Write a 3-5 page reflection paper describing what the family and patient experienced. A reflection paper provides you with the opportunity to add your thoughts and analysis about the movie. Evaluate the evidence-based standardized tools that were used. Did you observe the Stages of Dying? Below is the link to the movie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn5gJloSSks NUR 360 Case Study 1 Rubric Criteria Details Possible Score Student Score 1. Introduction: Using the Psychosocial Assessment Tool ? Who is the client? ? What was the client’s career/life/interests? ? What were the clients strengths/weaknesses; fears and concerns; culture or spiritual beliefs; and special requests for the time of death and following death? 3 2. Screening Tool ? Provide the clinical indicators observed. 3 3. Enhancing Physical Comfort ? What principles of symptom management were used? 3 4. Conclusion ?
The scholar Immanuel Kant trusted that his retributive speculations of equity were situated in rationale and reason. The retributive position on discipline expresses that discipline is vital, and surely, supported, on the premise that the demonstration of carrying out wrongdoing merits discipline. The strict rules Kant's speculations made, combined with the very idea of retributive equity fuelled the contentions of those of Kant's faultfinders who asserted his approach would prompt unforgiving and insufficient condemning. It is my aim to utilize this paper as a methods for investigating and tending to these cases. "Legal discipline can never be utilized simply as a way to advance some other useful for the criminal himself or for common society, yet rather it should in all cases be forced on him just on the ground that he has carried out a wrongdoing; for a person should never to be controlled only as a methods identified with another's motivations... To begin with, he should be observed to merit of discipline before thought can be given to the utility of this specific discipline for himself or for kindred natives"  . After considering the above unmistakably, in Kant's view, the main reason discipline should serve is to punish the criminal for carrying out a wrongdoing. Regardless of whether the discipline could have an effect on the criminal's affinity to change is along these lines unessential. The discipline is there to rebuff the criminal for the wrongdoing they have carried out; not much, not all that much. This leads on to the hypothesis of 'appropriate reward'. This hypothesis is presently thought to be one of the more unmistakable perspectives regarding the matter of the discipline of lawbreakers  . The key conviction of the rule being that wrongdoers must merit discipline: "[in] the regular reasoning about discipline, betray figures noticeably. Ask the individual in the city for what good reason a transgressor ought to be rebuffed, [and] he is probably going to state that he 'merits' it"  . Kant upheld two standards in regards to the way discipline ought to be allotted. As we have built up over, the first is that the main right and appropriate justification for discipline is that the criminal 'merits it'. Thus it takes after that rebuffing a criminal with the point of advancing joy, renewal or discouragement would run in opposition to the 'all out goal' by making the discipline an unfortunate obligation. Kant's unmitigated basic is the widespread law that expresses that all individuals must act in an ethically amend way consistently. Along these lines one's own particular wants or wishes can't be considered when settling on a choice, as nobody individual's wants ought to be organized above another's. The coveted result of any activity must be to abstain from causing hurt or perpetrating harm upon someone else. In such manner, Kant characterizes a go about as 'ethically right' in the event that it can be connected as a general law. For instance: "I will never come clean" would be considered to be unethical on the grounds that it couldn't be connected as general law as, in case of everybody having to "never come clean", reality would lose its essentialness. In more straightforward terms, while thinking about Kant's absolute goal, the intelligent approach most likely directs that we should consider the influence our own behavior will have on others, and afterward to abstain from doing activities that will hurt or ruin the privileges of others. The second of Kant's standards with respect to discipline identifies with proportionality; the sentence got ought to be proportionate to the wrongdoing submitted. Kant's speculations of independence and free basic leadership make up the establishments for his view on 'appropriate recompense'. The hypothesis submits, above all else, that everyone is compelled by a sense of honor to regard every others rights. Kant goes ahead to propose that holding fast to the law is a forfeit of one's entitlement to flexibility of decision. In this way, those that perpetrate wrongdoing pick up an out of line advantage over those that don't. Discipline is utilized as a way to change the harmony between the well behaved residents and the hoodlums, expelling any unjustifiably picked up advantage from the offenders. The discipline is expected to rebuff no pretty much than identifies with the favorable position picked up. It takes after, thusly, that discouragement and reconstruction bear no importance to this technique for condemning. This kind of equity framework is as yet important today, and without a doubt, has been put to use by a few governments. The U.S. Province of California has thoroughly connected retributive discipline methods of insight to its court framework. Retributive equity has been connected in California since the beginning of the Determinate Sentencing Law: "The Legislature finds and announces that the reason for detainment for wrongdoing is discipline"  . One of the key approaches of California's equity framework is the "three strike run the show". The three strike control was presented in 1994  . It's fundamental design was to rebuff rehash guilty parties by distributing long sentences - at least a quarter century - to those that have been indicted a lawful offense and as of now have two "strikes" for savagery on their record. Condemning under these rules prompts especially long, and faultfinders say, incapable, sentences  . The approach has been fruitful in that it has kept crooks off the lanes for longer  , however it can be contended that the unfavorable impacts, for example, offenders getting life sentences for what adds up to insignificant offenses - the third strike doesn't need to be a brutal offense - exceed the useful impacts. This strategy additionally clashes with Kant's absolute basic in that getting a lifelong incarceration for being sentenced shoplifting  (as the third strike) isn't proportionate. We have officially settled that Kant's goal is for people who have been found to have overstepped the law to get discipline that is with respect to the preferred standpoint that they have picked up by carrying out the wrongdoing. On the off chance that the above appraisal were to remain constant it would imply that Andrew von Hirsch's declaration in regards to the sentiment of the individual in the city  would clearly be right. Regardless of this, one could contend there to be different potential imperfections introduce inside the hypothesis. Not the slightest of which is the manner by which to apply this hypothesis of discipline to a criminal that has picked up no detectable favorable position from their wrongdoing. For instance: A kid living alone with his mom is intermittently manhandled by her. He is subjected to maintained mental, physical and rapes that he is frail to counteract. He is kept bolted up for the greater part of his chance at home and is undermined that, were he to tell anybody of what he has endured, he would get more extreme mishandle. The mishandle proceeds as he becomes more seasoned and in the long run he battles back. On this event he hears his mom moving toward him through the stairs that prompt his room. He races to the highest point of the stairs and pushes her down them, bringing about her demise. I would propose that it is absolutely questionable that the kid's just expectation was for the mishandle to stop, instead of an aim to murder or truly harm his mom. SOURCE IT UP It definitely would not be on the whole correct to state that there has been any favorable position picked up in this case. Whatever remains of society isn't relied upon to bear such mishandle, thus it takes after that the kid was at that point off guard. Additionally, without a doubt the casualty in this wrongdoing was herself blameworthy of not regarding the privileges of her child, according to Kant's hypothesis of 'simply leave'. This would definitely loan weight to the line of reasoning that it is uncalled for to rebuff the criminal in this, yet radical case, where there has been no favorable position picked up, by the extremely same standards connected to those that have increased some preferred standpoint. This illustration appears to help the convictions of Kant's pundits  , and positively reinforces the view that "two wrongs don't make a right". Kant embraced the death penalty as a reasonable discipline for killers  . This position is a decent case of Kant's convictions in regards to proportionality; a life for an existence. In any case, this position additionally goes some approach to fortifying the cases of those that trust Kant's reasoning empowers cruel condemning  . This leads on to the zone of Kant's reasoning that has pulled in the most feedback. In what capacity can finishing the self-rule of another, criminal or something else, be with regards to Kant's speculations in regards to clear cut goal? To utilize Kant's own words, to distribute the death penalty should clearly be classed as FIND SOME RELEVANT WORDS. How can it be that this position can be maintained in connection to suicide or murder, yet neglected with regards to the discipline of a criminal? Once more, we swing to the perspective of Andrew von Hirsch, who stated: 'A man who disregards the principles has something others have - the advantages of the framework - however by disavowing what others have expected, the weights of patience, he has procured an out of line advantage. Matters are not even until the point that this preferred standpoint is somehow eradicated â€¦ Justice - that is rebuffing such people - reestablishes the balance of advantages and burdensâ€¦'  Kant legitimizes such an approach by saying "[the criminal] moves the malevolent deed back to himself ... when he endures what as per the correctional law ... is the same as what he has dispensed on others". As per this line of reasoning, a criminal that has killed another person has done as such on the grounds that they have settled on a decision to do as such, and in doing as such, they have picked up preference over the casualty. At the end of the day: A kills B in light of the fact that A didn't care for the look of B. By killing B, A has looked to pick up preference over whatever remains of well behaved society, who by holding fast to the law, have relinquished their opportunity of decision. In this way, A's decision to kill B, is esteemed to be An unjustifiably recovering his opportunity of decision. Be that as it may, if An is rebuffed by means of the death penalty, it isn't to increase any preferred standpoint, it is simply to rebuff A for the wrongdoing he has conferred in a proportionate way. He has ended an existence, subsequently his own ends up relinquish. Once more, however, there is a body of evidence for contentions against Kant's position on the matte>GET ANSWER