Recent orders
Movie Review, Farmageddon is an intriguing movie that portrays the U.S. government
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
Farmageddon
Farmageddon is an intriguing movie that portrays the U.S. government as an agent that constantly attacks innocent consumers and farmers with the ill motive of safeguarding selfish corporate interests. The also portrays the irony that purchasing unhealthy commodities, such as cigarettes, is much easier than obtaining essential food stuffs, such as raw milk. Consumer interests and small agribusinesses face a great threat from government agencies that seeks to wipe out active cultivation and consumption of processed commodities from small holder farmers.
In consumer sovereignty, the choice and preference of commodities lie with the customer. This means that the consumer is the ultimate body in charge of the market and hence economy. To a larger extent, the consumer can change the current market conditions since he decides what products to buy and at what cost depending on demand. Farmers, entrepreneurs, and capitalists play a vital role in market dynamics though they activities are regulated by consumers who decide make a purchasing decision. But in a move to protect themselves from consumer exploitation, enterprises collaborate with each other to have a common bargaining power, determine prices, or what to sell. This leaves consumers with little choice other than comply since they need the products. Therefore, consumers can hardly change the market. In a monopolistic economy that involves the provision of basic services, such as public schools, water, infrastructure, and others, consumers hardly have control on the market and dependency theory posits that developing economies are highly dependent on developed states for their economic progress. According to the theory, goods flow from poor underdeveloped nations to the wealthy nations, making the latter wealthier and the former poorer. For this reason, the poor nations do not have sovereignty over the goods they produce since they fear economic sanctioning by their richer trading partners, hence no consumer sovereignty in poor countries. Richer states perpetuate dependence by various strategies, such as politics, education, sporting, infrastructure development and others, to exercise absolute sovereignty over poor countries.
Distributive justice is concerned with fairness in associated with distribution of resources and outcome decisions. The small farmers in the film hold the need distributive theory. This is because they require assistance from the government made stakeholders in provision of inputs, resources, and market for their goods. These farmers should receive more attention than established agribusinesses to help improve their economic viability and alleviate their status. In contrast, the government uses the power distributive theory in which it recognizes highly established agribusinesses, giving them more attention than the smaller farmers.
Corporates have the responsibility of ensuring that the products they produce serve the specific needs of their clients. In addition, they should ensure that these production uses safe materials, conserve the environment. Other corporate responsibilities include job creation and involvement in socio-economic developmental activities. Corporates should involve in provision of resources, personnel, or funding for social causes that are worthwhile to spur societal progress and development. Besides, corporates should not exploit consumers by inconsistently altering prices to their advantage or production of substandard products. Consumer’s responsibilities include being aware of product quality before buying, and speaking out in case a product is not conforming to the required standard, or overpriced unnecessarily. Additionally, consumers should be ethical in their practices to ensure fair buying and selling practice, thus avoid exploitation of other consumers. They should also be responsible for their environment by properly disposing waste and protection of natural environments. Other responsibilities include speaking out in case of exploitation and gathering all information regarding a product.
Acute Care Across the Lifespan NUR2203 Assignment 1 Marking Rubric
Acute Care Across the Lifespan | NUR2203 Assignment 1 | Marking Rubric
CRITERIA Introduction
Conclusion Highly relevant comprehensive introduction
Defines topic and includes a comprehensive introduction to the essay
Excellent synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties highly relevant main points together.
Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Well-developed introduction
Defines the topic and includes an introduction to the essay
Quality synthesis of information from assignment that clearly ties relevant main points together.
Well-structured, concise reflection on importance of findings. Effective attempt of writing introduction that outlines essay
Above average synthesis of information from assignment clearly ties main points together.
Concise reflection demonstrates importance of findings. An attempt made to provide an introduction, however appeared unclear.
The topic is simply defined.
Demonstration of synthesis from assignment evident with some points from assignment discussed.
Importance of findings indicated. Inadequate and/or poor introduction.
Minimal/no evidence of an overview of the essay.
Inappropriate or absent conclusion.
Conclusion includes new material.
Referenced material in conclusion.
MARKS (15) 4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1
Critical Skills: Prioritising of major concepts of care Excellent reasoning in prioritising of concepts arising from the case study
Prioritised plan of care is highly synthesised and well-structured, with a very clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources
Excellently justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence)
Very logical / clear / succinct progression of concepts / ideas demonstrated / presents as a unified whole
Excellent analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated
Good reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study with one omission
Prioritised plan of care is well synthesised and structured, with a clear and coherent synthesis of the clinical data and supported with multiple literature sources
Clearly justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence)
Good logical / clear / succinct progression of concepts / ideas demonstrated / presents as a unified whole
Good analysis, well prioritised care detailed and succinctly communicated
Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been partially addressed with some major omissions
Prioritised plan of care is synthesised and structured, with some demonstration of synthesis of the clinical data and supported with some literature sources
Justifies judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) satisfactorily
Some logical progression of concepts / ideas however further development / clarity needed.
Analysis of the case evident with some prioritised care demonstrated and at times well communicated
Reasoning in prioritising concepts arising from the case study has been attempted, but has omitted more relevant priorities
Prioritised plan of care is provided but with minimal synthesis of the clinical data and an unclear structure with minimal reference to literature sources
Judgments and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) are inadequately justified
Limited logical progression of concepts / ideas however further development / clarity needed.
Minimal analysis of the case evident. Care is not well prioritised, or clearly communicated
Clinical reasoning and synthesis of concepts arising from the case study is minimal or absent
Prioritised plan of care is not synthesised or structured coherently. There is limited or no reference to literature sources
No judgment and reasons for decisions / courses of action (e.g. related to pt. cues, goals / expected outcomes / evidence) demonstrated
No / lack of logical progression of concepts underpinning case study.
No analysis evident e.g. lack of priority development in actions/ interventions / approach to dealing with deterioration
MARKS (15) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5
Content analysis:
Knowledge and understanding, nursing interventions /rationales Evaluation of the case demonstrates depth of understanding of pathophysiology and prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice
Excellent breadth and depth of actions / clear / succinct in approach, priorities well define
Highly articulate rationales succinctly related to the nursing interventions and nursing actions very well detailed
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/ surgical procedure are critically discussed demonstrating excellent understanding with rationales fully explained.
Excellent sources used to support actions / interventions quality (evidenced based) & demonstrate depth and breadth of reading. Quality research sources – contextual to the case study
Discharge planning very clear / succinct, detailed Evaluation of the case demonstrates understanding of the pathophysiology and some prioritisation of nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice
Good breadth of nursing actions: including assessment / monitoring / interventions included, evidence of prioritisation of actions appropriate to the case study
Good rationale included / relates to the intervention / action chosen and well detailed
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA / surgical procedure are well explored and logically presented with rationales that are satisfactorily explained.
Very good sources used to demonstrate depth of understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based papers mostly contextual to the case scenario
Discharge planning clear and succinct Evaluation of the case is sometimes clear and there is some understanding of pathophysiology with some interventions that could be actioned in practice
Clear nursing actions: including assessment / monitoring / interventions included some prioritisation of actions mostly appropriate to the case study
Rationales for the nursing interventions and the implications for practice are outlined however further rationales could be provided
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/surgical procedure are explored with some depth and sometimes well explained
Fair breadth of sources used demonstrate understanding e.g. some use of evidenced based research with some contextual to the case scenario
Discharge planning included however broad and requires more detail
Evaluation provides a narrative to the reader outlining minimal understanding of pathophysiology and or formulation of relevant nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice.
Some nursing actions including: assessment / ongoing monitoring / interventions included however priorities are not well defined
Rationales included however explanation not clear or not focused / specific enough to the action/ intervention
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA/surgical procedure are minimally explored and some confusion evident.
Minimal breadth of sources utilised / lacks depth e.g. mainly text / with minimal use of evidenced based journal articles
Satisfactory discharge planning, could be more specific at times
Evaluation of the case is not clear and concise to the reader with no or limited suggested nursing interventions that could be actioned in practice
Nursing actions including: assessment /monitoring / interventions minimal / not evident / inadequately prioritised
Rationales are limited, vague or absent
The relationship between comorbidities and recovery from a GA / surgical procedure is not dealt with and / or are confused and not clear.
No / inadequate / limited literature sources used to support work presented e.g. over 7 years old and lack of evidenced based research e.g. uses mainly texts
No / minimal discharge planning included, vague / too broad
MARKS (5) 13.25-15 10.5-13 7.5-10 4-7 0-3.5
Academic Writing: structure, APA referencing expression /grammar Word limit: Adhered to word limit
Expression
High standard of academic presentation. Expressed ideas clearly, concisely & fluently
Very few/no spelling or grammatical errors
Structure
Well-constructed paragraphs
Main points linked to the question
Presentation is extremely appealing and engaging
Referencing
Correctly cited sources both within text & reference list. No/limited mistakes in referencing format Word limit: Adhered to word limit +/- 10% Expression
Sound academic structure and presentation
Expressed ideas clearly and concisely, thoughts expressed clearly
Very few spelling or grammatical errors
Structure
Well-constructed paragraphs, clearly expressed & linked main points
Presentation is appealing and engaging
Referencing
References to literature are good Word limit: Adhered to word limit +/- 10% Expression
Expressed ideas clearly, however not concisely & fluently, thoughts not clearly articulated
Some spelling and grammatical errors
Structure
Provided paragraphs with main points however not clearly expressed
Presentation is pleasing and mostly engaging
Referencing
References to literature are satisfactory Word limit: Adhered to word limit (+/-10%
Expression
Limited clarity of expression, vague or narrative only
Errors in spelling & grammar
Structure
Provided paragraphs but either main points were inappropriate or they were not linked key content areas.
Presentation is somewhat pleasing and engaging
Referencing
Reference to literature is present but not strong Word limit: Not adhered to
Expression
Used incorrect terminology
Numerous mistakes in spelling and/or grammar
Structure
No or limited structure
Presentation does not answer the question and is not engaging
Referencing
Literature not appropriate or insufficient
Incorrect referencing
4.25-5 3-4 2.5 2 0-1
Marker Comments:
FINAL MARK:
/40
CASE STUDY ESSAY – DUE JULY 31
CASE STUDY ESSAY – DUE JULY 31
Case studies will be presented to the class tentatively scheduled for August 4th, following finals. All students are required to attend case study presentations. Presentations must be a minimum of 10 minutes long and no more than 15 minutes, including time allowed for questions. The case study grade will comprise a major portion of the final clinical grade. No late assignments are accepted.
The paper must be in MLA format – with a minimum of 750 words in the BODY of the paper, double-spaced with 1-inch margins. (Font size 12, Times New Roman font. Cover sheets, abstract pages and reference pages are not in the body of the paper, and are not part of the word count requirement.
Points will be lost for not meeting the required word count. Additionally, pictures/charts/definition lists/bullet points are NOT to be included in the body of the paper, but may be included as an addendum, after the References page.
This is a professional research paper. Appropriate research and citation of references must be used. Proper grammar, punctuation, sentence, and paragraph structure must be used. The use of slang, racism, or any other derogatory language will not be tolerated.
The case study should maintain patient confidentiality. The use of actual names in the paper, on printed material and/or medical images is strictly prohibited. Do not use the patient’s name, ID #, DOB, actual age, dates of admission, hospital, doctor’s name, sonographer’s name…NOTHING.
A case study may be selected at any time during the clinical rotation, but students should try to collect data early to avoid rushing at the last minute to write the paper. Case selection should be based upon clinically interesting diagnosis and or findings. Information to be presented should include, but is not limited to the following: patient history, physical exam, clinical findings, diagnostic results, interpretation of results and lab data, hemodynamic correlations, definitions of medical terms, patient diagnosis and related problems, treatment, medications, follow up and patient outcome or prognosis. Deductions will be made if any of the preceding information is missing.
Students must use REPUTABLE resources; books, journals, and the internet. You may not use any internet source that cannot be properly cited. Hint: If you cannot find an author, DO NOT use it. Stay away from wikipedia, emed, medline etc. Use professional articles.