Assignment: Healthcare Case
A. Case Study:
The selected case study is Case Study #1: Healthcare Case. The case involves two geriatric nurses, Anika and Daniel, who disagree about the appropriate treatment for a patient whose dementia is worsening. Anika supports continuing the doctor's prescribed treatment, while Daniel believes an alternative sound therapy should be tried. Need Assignment Help?
B. Premise(s) and Conclusion:
The following argument is Anika's argument regarding the continued use of cholinesterase inhibitors:
Premise 1: The doctor's orders to use cholinesterase inhibitors are based on peer-reviewed literature.
Premise 2: Rigorous testing has shown that cholinesterase inhibitors help prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine, which helps brain cells communicate.
Conclusion: Continuing to follow the doctor's orders and use the cholinesterase inhibitors is likely to help the patient.
These premises and conclusion represent one distinct argument made by Anika in support of continuing the patient's prescribed treatment.
B1. Deductive/Inductive
Type: Inductive
Anika's argument is inductive because the premises provide evidence that makes the conclusion probable rather than certain. The peer-reviewed literature and rigorous testing provide support for the effectiveness of the cholinesterase inhibitors. However, these facts do not guarantee that the medication will improve the condition of this particular patient. Anika states that following the doctor's orders is likely to help the patient, which indicates that her conclusion is based on probability. Therefore, the argument is inductive rather than deductive.
B2. Validity/Strength
Strength: Strong
Anika's argument is a strong inductive argument because the premises provide relevant evidence that makes the conclusion reasonably probable. The doctor's treatment instructions are supported by peer-reviewed literature, and rigorous testing has demonstrated that cholinesterase inhibitors help prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine. Both premises directly support Anika's conclusion that continuing the treatment is likely to help the patient. Although the evidence cannot guarantee improvement for this individual patient, it provides substantial support for the conclusion. Therefore, the argument can reasonably be classified as a strong inductive argument.
C. Argument Map
The propositions in the argument are numbered as follows:
1. Premise 1: The doctor's orders to use cholinesterase inhibitors are based on peer-reviewed literature.
2. Premise 2: Rigorous testing has shown that cholinesterase inhibitors help prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine.
3. Conclusion: Continuing to follow the doctor's orders and use the cholinesterase inhibitors is likely to help the patient.
Argument Map:
1 + 2
↓
3
Premises 1 and 2 work together to support conclusion 3. In the submitted Word document, the propositions should be placed inside numbered circles with arrows showing their support for the conclusion, as required by the task instructions. The supporting instructions specifically direct the student to represent propositions with numbered circles and their support relationships with arrows.
D. Information Source
One information source identified in the case study is the peer-reviewed literature supporting the doctor's orders regarding cholinesterase inhibitors. Anika refers to this research as evidence supporting the continued use of the prescribed treatment.
D1. Reliability
The peer-reviewed literature is presented as a reliable source of information in the case study because it has undergone peer review and is supported by rigorous testing. The case explains that testing has shown that cholinesterase inhibitors help prevent the breakdown of acetylcholine. This provides research-based support for the treatment rather than relying solely on an individual's opinion or personal experience. The source is therefore more reliable than the online forum comments, personal anecdote, and wellness influencer endorsement Daniel uses to support sound therapy.
E. Bias Name
Confirmation Bias
Daniel demonstrates confirmation bias in the healthcare case study. He already believes that mainstream treatments recommended by doctors never work and evaluates the available information from the perspective of that existing belief.
E1. Bias Impact
Daniel's confirmation bias affects his reasoning because it causes him to favor information that supports his existing belief while rejecting information that conflicts with it. He dismisses the peer-reviewed research and testing supporting the doctor's treatment because he already believes mainstream treatments do not work. He then searches for alternative treatments and accepts information from an online health forum, his personal experience involving his grandmother, and a wellness influencer discussing a sound therapy device. This bias makes his evaluation of the evidence less objective because he gives greater consideration to information that agrees with what he already believes while discounting evidence that challenges his position.
F. Fallacy Name
Ad Hominem
F1. Fallacy
Daniel uses an ad hominem fallacy when he responds to Anika's concerns about sound therapy by attacking an irrelevant personal characteristic instead of addressing her reasoning. Daniel tells Anika that because she is from the Midwest, her medical reasoning should not be trusted. Her geographic background has no logical relationship to whether her medical reasoning or evidence is correct. By focusing on where Anika is from rather than responding to the evidence she presents, Daniel attempts to discredit Anika personally instead of addressing the actual argument. This is an example of an ad hominem fallacy.
G. Sources
Case study