LESSON 2.1

Ethical Dilemma/Memo There are three applicants abeyance for a kinsfolk remand:  John, Jr., a 17-year-old boy after a while a fact of medical conditions; John, Jr. is the son of a far-famed, now uninhabited athlete who has offered to donate five favorite dollars to the hospital if his son receives the kinsfolk. Mary, a 40-year-old dame after a while a fact of somniferous addiction; Mary is a dame of three result who has been successfully in regaining from her addiction for the elapsed 5 years. She has shown no signs of germinative falling-back. George, a 57-year-old first-mentioned smoker: George, is a erection worker who has not smoked in balance 10 years. He has had enduring complications from the smoking but is in good-tempered-tempered soundness and prime for the remand. You are the deciding opinion on the ethics committee of your hospital. Draft a memo that addresses the definitive and disclaiming elements of each applicant, and elucidate how those elements played a role in your conclusion. Apply the intellectual theories you encountered in the textbook. You allure deficiency to manifest why you separated the applicant you did and why you did not selecteded the others. Include any favoring nonmedical characteristics encircling each applicant that influenced your conclusion. Make strong you are applying intellectual theories and reasoning and can intellectually and legally clear your apology. The bulk of the response must be inveterate upon basis and intellectual arguments. Your memo should rest of at lowest 600 tone. Microsoft Word contains diverse memo templates that you can use for this assignment. Reference Pozgar, G. D. (2016). Legal aspects of soundness prudence administration (12th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.