Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

What type of drug should you prescribe based on your patient’s diagnosis? How much of the drug should the patient receive? How often should the drug be administered? When should the drug not be prescribed? Are there individual patient factors that could create complications when taking the drug? Should you be prescribing drugs to this patient?

These are some of the questions you might consider when selecting a treatment plan for a patient. As an advanced practice nurse prescribing drugs, you are held accountable for people’s lives on a daily basis. Patients and their families will often place trust in you because of your position. With this trust comes power and responsibility, as well as an ethical and legal obligation to “do no harm.” It is important that you are aware of current professional, legal, and ethical standards for advanced practice nurses with prescriptive authority. In this Discussion, you explore ethical and legal implications of scenarios and consider how to appropriately respond.
Scenario 1: Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

As a nurse practitioner, you prescribe medications for your patients. You make an error when prescribing medication to a 5-year-old patient. Rather than dosing him appropriately, you prescribe a dose suitable for an adult.
Scenario 2: Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

A friend calls and asks you to prescribe a medication for her. You have this autonomy, but you don’t have your friend’s medical history. You write the prescription anyway.
Scenario 3: Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

You see another nurse practitioner writing a prescription for her husband who is not a patient of the nurse practitioner. The prescription is for a narcotic. You can’t decide whether or not to report the incident.
Scenario 4: Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

During your lunch break at the hospital, you read a journal article on pharmacoeconomics. You think of a couple of patients who have recently mentioned their financial difficulties. You wonder if some of the expensive drugs you have prescribed are sufficiently managing the patients’ health conditions and improving their quality of life.
To prepare FOR Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs:

Review Chapter 1 of the Arcangelo and Peterson text, as well as articles from the American Nurses Association, Ladd and Hoyt (2016), the Drug Enforcement Administration, and Sabatino et al (2017).
Select one of the four scenarios listed above.
Consider the ethical and legal implications of the scenario for all stakeholders involved such as the prescriber, pharmacist, patient, and the patient’s family.
Think about two strategies that you, as an advanced practice nurse, would use to guide your ethically and legally responsible decision-making in this scenario.

With these thoughts in mind:
By Day 3

Post an explanation of the ethical and legal implications of the scenario you selected on all stakeholders involved such as the prescriber, pharmacist, patient, and the patient’s family. Describe two strategies that you, as an advanced practice nurse, would use to guide your decision making in this scenario.
By Day 6

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days who selected a different scenario than you did, in one or more of the following ways:

Suggest additional ethical and legal implications for all stakeholders in your colleagues’ scenarios.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!

Rubric Detail : Discussion: Ethical and Legal Implications of Prescribing Drugs

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Name: NURS_6521_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View

Outstanding Performance Excellent Performance Competent Performance Proficient Performance Room for Improvement
Main Posting:
Response to the discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Points Range: 44 (44%) – 44 (44%)

Thoroughly responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

supported by at least 3 current, credible sources

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 43 (43%)

Responds to the discussion question(s)

is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to most of the discussion question(s)

is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

50% of post has exceptional depth and breadth

supported by at least 3 credible references

Points Range: 31 (31%) – 34 (34%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s)

one to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed

is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

post is cited with fewer than 2 credible references

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 30 (30%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s)

lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria

lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis

does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

contains only 1 or no credible references
Main Posting:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Written clearly and concisely

Contains no grammatical or spelling errors

Fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Written clearly and concisely

May contain one or no grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Written concisely

May contain one to two grammatical or spelling error

Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Written somewhat concisely

May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Contains some APA formatting errors

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Not written clearly or concisely

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts main discussion by due date

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
First Response:

Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.

Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
First Response:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited
First Response:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

posts by due date

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 9 (9%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings * responds to questions posed by faculty

the use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives

Points Range: 8.5 (8.5%) – 8.5 (8.5%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings

Points Range: 7.5 (7.5%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting

Points Range: 6.5 (6.5%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic, may have some depth

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic, lacks depth
Second Response:
Writing
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are fully answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 5.5 (5.5%) – 5.5 (5.5%)

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are answered if posed

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources

Response is effectively written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues

Response to faculty questions are mostly answered if posed

Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources

Response is written in Standard Edited English

Points Range: 4.5 (4.5%) – 4.5 (4.5%)

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication

Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered if posed

Few or no credible sources are cited

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 4 (4%)

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective

Response to faculty questions are missing

No credible sources are cited
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for timely and full participation

Posts by due date

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
NA

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirement for full participation
Total Points: 100