Ethical Principles

Your Reflective Response should be written as a paper in APA format, including a separate title page at the beginning and references page at the end. If you have questions about APA standards, please review the links included under Course Information or https://apastyle.apa.org/ or the Purdue OWL website at https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ (Links to an external site.).
The Reflective Response paper should be 3-4 pages in length but is not to exceed four pages in length excluding the title and reference page. Points will not be earned if the paper is greater than four pages (not including title page and references). Grading will cease at the end of page four of the body of the paper. You do not need an abstract for this assignment. Points are earned from the rubric.
As with other work in this class, Reflective Response paper should be evidence based. Simply stating an opinion without further elaboration or support will not earn you full credit. When discussing the ethical principles simply stating the conflict is not sufficient. Refer back to the Ethical Principles assignment on how to recognize the conflict and discuss the ethical dilemma of how upholding one ethical principle means you cannot uphold another.
You should take a clear stance in your work, but your position should be supported by appropriate, accurate outside sources. We require that you include outside source material (other than your textbook) in your Reflective Response. Your textbook is an excellent resource, especially for definitions, and it is appropriate to cite to the text. To more fully develop your points, however, outside sources are needed. Please be sure to review the grading criteria and grading rubric, as well as the course information about plagiarism, accurate citation, APA format and making the ethical argument in order to earn all available points.
Late Reflective Response assignments will not be accepted. Emailed assignments will not be accepted. If you have an issue uploading your paper or any technical difficulty contact The OFFICE OF ONLINE & DIGITAL EDUCATION at 810-237-6691 or ode-helpdesk@umich.edu. Please do not ask faculty to help you with technical problems. We have to contact ODE for assistance. We are happy to help but, you are better off going to the people who can answer your questions without difficulty. All papers must be submitted through the submission link by the due date. If you have any questions about the expectations for the Reflective Response, please submit questions to the Course Questions discussion board thread so that all students can benefit from the response. If the question is of a personal nature, you may email the faculty. Please be sure to copy all professors on the email, as we co-grade.
Reflective Response Case Study
Immunizing soldiers in preparation for war
Richard is a First Lieutenant in the Army Nurse Corps who was mobilized for Desert Storm in 1991. He helped immunize soldiers in Germany before they were sent to Saudi Arabia. At the time, he did not question what he was doing. Immunizing the troops in preparation for battle is one duty of the military nurse, and Lieutenant Richard was happy to be involved in such an important event. The immunizations included a botulinum toxin vaccine that had not been approved by the FDA for such use. Although this vaccine had existed for many years and had seen limited uses for medical researchers and others at unusual risk for exposure to botulinum toxin, no one had tested it in a situation like desert storm, where exposure could theoretically be intentional and at levels not previously envisioned. For these reasons, the FDA was not willing to certify that the botulinum toxin vaccine was known to be safe and effective for this purpose.
Now, four years later, he realizes that many soldiers involved in desert storm, within a year after the battle, began reporting a collection of neurological symptoms that suggested exposure to a harmful substance. The Army Medical Corps has not officially recognized the cause of these symptoms, although it is commonly referred to as Desert Storm Syndrome. One suggested cause of these symptoms is the immunizations that the soldiers received before going to Saudi Arabia. It seems that at least one of the immunizing agents used in 1991 was not fully tested for use in human subjects. Neither Lieutenant Richard nor the soldiers knew this at the time. They assumed the military physicians knew what they were doing and that they were protecting them from potential harm while on the ground in Saudi Arabia. Lieutenant Richard wonders whether giving immunizations, particular ones that had not been tested adequately, to soldiers without their consent was really ethical and whether he, as a nurse, should have done it.
Critical thinking questions (To help you process the case, not part of the rubric)

1. Do you think that a person automatically waives some of his or her personal rights (privacy, and form consent to treatment, etc.) merely by becoming a member of the Armed Services? Why or why not?
2. In what ways, if any can the military obligation to follow orders compromise a military nurse’s obligation to benefit and not harm patients? When these obligations conflict which do you think takes priority and why?
   Case study from
   Fry, S. T., Veatch, R. M., Taylor, C., (2011 ) Case Studies in Nursing Ethics (4th ed.). Jones and Bartlett Learning