# data[].attributes.body
her opinion flip flops a lot - maybe group the two sides together instead of going FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST etc

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that there is sufficient depth- it's always possible to go deeper, but I'm sure there was a word limit and it certainly wasn't too wordy.

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

English language is clear and concise, allowing for easier reading for the average med student

Weaknesses:

Racist towards non-English speakers

# data[].attributes.body
Clear points but could go into more depth

More strength in voicing her opinion

# data[].attributes.body
Good points and good use of references to back up points

# data[].attributes.body
Good topic sentences

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

In english, great fo

# data[].attributes.body
She discusses in body 2 what points were made in the discussion about the ethical decision however doesnt go into detail about what shaped/ changed her opinion and why

# data[].attributes.body
She discusses in body 2

# data[].attributes.body
Introduction: Would she have benefited from including a brief expansion about what the main reason for her change of view is? However, if she gave the main reason for her change of view, would that mean that she would find it harder to link in peripheral points in the body of the essay? Body: She does give a wide variety of points, although she seems like she's struggling to fit them all within a word limit (although I'm unsure about how she could deal with this).

It may have been more useful is she described how these alternative views changed her own views, rather than listing them. Her transition from 'I think the neonate shouldn't have lived' to 'I think the neonate should have lived' (body 3) seemed very abrupt, because she didn't seem to address how it came about.

Conclusion:

Should she have linked it back to the case?

# data[].attributes.headline
It does address the key issues of the assignment...

# data[].attributes.subject
It does address the key issues of the assignment...

# data[].attributes.body
Very Concise (good)

Have a clear direction that she is heading in

However, it could benefit from a few examples of why she changed her opinion/how the literature helped her, so that we have a clear markers about where her intro is heading....

Body:

Well reflected upon both view points

Very Concise (again)

Well referenced

# data[].attributes.body
Instructions: Outline your position prior to group discussion How did the group discussion influence your thinking? How did the literature inform your thinking? Justify your final ethical position No need to give details of case (presented during tutorial)

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the presentation of my case, I had come to the decision to advise the parents in question for no resuscitation or intervention. However, following the group discussion, consulting the literature and my own further reflection, I have changed my position and would now advise the parents in favour of resuscitation.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the group discussion, potential for poor quality of life with moderate to severe disability was a key reason for not initiating resuscitation. Likewise, this was one of the factors that led me to initially advise for no intervention. However, as mentioned both during the group discussion, and by Mercurio (2009), it is very difficult to predict the subjective perception of quality of life by the child themselves or their parents in the future.

Mercurio MR. The ethics of newborn resuscitation. Semin Perinatol [serial online]. 2009;33(6):354-363. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2009.07.002

# data[].attributes.body
However, Chiswick (2008) claims that as parents are responsible for the long term care of an infant, their interests are inextricably linked to and as important as the perceived interests of the infant. This is a viewpoint that was voiced by some during the group discussion. However, an alternate view put forward in the discussion was that it is unethical to deny an infant life based on the possibility that their family may be unable to care for them in the long term, particularly with the existence of alternatives for care arrangements.

Chiswick M. Infants of borderline viability: Ethical and clinical considerations. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med [serial online]. 2008;13(1):8-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.siny.2007.09.007

# data[].attributes.body
Furthermore, in contrast to Chiswick’s view, I think that in considering this issue in terms of the principle of respect for autonomy, once an infant is born and has the right to life, that right should be considered more important than the interests of the parents, particularly when those interests tend to centre around variable or impermanent issues or circumstances such as finances or availability of time. Whereas for the parents there exists the possibility of change in circumstances, provision of financial aid or alternate care arrangements, for the infant, the decision of no intervention denies them a most fundamental right, the right to life, in a final and concrete way, without due respect for their autonomy.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that overall, the harm of not resuscitating an individual who has the potential of living a life of good quality, and not respecting their autonomy by denying their right to life, is unethical compared to the potential harm of resuscitating an individual who then goes on to have a severe or moderate disability.