Case Study on Moral Status

 

Write a 750-1000 word analysis of ″Case Study: Fetal Abnormality.″ Be sure to address the following questions:
1. Which theory or theories are being used by Jessica, Marco, Maria, and Dr. Wilson to determine the moral status of the fetus? Explain.
2. How does the theory determine or influence each of their recommendation for action?
3. What theory do you agree with? How would that theory determine or influence the recommendation for action?
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are required to submit this assignment to Turnitin. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center. PHI-413V-RS-T2CaseStudy.docx see attached Case Study on Moral Status View Rubric 1 Unsatisfactory 0.00% 2 Less Than Satisfactory 65.00% 3 Satisfactory 75.00% 4 Good 85.00% 5 Excellent 100.00% 70.0 %Content 25.0 % Determination of Moral Status Theory/Theories that determine the moral status of the fetus are incorrectly identified. Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for at least a few of the people listed in the case study, but explanation is lacking. Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for at least a few of the people listed in the case study. Some explanation is provided. Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for all of the people listed in the case study, including adequate explanation. Theory/Theories are identified that determine the moral status of the fetus for all of the people listed in the case study, including a detailed explanation. 25.0 % Recommendation for Action Recommendation for action shows little to no relevance to the case study. Recommendation for action is present, but lacks explanation. Recommendation for action is present, with some explanation. Recommendation for action is present, with explanation. Recommendation for action is present, with detailed explanation that shows a deep understanding of the subject. 20.0 % Personal Response to Case Study Personal response to the case study shows little to no relevance, and does not detail how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree but does not detail how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and an explanation on how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and a detailed explanation on how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. Personal response to case study includes if you agree or disagree and a detailed explanation that shows a deep understanding of the subject including how the theory determines or influences the recommendation for action. 20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness 7.0 % Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is desсrіptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. 8.0 % Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progression. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. 5.0 % Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. 10.0 %Format 5.0 % Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately, or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct. 5.0 % Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) Sources are not documented. Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. 100 % Total Weightage

find the cost of your paper