PSYC FPX 3540 assessment 3: Applying Ethical Principles | Capella University Sample
- High Quality FPX Sample Assessment
- Step-by-Step Guide to master FPX Assessment
- References (APA Format) for related Assessments
- Connect with Top professors for specific class
- Detailed (FAQs) related to Assessment.
- Express Delivery with in 24 hours.
Assessment Overview:
PSYC FPX 3540 assessment 3: is the highest level of ethical analysis in the Capella nursing and psychology curriculum. Assessment 3 necessitates a thorough synthesis of Applying Ethical Principles within a multi-stakeholder context, contrasting with prior evaluations that emphasized identification and comparison. Students must illustrate the resolution of conflicts involving individual rights, organizational policies, and legal requirements. This test is meant to see if you are ready to make clinical decisions in the real world.
How to Pass PSYC FPX 3540 assessment 3: Applying Ethical Principles | Capella University Sample
To achieve a “Distinguished” evaluation, you must go beyond basic definitions. Follow these expert tips:
- Choose a case study with more than one layer: Select a situation that includes a “vulnerable population,” such as minors, seniors with dementia, or people who are in jail, to make Applying Ethical Principles more interesting.
- Combine Professional Codes: Don’t just talk about the codes; give specific examples from the ANA Code of Ethics and the APA Ethical Principles.
- Theoretical Aspects of Critical Thinking: When you choose between Deontology and Utilitarianism, explain what will happen in your case.
- Formatting Excellence: Make sure your paper follows all the rules of the APA 7th edition, such as having a title page, a running head, and references that are formatted correctly.
Sample Assessment:
Applying Ethical Principles in Complex Clinical Environments
PSYC FPX 3540 assessment 3:Introduction to Ethical Leadership
Using ethical principles in advanced clinical practice is a sign of good professional leadership. Ethical dilemmas are seldom binary; they inhabit a spectrum of conflicting interests where the “correct” course is frequently the one that mitigates harm while honoring the maximum number of rights. This paper examines a case study of an adolescent patient pursuing reproductive healthcare without parental consent, investigating the ethical complexities of minor autonomy in relation to parental rights.
Identification of Ethical Issues and Stakeholders
The primary conflict in this scenario involves the adolescent’s right to Autonomy and the parents’ legal and moral claim to be informed of their child’s medical decisions. When Applying Ethical Principles, we must identify all stakeholders: the minor patient, the parents, the healthcare provider, and the state (legal mandates). The core dilemma is whether the provider should maintain confidentiality (Fidelity) or involve the parents to ensure long-term support (Beneficence).
Applying Ethical Principles: The Pillars of Bioethics
To resolve this conflict, we must look at the foundational pillars:
- Autonomy: Is the minor capable of making decisions regarding treatment consent?
- Beneficence: Would including the parents result in greater benefit than the detriment incurred by the violation of trust?
- Non-maleficence: If the minor is not given private care, will they look for unsafe options elsewhere?
- Justice: Is this minor being treated with the same level of respect for privacy as an adult in a comparable situation?
Comparison of Ethical Theories: Deontology vs. Utilitarianism
A critical requirement of Applying Ethical Principles is the application of normative ethics:
1. Deontological Analysis (Duty-Based)
A deontologist focuses on the moral duty to follow universal rules. If the rule is “doctors must never lie,” then the provider must be honest with the parents if asked directly. However, if the rule is “doctors must respect patient confidentiality,” then the duty is to the minor. The challenge here is the hierarchy of duties.
2. Utilitarian Analysis (Consequence-Based)
A utilitarian focuses on the outcome. They would ask: “Which action produces the most happiness?” If keeping the secret prevents the minor from being kicked out of the house, but telling the secret ensures they receive better medical monitoring, the utilitarian must weigh these potential futures.
Proposed Ethical Resolution
The recommended resolution involves the “Mature Minor Doctrine.” By Applying Ethical Principles through a structured decision-making model, the provider should assess the minor’s maturity. If the minor is found to be “mature,” their autonomy should be prioritized. This path satisfies Non-maleficence by keeping the patient within the safe healthcare system rather than driving them away through a breach of trust.
Evaluation of the Resolution
This resolution is justified because it aligns with the APA Standard 4.01, which emphasizes the primary obligation to protect confidential information. Furthermore, it respects the ANA Provision 2, which states the nurse’s primary commitment is to the patient, regardless of their age.
References (APA 7 Format)
- American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code
- American Nurses Association. (2015). Code of ethics for nurses with interpretive statements. https://www.nursingworld.org/coe-view-only
- Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of biomedical ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/ushe/product/principles-of-biomedical-ethics-9780190644536
- Fisher, C. B. (2022). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. SAGE Publications. https://www.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/decoding-the-ethics-code/book266736
- Knapp, S. J., VandeCreek, L. D., & Fingerhut, R. (2017). Practical ethics for psychologists: A positive approach. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4312025
Rubric Breakdown
| Criterion | Distinguished | Proficient | Basic |
| Applying Ethical Principles | Evaluates principles with high-level synthesis and scholarly support. | Applies principles correctly to the case. | Mentions principles without specific application. |
| Theoretic Comparison | Provides a nuanced, critical comparison of two or more theories. | Compares two theories accurately. | Lists theories but lacks comparison. |
| Resolution Justification | Provides a resolution that is exceptionally well-reasoned and documented. | Provides a logical, supported resolution. | Suggests a resolution with weak justification. |
| APA Style & Format | Flawless formatting and professional tone. | Minor errors in APA format. | Significant errors in formatting or citations. |
Step-by-Step Guide
- Step 1: Choose a case. Find a difficult problem that has interests that are at odds with each other.
- Step 2: Map out your morals. Autonomy, Beneficence, Non-maleficence, and Justice are the main ideas at work.
- Step 3: Research in the field. Look for at least five peer-reviewed articles that talk about how to use ethical principles in the clinical setting you chose.
- Step 4: Write the Analysis. Please follow the subheadings in the example below.
- Step 5: Review by a Peer. Use the rubric table in this guide to check your work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How is Assessment 3 different from the first two?
Assessment 3 is more comprehensive. It requires you to look at the “macro” level of ethics, including organizational and legal impacts of Applying Ethical Principles.
Q: How many words should this assessment be?
To meet Capella’s “Distinguished” criteria and provide enough depth, aim for a minimum of 1000 to 1200 words.
Q: Can I use the same case study from Assessment 2?
It is usually better to choose a new, more complex case or significantly expand the original one to meet the higher expectations of Assessment 3.
Integrity Note
Note: Only use this assessment example for learning and structure purpose. Do not submit as your own work.
We are an independent resource and are not affiliated with Capella University.