PUB014-6/ STI014-6 Ethical and Legal Issues in Healthcare Brief

Published: 27 Jan, 2025

Category	Assignment	Subject	Subject
University	University of Bedfordshire	Module Title	PUB014-6/ STI014-6 Ethical and Legal Issues in Healthcare

Assignment Brief | PG | AY25-26

Assessment deadline:	Marks and feedback
To be submitted Before 10 a.m. on:	20 working days after deadline (L3,4, 5,6 and 7)
	15 working days after deadline (block delivery)

10/12/2025	12/01/2026
Please note, for Exams the date is arranged centrally aligned to the academic calendar. Exams timetables will be released 6 weeks before the exam period.

Key assignment details
Unit title & code:	Ethical and Legal Issues in Healthcare [PUB014-6]
Assignment number & title	End of Unit Assessment
Assignment type (including exams) Clearly indicate if an exam	Essay [CW-Ess]
Weighting of assignment	100%
Size or length of assessment or exam duration Clearly indicate if an exam	3,000 words
Use of generative AI	Permitted (see below specific guidance) Students can use generative AI (e.g., ChatGPT) to develop or refine a suitable topic/question, define boundaries, or to develop a strategy to write the assignment. The assignment content should be strictly based on your own thinking and ideas. While generative AI tools may be used in editing your work, you should disclose this information, including the model’s name, version, source, description, and usage. You need to take accountability for the output produced by generative AI. Please note that some AI tools can generate inaccurate, biased, or misleading outputs. Furthermore, using AI tools introduces the risk of plagiarism when text is duplicated from data sources. Please ensure that you keep an audit trail of how you developed your assignment including different versions or drafts that you produced during the process.
Use of self-plagiarism	Not permitted

Understanding the assignment brief

Assignment brief to be discussed during an in-class session with students within the first 2 weeks of the unit.

23/09/2025

Date this discussion is to take place

Uploaded screen/podcast explaining the assessment, the rubric and marking criteria.

https://breo.beds.ac.uk/ultra/courses/_62012750_1/outline

What am I required to do in this assignment?

Write a 3,000-word essay on any ethical, legal, or ethical and legal issue in healthcare. You could choose from one of the following questions or choose any other healthcare issue:

When, if ever, is it permissible to prevent people from smoking tobacco?
Are compulsory vaccinations ever justifiable?
Do the benefits of water fluoridation justify its imposition?
May a person’s HIV status be revealed without their consent

You need to demonstrate a critical and systematic analysis to evaluate the ethical and/or legal problems and challenges on the issue.

You need to provide relevant literature to support your arguments in your assessment.

References should be cited both in the text and at the end in a reference list.

You will have opportunities to have formal and informal discussion on the topics with the unit coordinator in class during the sessions. You may send a section of maximum 500 words for feedback from the unit coordinator; this needs to be sent by email at least two weeks prior to the submission deadline.

What do I need to do to pass? How do I achieve a good grade?

Demonstrate knowledge and critical awareness of a current ethical and/or legal issue in contemporary healthcare, which is informed by literature and research at the forefront of the discipline.
Demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of relevant ethical and/or legal theories and concepts and a critical appreciation of how they are applicable to the chosen assessment topic.
Demonstrate a critical and systematic analysis, and provide a well-argued and creative evaluation of the ethical and/or legal problems and challenges raised by the healthcare issue addressed in the assessment.

We will be filling this section together in class, so make sure you have downloaded/printed out the Assignment Brief and bring it to the first session with you. Guidance and feedback for each of the questions will be provided in lecture sessions. You will also have the opportunity to discuss your outlines with the unit tutor prior to the deadline.

How will my assignment be marked?

Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations (see the Unit Information Form uploaded on BREO) and the specific marking criteria below (marking rubric). Please read carefully as they will help you prepare and evaluate your own work before you submit. They will also help you understand the grade and feedback received once marked.

	70%+ (Distinction)	60-69% (Commendation)	50-59% (Pass)	40-49% (Pass) Threshold Standard	30-39% (Fail)	0-29% (Fail)
1. WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND ACADEMIC WRTITING (20%)	Excellent written expression to the level of scientific publication. Arguments are well constructed with a logical flow Excellent level of academic writing with arguments well supported by and linked to good quality evidence and examples	Written expression is clear except for minor proofing errors. Arguments can be followed easily Fairly good level of academic writing with arguments well supported by and clearly linked to evidence and examples	Written expression is clear, but there are syntactical or proofing errors at places. Arguments can be followed easily Reasonably good level of academic writing with arguments well supported by evidence	Written expression is satisfactory and arguments can be followed without undue difficulty Satisfactory level of academic writing with arguments supported by relevant evidence	Written expression make the argument difficult to access. Grammar and spelling are below acceptable professional standards Poor level of academic writing with arguments supported by relevant evidence at a few places	Written expression make the argument incoherent. Grammar and spelling are significantly below acceptable professional standards Very poor level of academic writing with arguments supported by no evidence
2. PRESENTATION STRUCTURE AND FOCUS (20%)	Excellent structure that demonstrates thoughtful planning All of the key issues and concepts are discussed systematically	The structure of the work is fairly good with evidence of good planning throughout the text Most of the key issues and concepts are discussed systematically	The structure of the work is reasonably good but planning could have been more thorough in a few places Some of the key issues and concepts discussed in an adequate way	The structure of the work is satisfactory but planning could have been more thorough at some places Few key issues and concepts discussed in a satisfactory way	The structure of the work can be followed with some difficulty Few key issues and concepts discussed marginally	Significantly poor structure which makes the overall argument inaccessible None of the key issues and concepts discussed
3. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUE, ETHICAL, LEGAL, OR POLITICAL THEORY OR PRINICPLE (20%)	Excellent understanding of the issue Excellent understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle	A fairly good understanding of the issue Fairly good understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle	A reasonably good understanding of the issue Reasonably good understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle	Satisfactory understanding of the issue Satisfactory understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle	Some understanding of the issue evident at places Marginal understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle evident	Significantly poor understanding of the issue Significantly poor understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle
4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS (20%)	Excellent and in-depth critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts throughout	Very good critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts, but lacks depth at a few places	Reasonably good critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts, but lacks depth at some places	Quality of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts is satisfactory with some evidence of critical appraisal	Marginal evidence of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts at places	No evidence of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts
5. USE OF LITERATURE AND REFERENCING (20%)	Draws on and applies a broad range of primary and secondary resources Excellent citation and referencing throughout the text using the Harvard referencing style	Draws on a fairly good range of literature Fairly good citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there are minor errors at a few places	Draws on a reasonably good range of literature Reasonably good citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there is scope for some improvement	Satisfactory use of literature, but literature integration could be better Satisfactory citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there is scope for significant improvement	Marginal use of literature at places Poor citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, scope for significant improvement	Very poor/no use of literature Very poor citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style

70%+

(Distinction)

60-69%

(Commendation)

50-59%

(Pass)

40-49% (Pass)

Threshold Standard

30-39% (Fail)

0-29% (Fail)

1. WRITTEN EXPRESSION AND ACADEMIC WRTITING (20%)

Excellent written expression to the level of scientific publication. Arguments are well constructed with a logical flow

Excellent level of academic writing with arguments well supported by and linked to good quality evidence and examples

Written expression is clear except for minor proofing errors. Arguments can be followed easily

Fairly good level of academic writing with arguments well supported by and clearly linked to evidence and examples

Written expression is clear, but there are syntactical or proofing errors at places. Arguments can be followed easily

Reasonably good level of academic writing with arguments well supported by evidence

Written expression is satisfactory and arguments can be followed without undue difficulty

Satisfactory level of academic writing with arguments supported by relevant evidence

Written expression make the argument difficult to access. Grammar and spelling are below acceptable professional standards

Poor level of academic writing with arguments supported by relevant evidence at a few places

Written expression make the argument incoherent. Grammar and spelling are significantly below acceptable professional standards

Very poor level of academic writing with arguments supported by no evidence

2. PRESENTATION STRUCTURE AND FOCUS (20%)

Excellent structure that demonstrates thoughtful planning

All of the key issues and concepts are discussed systematically

The structure of the work is fairly good with evidence of good planning throughout the text

Most of the key issues and concepts are discussed systematically

The structure of the work is reasonably good but planning could have been more thorough in a few places

Some of the key issues and concepts discussed in an adequate way

The structure of the work is satisfactory but planning could have been more thorough at some places

Few key issues and concepts discussed in a satisfactory way

The structure of the work can be followed with some difficulty

Few key issues and concepts discussed marginally

Significantly poor structure which makes the overall argument inaccessible

None of the key issues and concepts discussed

3. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ISSUE, ETHICAL, LEGAL, OR POLITICAL THEORY OR PRINICPLE (20%)

Excellent understanding of the issue

Excellent understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle

A fairly good understanding of the issue

Fairly good understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle

A reasonably good understanding of the issue

Reasonably good understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle

Satisfactory understanding of the issue

Satisfactory understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle

Some understanding of the issue evident at places

Marginal understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle evident

Significantly poor understanding of the issue

Significantly poor understanding of the key ethical, legal or political theory or principle

4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS (20%)

Excellent and in-depth critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts throughout

Very good critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts, but lacks depth at a few places

Reasonably good critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts, but lacks depth at some places

Quality of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts is satisfactory with some evidence of critical appraisal

Marginal evidence of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts at places

No evidence of critical evaluation of the topic(s) and the application of the theories and concepts

5. USE OF LITERATURE AND REFERENCING (20%)

Draws on and applies a broad range of primary and secondary resources

Excellent citation and referencing throughout the text using the Harvard referencing style

Draws on a fairly good range of literature

Fairly good citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there are minor errors at a few places

Draws on a reasonably good range of literature

Reasonably good citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there is scope for some improvement

Satisfactory use of literature, but literature integration could be better

Satisfactory citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, but there is scope for significant improvement

Marginal use of literature at places

Poor citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style, scope for significant improvement

Very poor/no use of literature

Very poor citation and referencing using the Harvard referencing style

Request Answer of this Assignment

Share this with your Friends

Facebook

Instagram

Are you interested in PUB014-6/ STI014-6 Ethical and Legal Issues in Healthcare? And if you are looking for a way out of this problem then we have the best Assignment writing services for your problem with the help of which you can get rid of this problem. There is a lot of demand. Here we also provide you Assignment help with some free Sample.