix the health care system, what is the first thing you would notice indicating that it had changed? Or, in your opinion, do you think it needs to be changed at all?

Support your response with references from professional nursing literature.

Notes Initial Post: This should be a 3-paragraph (at least 350 words) response. Be sure to use evidence from the readings and include in-text citations. Utilize essay-level writing practice and skills, including the use of transitional material and organizational frames. Avoid quotes; paraphrase to incorporate evidence into your own writing. A reference list is required. Use the most current evidence (usually ≤ 5 years old).

Week 6: Social Justice: The Ethical Foundation of Public Health

Lancaster (2016) noted that the ethical foundation of public health is rooted in ideals from the Enlightenment, a period of human history characterized by scientific thought, regard for the individual rights, and concerns for the disadvantaged. It marked a period of time from the 1700s to the mid-1850s during which individuals were freed from medieval thinking and embraced concerns for humanity and promotion of social justice. Social justice is founded in the idea that all persons are entitled to an equal share of societal burdens and benefits (Turnock, 2016). Social justice recognizes that there are definite barriers to equal distribution of benefits and burdens, such as class distinctions, heredity, and discrimination or bias due to, for example, sexual preference, race, or gender (Turnock, 2016). Extending the benefits of physical and behavioral science to those who are burdened unequally by disease and poor health is the overarching goal of public health (Turnock, 2016). According to Powers and Faden (2004), no society can be considered just if some segments of the population are afforded less regard and respect because of their socioeconomic status, race, gender, or sexual orientation. The Institute of Medicine defined the purpose of public health as creating the conditions for people to be healthy, which Powers and Faden (2004) viewed as a direct outcome of social justice.

Nurses play an important role in assuring social justice. Historically, nurses such as Lillian Wald, Mary Brewster, and Florence Nightingale worked tirelessly to assure that the most disadvantaged segments of the population received access to health care. Nurses must continue to be the voice for the underserved to assure access to consistent, efficient, and effective health care (Lancaster, 2016).

Required Readings

Stanhope, M., & Lancaster, J. (2020). Public health nursing: Population-centered health care in the community (10th ed.). Elsevier.

Chapter 2, “History of Public Health and Public and Community Health Nursing” (pp. 22-44)

Chapter 7, “Application of Ethics in the Community” (pp. 149-164)

NURS_4210_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View

List View

Excellent

Proficient

Basic

Needs Improvement

Required Content
Analyzed the meaning of social justice and compare social justice to socialized medicine or communism.

4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)

Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.

4 (8%) – 4 (8%)

Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.

3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)

Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.

0 (0%) – 3 (6%)

Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.

Required Content
Evaluated the fairness of the health care system.

9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.

8 (16%) – 8 (16%)

Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.

7 (14%) – 7 (14%)

Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.

0 (0%) – 6 (12%)

Initial post lacks analysis and that brings little or no insight into the discussion.

Required Content
Evaluated the elements of the health care system that may need to be changed.

9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Initial post is exceptional containing well developed and insightful analysis that brings connections to nursing practice into the discussion.

8 (16%) – 8 (16%)

Initial post contains reasonable analysis that brings insight into the discussion.

7 (14%) – 7 (14%)

Initial post contains minimal analysis that brings limited insight into the discussion.

0 (0%) – 6 (12%)

Initial post lacks analysis and/or that brings little or no insight into the discussion.

Response Posts
Entered the discussion thread on 3 separate days. Wrote at least two posts to two separate peers.

Responses are appropriate to the topic, substantive, and promoted discussion by one or more of the following:
• contributing insight to move the discussion forward.
• offering substantial and/or different points of view and asks questions to add to discussion
• including extra references or websites for peers to consider
• relating discussion to different areas of practice and applying concepts to practice

9 (18%) – 10 (20%)

Response posts add substantial ideas and perspectives that invite further analysis and discussion. Participated 3 or more days in the classroom and responded to more than 2 classmates.

8 (16%) – 8 (16%)

Response posts are proficient and provide adequate analysis and discussion. Participated 3 days in the classroom and responds to at least two classmates.

7 (14%) – 7 (14%)

Response posts are limited and provide minimal analysis and discussion. Participated less than 3 days in the classroom and/or responds to less than two classmates.

0 (0%) – 6 (12%)

Response posts are inadequate and provide no analysis of discussion and/ or there is no participation in the classroom.

Professional Writing: Clarity, Flow, and Organization

4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)

Content is free from spelling, punctuation, and grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates very well-formed sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is completely clear, logical, and well-organized.

4 (8%) – 4 (8%)

Content contains minor spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates appropriate sentence and paragraph structure. Content presented is mostly clear, logical, and well-organized.

3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)

Content contains moderate spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing demonstrates adequate sentence and paragraph structure and may require some editing. Content presented is adequately clear, logical, and/or organized, but could benefit from additional editing/revision.

0 (0%) – 3 (6%)

Content contains significant spelling, punctuation, and/or grammar/syntax errors. Writing does not demonstrate adequate sentence and paragraph structure and requires additional editing/proofreading. Key sections of presented content lack clarity, logical flow, and/or organization.

Professional Writing: Context, Audience, Purpose, and Tone

4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)

Content clearly demonstrates awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is highly professional, scholarly, and free from bias, and style is appropriate for the professional setting/workplace context.

4 (8%) – 4 (8%)

Content demonstrates satisfactory awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is adequately professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.

3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)

Content demonstrates basic awareness of context, audience, and purpose. Tone is somewhat professional, scholarly, and/or free from bias, and style is mostly consistent with the professional setting/workplace context.

0 (0%) – 3 (6%)

Content minimally or does not demonstrate awareness of context, audience, and/or purpose. Writing is not reflective of professional/scholarly tone and/or is not free of bias. Style is inconsistent with the professional setting/workplace context and reflects the need for additional editing.

Professional Writing: Originality, Source Credibility, and Attribution of Ideas

4.5 (9%) – 5 (10%)

Content reflects original thought and writing and proper paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates full adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.

4 (8%) – 4 (8%)

Content adequately reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates adequate adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.

3.5 (7%) – 3.5 (7%)

Content somewhat reflects original writing and paraphrasing. Writing somewhat demonstrates adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and references.

0 (0%) – 3 (6%)

Content does not adequately reflect original writing and/or paraphrasing. Writing demonstrates inconsistent adherence to reference requirements, including the use of credible evidence to support a claim, with appropriate source attribution (when applicable) and reference.

Total Points: 50

Name: NURS_4210_Week6_Discussion_Rubric

Bottom of Form