implementation of the correct procedure (IOM, 1999 pp23-25). Adverse events are considered unintended injuries and/or harm that are caused to the patient but not necessarily due to human error. This proposal will present a technical solution, using case based reasoning, to help prevent the occurrence of errors, thus reduce adverse events, and to make suggestions to the line staff as to what to do when such an event or error happens. Purpose and Goals One of many nationwide initiatives to help reduce the
philosophy on case based reasoning regarding making social decisions about what ought to be done. Decisions an individual may face can derive from a varying number of social scenarios. It can be about what the individual ought to do for themselves, what their loved ones ought to do, or even what their community and nation should do when faced with a choice. Patricia Churchland believes that the best way a rational being makes these decisions is through case based reasoning. Case based reasoning involves
an-ought-from-an-is is not a problem as a solution to it, known as abduction exists that shows humans can make good decisions using case-based reasoning. P1 – Sensible humans are able to make wise decisions about what they should do without following rules. P2 – This is achieved through judging situations based on previous situations through case based reasoning. P3- In doing so, it is proven that invoking normative premises, maxims, rules and using generalizations are not necessary while making
was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. “In the case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), the Court placed the responsibility on a trial judge to ensure that expert testimony was not only relevant but also reliable” (Icove, De Haan, & Haynes, 2013, p. 19). With regards to scene investigations, the permissibility of expert science and professional opinions are currently more admissible in a court of law than in historical cases. The acceptance of fire investigation has placed more
Reasoning is a key component in understanding medicine. It impacts the decision-making strategies used by doctors in their chosen medical field daily, whether it be routine check-ups, surgeries or serious accidents. Decision making is influenced by how people get to grips with the decision that they are being faced with and how they seek advice to help in that decision. In clinical reasoning the deciding factor is making the best choice; the best treatment for a patient, finding out the correct diagnosis
Clinical reasoning is the ability to 'sort through a cluster of features presented by a patient and accurately assign a diagnostic label, with the development of an appropriate treatment strategy as the end goal'. It is central to our clinical practice, yet it remains an enigma and continues to present a challenge to teachers and learners. There are at least two reasons that make clinical reasoning problematic for clinicians. Firstly, experienced clinicians often use rapid unconscious cognitive reasoning
When judges make decisions on a case in a court “they use a process of reasoning to explain how they have come to that conclusion” (Open University (“OU”) 2017 a). There are three forms of logical reasoning judges use; these are deductive, inductive and analogous. Deductive reasoning begins with a general principle and basing a conclusion on it. The most famous type of deductive reasoning is syllogism. Firstly, the reasoning begins with a statement that is true the major premise. Secondly there
2012). Conclusion There are numerous way of conducting a study on death penalty but the right way should be researched ahead of time before conclusion are made. Proving current and accurate information on death penalty statistics should be researched based on new information found, using previous studies will only hurt the new research and provide false information to the public and the government’s database. Approaching the right subjects who fit the requirements for the study and have characteristics
with which we adduce support for such claims are no greater than probable. While something is surely amiss in calling deductivist inference "probabilistic," it seems Gassendi has hit upon a now-familiar, sensible point—namely, the use of deductive reasoning in empirical contexts, while providing certain formal guarantees, does not insulate empirical arguments from judgment by the measure of belief which we invest in their premises. The more general point, which distinguishes Gassendi among his contemporaries
behavior; the stage Kohlberg labeled preconventional moral reasoning. Children learn that behavior is good or bad based on punishment. Once children reach puberty, they enter the conventional moral reasoning stage, where, society’s rules are the primary factor in determining right from wrong. Lastly, postconventional moral reasoning proposes that right and wrong are deciphered by an individual’s personal ethics,
this paper is to explore the strengths and weakness of the American Psychological Association (APA) code of ethics, apply and evaluate the eight-step ethical decision-making model, discuss the role of deontology in ethical reasoning, resolution, and multicultural issues in the case study. APA: Strengths and Weaknesses The APA founded in 1892 provides psychologists with a formalized set of ethical principles and standards for professional conduct
Is human reasoning rational? Draw on theories of deductive reasoning and your own experience with Sudoku puzzles. Reasoning can be defined as the problems that differ from other kinds of problems in that they often owe their origins to formal systems of logic (Eysenck and Keane (2005). Deductive reasoning is a type of reasoning that leads to conclusions that are definitely true given that statements the conclusion is based on are true. Rationality is the quality or state of being reasonable, based
can promote the status of accounting among other sciences. In addition, without any justification, reasoning, and argumentation, one cannot have scientific claims. The theory of accounting should ultimately enable the standards setters to deduce the standards. Considering the impact of accounting theory on standard setting, this article aims at analyzing the point that whether the type of reasoning applied in developing accounting theory and setting accounting
Posner, would be in a general disagreement to the use of wealth maximization to cover all law, to the extent that not using the theory would go against what courts promote. To Posner, judges, in their application of rules and procedures to particular cases, ought to promote wealth maximization. The promotion of wealth maximization requires an ought. This means that to pursue wealth maximization is something that should be done and if not done it would be wrong. • However, to Sunstein, this
requires some statistical and problematic reasoning which plays an imperative role in the criminal investigation, prosecution and trial. Statistical and problematic reasoning also plays a major part in relation to forensic scientific evidence, such as DNA, which is produced by an expert witness. In criminal cases, it is important that everyone is able to understand and deal with probability and statistics correctly. Throughout history, many criminal cases have been plagued by misunderstandings relating
murder case. This book is first published in 1887. A Study in Scarlet is a long story book. The mystery presents in this book is a murder mystery and the murder occurs in an empty house. A victim is a well-dressed gentleman. There is no sign of killer and the motive is unknown. Therefore the police detectives have to ask Holmes to help them to solve this case. Holmes uses his incredible science of deduction investigation method to find who commits the crime. The analysis in this essay is based on the
essential for a secure society; however when a law enforcement member deviates from legislated policing practices causing an unjustified accusation of a civilian, are the people of the Province of Ontario any safer? This issue can be examined in the case of R. v. Harrison, as Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police conducted a traffic stop of Bradley Harrison, which was not justified. Harrison was pulled over for only having a rear licence plate, however the vehicle was registered in
Kohlberg’s Theoretical Approach to Lana’s Case There are times when a child’s safety and needs may not be met with the care of the family, despite help or assessing the extent to which parents or caregivers are not able to care for the child. In such a situation, placing the child in an alternative permanent placement via legal guardianship, adoption, or long-term foster care would best serve the interest of the child. To arrive at a decision of permanent placement assessments are carried out before
Evolving Case Using the Clinical Reasoning Cycle The clinical reasoning process is used to gather information from a patient in a systematic way, obtaining pertinent information from the patient and applying that to the scientific basis of a disease or illness process, and implementing a plan based on evidence in research that will provide an effective outcome. This paper will introduce the clinical reasoning process, go over the key points from the case study that was presented as an example,
is Inductive Reasoning, and Karl Popper's hypothesis deduction. In short, the two contradictory theories of science, inductive reasoning and falsification will be mentioned, and I will focus on showing the relationship of these two theories. At first, let me brief introduce the inductivist and falsificationsist accounts of scientific method. Inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning are both