Write My Essay We are the most trusted essay writing service. Get the best essays delivered by experienced UK & US essay writers at affordable prices.
We can work on Case Study: A Young Caucasian Girl with ADHD
Examine Case Study: A Young Caucasian Girl with ADHD. You will be asked to make three decisions concerning the medication to prescribe to this patient. Be sure to consider factors that might impact the patientâs pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic processes. At each decision point, you should evaluate all options before selecting your decision and moving throughout the exercise. Before you make your decision, make sure that you have researched each option and that you evaluate the decision that you will select. Be sure to research each option using the primary literature. Introduction to the case (1 page) ⢠Briefly explain and summarize the case for this Assignment. Be sure to include the specific patient factors that may impact your decision making when prescribing medication for this patient. Decision #1 (1 page) ⢠Which decision did you select? ⢠Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. ⢠Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. ⢠What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature). ⢠Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. Decision #2 (1 page) ⢠Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. ⢠Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. ⢠What were you hoping to achieve by making this decision? Support your response with evidence and references to the Learning Resources (including the primary literature). ⢠Explain how ethical considerations may impact your treatment plan and communication with patients. Be specific and provide examples. Decision #3 (1 page) ⢠Why did you select this decision? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature. ⢠Why did you not select the other two options provided in the exercise? Be specific and support your response with clinically relevant and patient-specific resources, including the primary literature.
Sample Solution
hich refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again todayâs world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, âsince it is lawful to resist force with force,â but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to âteach its enemies a lesson,â but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotleâs argument: âthere must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues âself-defenceâ has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify oneâs actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittolaâs view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisherâs authority, but also todayâs world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that âright intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,â suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality.>
GET ANSWER
Share on Facebook
Tweet
Follow us
hich refers to the protection of political and territorial rights, along with human rights. In contemporary view, this view is more complicated to answer, given the rise of globalisation. Similarly, it is difficult to measure proportionality, particularly in war, because not only that there is an epistemic problem in calculating, but again todayâs world has developed (Frowe (2011), Page 54-6). Furthermore, Vittola argues war is necessary, not only for defensive purposes, âsince it is lawful to resist force with force,â but also to fight against the unjust, an offensive war, nations which are not punished for acting unjustly towards its own people or have unjustly taken land from the home nation (Begby et al (2006b), Page 310&313); to âteach its enemies a lesson,â but mainly to achieve the aim of war. This validates Aristotleâs argument: âthere must be war for the sake of peace (Aristotle (1996), Page 187). However, Frowe argues âself-defenceâ has a plurality of descriptions, seen in Chapter 1, showing that self-defence cannot always justify oneâs actions. Even more problematic, is the case of self-defence in war, where two conflicting views are established: The Collectivists, a whole new theory and the Individualists, the continuation of the domestic theory of self-defence (Frowe (2011), Page 9& 29-34). More importantly, Frowe refutes Vittolaâs view on vengeance because firstly it empowers the punisherâs authority, but also todayâs world prevents this action between countries through legal bodies like the UN, since we have modernised into a relatively peaceful society (Frowe (2011), Page 80-1). Most importantly, Frowe further refutes Vittola through his claim that âright intention cannot be used as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,â suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality.>
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
