see document attached for instructions.
Bioethics Argument building task – Medicines policy and bioethics Word count: 1500 words +/- 10%
Describe the two strongest arguments for and against it (four in total), providing at least 4 references for each argument (16 in total).
Statement:
“It is morally appropriate for industry funding of continuing medical education to continue as-is.” Referencing and submission instructions:
Reference using Vancouver (at bibliography). INCLUDE PAGE NUMBERS OF WHERE THE CLAIMS YOU ARE DRAWING FROM CAN BE FOUND (in text).
Only utilise peer reviewed sources, or ‘official’ sources (e.g. reports from respected bodies, etc.). Blogs, newspaper articles, Wikipedia, etc. are not appropriate for this task.
Use global and Australian examples as possible.
Use a standard 12pt font and at least 1.5 spacing.
Write the statement at the top of your submission along with the final word count. No other
details or a title page are necessary.
For page number. put in brackets “in-text” for example:
“… In the evolving landscape of healthcare, the medical sector plays a significant role in the advancement of novel and improved technologies, medicines, and devices (1)[p.1720-1721].”
The (1) will be in Vancouver style at the bibliography, while the page number is in [] in-text.
Note to writer:
Arguments (for and against) should be linked to bioethical principles in this practice. (Beneficence, competence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice, transparency) where applicable. Use logic: premise, premise, conclusion [See notes at the end of this document], the conclusion should be linked to the bioethical principle defended. Don’t add headers (premise1 , premise 2, etc). rather write it as a paragraph with that logic.
I’ve presented 4 arguments, that support and 4 against, depending on the strength of the evidence found, highlight the strongest ones, and defend. If possible, combine some of them in the same argument, as they are all related.
“FOR” Arguments to be developed: provide references and page number in the reference that support those claims.
Access to Latest Research and Developments: Industry involvement can ensure that medical professionals have access to the latest research findings, cutting-edge technologies, and innovative treatment approaches, promoting evidence-based practice.
Educational Resources: Pharmaceutical and medical device companies possess extensive knowledge and resources that can contribute to the educational content, helping healthcare professionals stay updated with advancements in their field.
Professional Development: Industry-funded CME enables continuous professional development for healthcare providers, enhancing their skills and knowledge, which is crucial for improving patient care and outcomes.
Networking Opportunities: Industry-sponsored CME events often provide platforms for networking among healthcare professionals, fostering collaborations and sharing of best practices that can lead to improved healthcare delivery.
AGAINST Arguments to be developed: provide references and page number in the reference that support those claims.
Bias and Influence: Industry funding can lead to bias in the content of CME programs, potentially prioritizing the sponsor’s products or services over unbiased, evidence-based medicine.
Conflict of Interest: Financial support from the industry can create conflicts of interest for educators and organizers, potentially influencing the selection of topics, speakers, and educational materials in a way that favours the sponsor.
Public Trust: The involvement of industry in medical education can undermine public trust in the medical profession and the integrity of medical education, especially if the public perceives that education is being used as a marketing tool.
Inequality in Funding: There is a risk that areas of medicine that are not commercially attractive to industry sponsors could receive less attention and funding, potentially leading to gaps in medical education on important but less marketable topics.
Notes to consider:
The purpose of an argument is to persuade others over to your point of view. In academic English, arguments usually unfold in three stages. The first stage (the introduction) includes a clear statement of your thesis (i.e. the position you are taking). The second stage (the “body” of the essay) sets out the reasons in support of your thesis, and/or the evidence in support of it. The third stage (i.e. the conclusion) summarises and re-states your position, ideally in a way that does not simply re-hash the introduction. A good argument is more than a simple list of reasons; it is coherent and well-structured (i.e. well-organised) as well as supported by reasons and evidence, and it anticipates and counters objections to your argument.
Formalise arguments.
– 1. Premise
– 2. Premise
– 3. Conclusion
Example:
1. It is wrong to kill anything of moral value
2. The foetus is of moral value
3. Conclusion: it is wrong to kill a foetus
For an argument to be valid the conclusion must follow from the premises. That is, there must be a logical connection between the different parts of the argument