Answer
Question 1
Answer
(a)
Explanation of the diagram:
In the below diagram, Yo-yos is shown on the x-axis and marbles is shown on the y-axis. We can see that Bob prefers more yo-yos over marbles, since the graph indicates that yo-yos are normally good to him; that the more income he has, the more yo-yos he will purchase regardless of his consumption of marbles. In this case, IC is a vertical straight line which indicates Yo-yos are normally good and Marbles are Neuter good. Any increase in purchasing power of BOB, IC shifts towards right from IC1 to IC2 & IC3.
Bob’s indifference curve
(b)
Explanation of the diagram:
In the below diagram, Yo-yos is shown on the x-axis and marbles is shown on the y-axis. We can see that Lucy prefers more marbles over Yo-yos. It is evident that Marbles are normally good to her, that the more income she has, the more Marbles she will purchase regardless of her consumption of yo-yos. In this case, IC is a horizontal straight line which indicates Marbles are normal good and Yo-yos are Neuter good. Any increase in purchasing power of LUCY, IC shifts upwards from IC1 to IC2 & IC3.
(c)
Bob's and Lucy's preferences are not complied with diminishing marginal utility rules as there ICs are not downward sloping which is the important feature of falling MRS.
(d)
Transitivity assumption states that when a consumer reveals their preference for any good over other good, then they cannot reverse their preference. Here, Lucy and Bob preferred marbles and yo-yos respectively. So, they cannot change their preference, like other goods over their initial preferred ones. Thus, the preferences of both Bob and Lucy are transitive as their liking for preferred goods have not changed.
Question 2
Answer
a) The utility function is given as
V (B,S) = BB+S
Price of buffer PB =3
Price of cream Ps =2
Income of consumer = $100
The budget constraint becomes
3B+2S=100
Buffer and cream are perfect substitution ,so the indifference would be a negatively sloped straight line.
Cream
Buffer
I1 I2 13
b) The budget constraint is given as
3B+2S=100
The horizontal intercept=100/3
The vertical intercept=100/2 = 50
The slope of budget line=Pᴮ/Ps=3/2
cream
SO
O 100/3 buffer
c) Marginal rate of substitution (MRS)
The utility function:
V=BB+S
MVᴃ= B
MVs=1
MRS=B/1=B
If the consumers double the consumption of both the commodities then MRS would remain the same.
d)
U (B, S) = βB+S when β
Pᴃ=3 Ps=2 M=100
Budget constraint is :-
Pᴃ.B +Ps, S=M
3B+2S=100
Since buffer and sour cream are substitution they have corner solution.
Case 1 → β > 3/2
Suppose only B is consumed then
Optimal B=M/Pᴃ=100/3 and S=0
U = β B+S
U= β 100/3+0
U = 100β/3
Since β > 3/2 → U >100/3 × 3/2
→ U > 50
If only S is consumed then
Optima l S =100/2 and B=0
Then u =β.(0) +100/2=50
Since U > 50 when only B is consumed
Given β > 3/2 therefore optimal bundle is
:- B* = 100/3; S* =0
Case 2
β< 3/2
Then if only B is consumed then
U< 50
If only s is consumed then U= SO
Hence S is consumed, the optimal
Bundle is B*=0 and S*=100/2=50
Case 3
Β =3/2
If only B is consumed then U = 50
If only S is consumed then U=50
Hence optimal bundle is :-
B* ϵ [0, 100/3] S* ϵ [ 0,50]
or
And S* = 50- βB* B* = 50-S*/β
e) Now suppose price changes :-
New price of buffer is Pᴃ=βPᴃ
Ps=2
M=100
When only B is consumed then
B=M/βPᴃ=100/3β ; S=0
So U= β. 100/3β+0 =100/3
When only S is consumed;
S= M/Ps=50 ; B=0
So U = β. (0)+ 50= 50
Since 50 > 100/3
Only S is consumed; Hence the optimal bundle is :-
B*= 0 ; S*= 50
No, it does not depend on the value of β because no matter what value β holds, it cancels out when we put the optimal bundle in utility function .
→ U= βB+S, therefore β does not put any impact on optimal bundle.
Question 3
Answer
(a) U = min{x, y}
For a fixed-proportion utility function like this, indifference curves are L-shaped and optimal bundle lies at the point of inflection. In following graph, IC0 and IC1 are two indifference curves where IC1 reflects higher total utility compared to IC0.
(b) Budget line: M = x.Px + y.Py
6 = 2x + y
When x = 0, y = 6 (Vertical intercept) and when y = 0, x = 6/2 = 3 (Horizontal intercept).
In above graph, AB is the budget line.
(c) Utility is maximized for a fixed-proportion utility function, when x = y. Substituting in budget line,
6 = 2x + x
6 = 3x
x = 2
y = x = 2
In above graph, utility is maximized at point X where AB is tangent to IC1 with optimal amount of x being x0 (= 2) and optimal amount of y being y0 (= 2).
(d)
In following graph, IC2 and IC3 are two indifference curves where IC3 reflects higher total utility compared to IC2.
(e) Budget line: 10 = 2x + y
Utility is maximized when x/2 = y, or x = 2y. Substituting in budget line,
10 = 2y + y
10 = 3y
y = 3.33
x = 2 x 3.33 = 6.66
In above graph, utility is maximized at point Y where budget line CD is tangent to IC3 with optimal amount of x being x1 (= 6.66) and optimal amount of y being y1 (= 3.33).
28.QUESTION
how has innovation improved the delivery of palliative care?
In this essay we should sate :Innovation in pallative care in one specific area and relative to one particular population. The population can be kind of disease or age groups or cultural group. How has innovation helped palliative patients.
For validate try to analyze what part of innovation worked well, were there any limitations, kind of analyzing the literature to form a judgement on the innovation
Introduction
need very brief introduction
1. Thesis statement(only one sentence): what is your topic, what question you need to answer: how has innovation improved the delivery of palliative care?
2. Outline: (example: This essay will focus on X polulation and the solutions of the innovation has provided and barriers to the implementation of the innovation and the way in which the innovation has influenced palliation will be considered)
Body paragraph: four aspect(see learning guide)
Conclusion: summarize main ideas and restate thesis
References: at least five and should be within 5 years
ANSWER
Utilization of Euthanasia in the Palliative Care for Old People with Terminal Cancer
This essay illustrates how old people with terminal cancer are benefiting from euthanasia as the most effective palliative care for their condition. The old people would benefit from this initiative because a majority of this population hardly recovers from terminal illnesses. According to Van der Geest and Satalkar (2019), more than 67% of old people with terminal cancer never recover. With this, many of them prefer self-chosen death as the only alternative to end their misery. Regardless, the limitations established by the policies of end-of-life decisions (EOL) have made the implementation of this strategy rather challenging. Despite the hindering factors, euthanasia as a hospital-based palliative care would contribute to enhancing the quality of life, avoidance caregiver guilt, and supporting end of life decisions for old people with terminal cancer.
Solutions offered by Euthanasia
Enhances the quality of life
Euthanasia improves the quality of care before a patient dies. Despite critics arguing that healthcare providers’ involvement in EOL cases is ineffective, several scholars have proved that the efforts of the proposed strategy are quite essential. Owing to the emergence of several EOL cases concerning old people with terminal cancer, medical institutions have assimilated certain legislation that controls the EOL cases. One of the rules amended by healthcare institutions is the support to a patient’s daily life, which requires medical practitioners to physically, emotionally as well as psychologically support dying patients. In line with this kind of care, healthcare providers are required to give the dying patients spiritual care, bathing, mouth care, hair care, pressure care, among others (Lavoie et al., 2016). Nevertheless, nurses are required to regularly exercise intervention practices on patients with cancer such as assessing the level of pain, provision of necessary medication, and setting up a patient’s discharge. In most cases, this type of care is hardly imposed on patients suffering from other ailments. The associated application of these approaches affects treatment decisions made by medical practitioners in the sense that a patient’s end-of-life decision is considered first. A practical example is when a patient with terminal cancer suggests that he or she desires to die in a calm environment. Following this suggestion, healthcare providers have to ensure that they provide a situation or surroundings with limited monitoring equipment, or whose environment is relatively calm for the specific patient to feel at peace as he or she approaches the end of life (Bernheim & Raus 2017). Similarly, when healthcare practitioners provide sufficient data concerning a patient’s current condition to the terminally ill patients, the expected treatment interventions as well as the impact of the interventions, and productive care model would be achieved. In retrospect, facilitating an effective communication system aids in coordinating treatment plans. Since old people with terminal cancer are set to die, receiving this kind of treatment gives them hope and gratitude that people still care of his/her well-being.
Avoidance of caregiver guilt
Another advantage of euthanasia in palliative care for old individuals with terminal cancer is that it reduces the guilt as well as shame that patients have to their caregivers. In most cases, old people with terminal cancer tend to feel as if they are a burden to their families. These emotions establish the chances of ruined relationships since it is rather natural for them to push their loved ones away to help them avoid any form of pain. Accepting euthanasia might not be the best option in some circles. However, it can establish the best option for the transitory time that every terminally ill patient experiences (Bernheim & Raus 2017). The main impact of the end-of-life controls, as well as regulations, is to ascertain that old and terminally ill patients accept and appreciate living with their conditions every day of their end-of-life period. Initially, scholars and healthcare practitioners have been combining their efforts to guarantee that medical facilities together with the staff are competent enough to enhance the value of life in any setting regardless of the defined life phase. In different studies, scholars have been able to assume that all individuals diagnosed with terminal ailments develop physical, mental as well as emotional issues such as depression, powerlessness, vulnerability, dependency, helplessness, and worthlessness. The proposed traits have negative effects on a patient’s health, considering that it reduces their life span. These emotional effects have a direct link to the general well-being of patients. The more demoralize a patient would be, the higher the chances of him/her succumbing to the ailment. Under such circumstances, healthcare practitioners assume the role of ensuring that such a patient conforms to his or her condition as well as accept the presented and the future situation (Lavoie et al., 2016). As medical practitioners provide physical and psychological treatment to a terminally ill patient, acceptance becomes the best solution for both the patient and the respective family members. In line with the training sessions, a cognitive bond is established between the healthcare providers and patients. Terminally ill patients at this stage would finally resort to appreciating the value of their life together with the efforts of the doctors and nurses towards making their end-of-life period as comfortable as possible. Eventually, patients will have confidence in the intervention decisions made by the medical doctor leading to an effective transition .process by the patient as well as the family.
More Control over Final Decision of Life
The end of an individual’s life marks the beginning of a financial expedition for patients and their family members. Old people with terminal cancer tend to spend some significant amount of capital to sustain the type of care they will be receiving. In addition to this, the cumulative debts cannot be cleared at death (Kaminska & Nazarko 2017). As a result, a family member of the patients is forced to sell their assets to clear the medical bills. In most cases, it can take many years to settle complex financial issues. However, when euthanasia is introduced in the conversation for an individual with terminal cancer, planning for the transition could be easier for both the medical institution and the family members of the patient. By having absolute control over the last decision of life, the physical and emotional toll of a terminal ailment can be reduced for every person involved (Kaminska & Nazarko 2017). In most cases, this proposition is considered a relief for the individual who is suffering but the most overlooked factor is the apparent benefits for both the medical institutions and the family members of the patient. After the intended practice, the entire family will have peace with the affirmation that there is a set date to reach the end of the underlying situation. In short euthanasia agrees with the aspect that every individual with terminal illness has the right to determine their final decision of life.
Barriers to the Implementation of Euthanasia
Ethical Ramifications
Recent studies have proved that medical practitioners always find it challenging to establish a productive conversation with patients regarding the end of life decisions. In like manner, other scholars report that the intervention of older people, is unsuitable and that the necessary decision-making processes by healthcare providers as well as patients can be barred by the alteration of an individual’s mental and cognitive state. Respectively, some researchers suggested that if healthcare practitioners induce the end of life conversations, while the specific patient still maintains his or her cognitive aptitude, the associated ethical condition could be eluded (Chandler, 2017). The beliefs of patients and their families, as well as principles observed by staff, could introduce conflicting dogmas when deciding on the most effective transition care. Although old patients with cancer will be willing to go ahead with the proposed terminal diagnosis, healthcare practitioners may decline the responsibility of administering the intervention hence leading to tensions among doctors/nurses, patients, and the management of the institution (Van der Geest & Satalkar 2019). Healthcare providers have to follow the moral responsibility of adhering to the desires of the patient and the respective families, but the decision goes against their work ethics of saving the life of patients. The general assumption of using this palliative care is that nonconformity by the terminally ill patient or their family members can easily lead to an ethical dilemma for medical practitioners.
Unproductive Results
Another challenge is that the suggested medical intervention does not always achieve the predicted results. Various states have tracked the outcome of patients who opted to take lethal prescriptions as a way of ending their lives with dignity and reducing the pain. The data collected indicated that there were patients who regained consciousness immediately after taking the dosage (Keown 2018). When an individual opts for this decision and it doesn’t turn out as intended, it puts them as well as their doctors into challenging situations. For instance, will the doctors continue with the intervention, or do they attempt to aid the people to terminate their lives again? In broader prospects, people who consider this intervention have to be certain that there is no guarantee of the anticipated outcome.
Validations of the Innovation
The introduction of Euthanasia in palliative care has been considered as an effective model for improving one’s quality of life. According to Van der Geest and Satalkar (2019), euthanasia has helped to reduce suffering for people with terminal illnesses. Similarly, Chandler (2017), agrees with this assertion claiming that the innovation does not only enhance the quality of life but also patients and families with socioeconomic challenges. In most cases, terminally ill cancer patients would require a lot of funds to support their care and this could be challenging for poor families. But with euthanasia, the assumed financial issues could easily be managed. However, researchers such as Bernheim and Raus (2017) have suggested that this initiative is ineffective since it goes against the building blocks of ethics in nursing. The scholars assume that it is immoral for medical practitioners to attest that they are saving lives but on the other hand are acting as counterparts to ending one’s life. On the same note, Lavoie et al (2016) have proved that a significant number of nurses have a positive attitude when practicing euthanasia. Besides, Keown (2018), proposes that end-of-life choices should be accustomed to patients in that if they feel that they are suffering, they could resort to terminating their lives without harming anyone.
In conclusion, innovations in palliative care for old people with terminal cancer by using euthanasia have been a good initiative in promoting the value of life. Also, it has helped to reduce the guilt that patients have to their caregivers. Besides, it gives patients more control over the final decision of life. However, the intervention has significant challenges such as the failure to establish effective conversations regarding the end-of-life decision and lack of guarantee for the projected outcome considering that there are patients who still recover even after being administered the medication.
References
Bernheim, J. L., & Raus, K. (2017). Euthanasia embedded in palliative care. Responses to essentialistic criticisms of the Belgian model of integral end-of-life care. Journal of medical ethics, 43(8), 489-494. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2016-103511
Chandler, A. (2017). Explaining the relationship between socioeconomic disadvantage, self-harm and suicide: a qualitative synthesis of the accounts of those who have self-harmed. Socioeconomic Disadvantage and Suicidal Behaviour, 126.
Lavoie, M., Godin, G., Vézina-Im, L. A., Blondeau, D., Martineau, I., & Roy, L. (2016). Psychosocial determinants of nurses’ intention to practise euthanasia in palliative care. Nursing ethics, 23(1), 48-60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733014557117
Kaminska, N., & Nazarko, Y. (2017). Euthanasia and the human right to health protection. Науковий вісник Національної академії внутрішніх справ, 105(4), 28-39.
Keown, J. (2018). Euthanasia, ethics and public policy: an argument against legalisation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107337909
Van der Geest, S., & Satalkar, P. (2019). Autonomy and dying: Notes about decision-making and “completed life” euthanasia in the Netherlands. Death studies, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1671543
engender and perpetuate health inequalities.