Ethics

.docx

School

Nova Southeastern University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

4980

Subject

Communications

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChancellorTeamLobster28

1. Evidence suggests that several factors affect the magnitude of risk and that bed- sharing in the absence of these factors does not significantly increase the risk of SIDS. But the interplay of risks can be complex and difficult to communicate effectively in a national campaign. Can a definitive “no bed-sharing” message be defended, on ethical grounds, if it causes less confusion but overstates the risk to some groups? What are the most important ethical considerations here? I think a definitive “no bed-sharing” message may be seen as unethical to the Maori and Polynesian populations if there are no risk factors that are non-modifiable/ controllable. If the mother is choosing to smoke for example and If she is choosing not to educate herself and attend accessible education events on SIDS, prevention methods, etc., then I feel like the “no bed-sharing’ message could be defended. It is important to consider that Maori/ Polynesians practice this and hold bed sharing to a great value. 2. What weight should be attributed to the cultural significance of bed-sharing when generating guidelines, and why? Should risks that relate to culturally significant parental practices, such as bed-sharing, be treated differently from risks relating to practices that are not held to be culturally significant? I believe the weight that should be attributed to the cultural significance of bed-sharing when generating guidelines should be those mothers who may be overweight/ obese. I believe this because although any mother is prone to accidentally suffocating their infant during sleep hours, I feel like there’s more of a risk at hand with overweight women. Risks that relate to culturally significant parental practices should not be treated differently from risks relating to practices that are not held to be culturally significant. In this case, risk factors will always be in place whether its culturally significant or not. The same approaches should be taken for everything because in many cases, the same negative outcomes will be present. 3. Māori and Polynesian families value bed-sharing because of the health and social benefits they attribute to it. These benefits are not captured in studies investigating SIDS risk. Should the health and social benefits attributed to bed-sharing by families who practice it be accorded weight when formulating guidelines? If so, how much weight? If not, why not? The health and social benefits attributed to bed-sharing families who practice it should not be accorded to weight in my opinion. Bringing weight into the picture creates many limitations and can be seen as unethical. Especially if individuals of Maori and

Polynesian descent are typically at a higher weight. I see it as unethical and placing a barrier/ restriction on a generational value. 4. Colonization has imposed and continues to impose an assault upon Māori culture. Anti-bed-sharing advice might be seen to extend that assault, privileging a narrow range of health concerns. The inherent beliefs and practices that led Māori to value bed-sharing, such as bonding between mother and child that promotes strong social bonds, seems particularly worth preserving. How can respect for Māori social practices and ways of viewing the world inform SIDS-related health promotion? How much difference does the magnitude of the relevant health risk make? If the risk is less serious, would you favor a different approach? Maori social practices and ways of viewing the world inform SIDS-related health promotion by highlighting the importance of taking culture into consideration when handling an illness. I don’t think I would take a different approach just because the risk is less or more serious. I believe all risks should be treated with the same attention because every risk affects every individual and population differently. This can be counteracted however if cultures value certain practices, and within these practices, certain health risks/ issues are more prevalent and prone to happen. 5. Consider how risk factors might be categorized as modifiable or nonmodifiable. What role should fairness play in this process? Roles that fairness should play when it comes to categorizing risk factors as modifiable or nonmodifiable are looking at “fairness” through a lens of whether this risk factor is controllable or non-controllable. Nonmodifiable (non-controllable) risk factors will include the baby’s gender for example. Modifiable (controllable) risk factors include acts such as bed-sharing or maternal smoking. Things like maternal smoking can be measured as fair or unfair due to this act being a choice a mother may make, and how the negative effects of smoking can potentially harm the baby. 6. Consider the role guidelines might play in coroners’ investigations to identify contributing factors to an infant death. Should this possibility be kept in mind when guidelines are being drafted? Why? Why not? Guidelines should be kept in mind. Sometimes it is not the actual illness itself that contributes to mortality, it’s the overlooked factors and disparities that lead to it. I feel like it would be evident through an autopsy if a particular guideline was not followed. While these guidelines are being drafted, if there seems to be a common trend that the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help