| Course | HCR 210 Ethics for the Health Care Professional |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 2 |
| Paper type | Ethics case analysis |
| Length | About 537 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Care Coordination |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HCR 210 Module 2
Discharged to a Car: Applying Ethical Principles and Theories to a Case Shaped by Housing Insecurity
Student Name
BS in Health Care Coordination, Arizona State University
HCR 210: Ethics for the Health Care Professional
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Discharged to a Car: Applying Ethical Principles and Theories to a Case Shaped by Housing Insecurity
The Case
Mr. R., a 58-year-old former warehouse worker, is admitted for the third time in four months with heart failure. Since losing his job, he has been living in his car. He cannot refrigerate food, eats mainly fast food high in salt and sometimes skips his diuretic because he has nowhere to use a bathroom during the day. He is medically ready for discharge and wants to leave today. The team worries that he will be back within weeks.
Facts and Perspectives
The clinical facts are clear: his condition improves in the hospital and worsens outside it. The social facts explain why. Among low-income adults, housing instability is linked with postponing medical care and medications and with more emergency visits and hospital stays, and food insecurity carries similar risks (Kushel et al., 2006). Mr. R.'s perspective matters too. He feels judged, wants his independence and fears losing his car, the only space he controls. The nurses feel frustrated by repeated admissions; the case manager feels limited by the shortage of local housing.
Applying the Principles
Autonomy. Mr. R. has decision-making capacity and the right to leave. Respecting autonomy means not holding him longer than medically justified and involving him in planning rather than deciding for him (Varkey, 2021).
Beneficence. Acting in his interest means more than discharge paperwork; it means addressing the conditions that make treatment fail, such as access to low-salt food and a place to take medications safely.
Nonmaleficence. A discharge plan that assumes stable housing could harm him by setting him up to fail. So could a lecture that drives him away from care.
Justice. His repeated admissions are not simply the result of poor choices. They follow from unequal access to housing and food, which are distributed unfairly across society (Marmot, 2005). Justice asks the team to treat those conditions as part of the clinical problem.
Applying Two Theories
A utilitarian view weighs consequences for everyone affected. It would support investing in a housing referral and transport, since preventing readmissions benefits Mr. R. and frees hospital beds for others. A duty-based, or deontological, view focuses on obligations regardless of outcome: the team has a duty to tell him the truth about his risks, to respect his choices and to treat him with the same dignity as a housed patient. Here the two theories point in the same direction, toward a plan built with him rather than imposed on him.
A Reasoned Plan
| Need | Action |
|---|---|
| Shelter and safety | Same-day referral to a medical respite program or shelter bed; social work follow-up |
| Medications | Adjust diuretic timing to fit his day; provide a pill organizer and a 30-day supply |
| Food | Connect him to a food bank with low-sodium options and to benefits enrollment |
| Follow-up | Clinic visit within seven days, with transport assistance and his phone number confirmed |
| His voice | Ask what he is willing to try, and document his choices |
Reflection
Before analyzing this case, I would have seen Mr. R. as noncompliant. Working through the principles showed me that his choices make sense given his circumstances and that ethical care means changing the plan, not blaming the patient.
References
Kushel, M. B., Gupta, R., Gee, L., & Haas, J. S. (2006). Housing instability and food insecurity as barriers to health care among low-income Americans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(1), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00278.x
Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities. The Lancet, 365(9464), 1099-1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71146-6
Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of clinical ethics and their application to practice. Medical Principles and Practice, 30(1), 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1159/000509119
What the HCR 210 Module 2 instructions ask for
Understanding Personal Perspectives is a two-part assignment worth 20 points, 10 for each part. Part 1 uses video analysis and reflection on listening and perspective-awareness; Part 2, sampled here, asks students to apply ethical principles and theories to a realistic health care case involving inequality and the social determinants of health. The syllabus says the two parts together emphasize how awareness of perspective supports patient-centered and ethically responsible care, so carry the perspective-taking from Part 1 into your case. The case itself may be supplied in Canvas; if you are allowed to choose, pick one in which a social condition, not just a clinical one, drives the problem. Follow APA format throughout.
How the HCR 210 Module 2 example is put together
The sample opens with a short case summary and then separates facts from perspectives, giving the patient's, the nurses' and the case manager's views. Each of the four principles is applied in its own paragraph, with justice tied explicitly to inequality. Two theories, utilitarian and deontological, are compared, and the paper notes where they agree. A table turns the analysis into a plan, each action matched to a need, and a brief reflection shows how the writer's view of the patient changed. Three peer-reviewed sources support the analysis of principles and social determinants. The plan table is short, which leaves room for the reasoning that earns most of the credit.
Reading the HCR 210 Module 2 grading rubric
Part 2 earns up to 10 points on its Canvas rubric. Case analyses are generally credited for accurate facts, attention to more than one perspective, correct application of each principle to the case rather than definitions alone, meaningful use of at least one ethical theory, a clear link between the social determinants and the ethical issue and a practical plan that follows from the analysis. Analyses lose credit when the patient is blamed without examining circumstances, when theories are named but not applied and when the plan ignores the patient's own choices. Instructors also look for a plan whose actions trace back to the needs and principles named earlier, so that the analysis and the recommendation clearly belong together.
HCR 210 Module 2 help from the desk
Write the facts of the case before you analyze it, and separate clinical facts from social ones. For each principle, finish the sentence "in this case, that means..." Pick theories you can explain in a sentence. Make sure the plan respects the patient's autonomy as well as addressing risk. Keep the reflection honest and short. If your case is supplied in Canvas and you are unsure which determinants apply, the desk can help you identify them. When the case is supplied, resist adding facts it does not contain; where you must assume something, say so. Use the Part 1 skills on listening by giving the patient's own words or concerns a place in the analysis, even if paraphrased from the case.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HCR 210 and BS in Health Care Coordination sample papers
- HCR 210 Module 1: Values and Ethical Thinking in Healthcare
- HCR 321 Module 3: Module 3 Evolving Case, Part 1
- HCR 220 Module 3: Healthcare Technology Infographic
- HCR 230 Module 1: Health Equity Campaign, Section 1: Population and Problem
- HCR 422 Module 2: Affordable Care Act Paper
HCR 210 Module 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HCR 210 Module 2 sample paper?
The full HCR 210 Module 2 sample is above: an ethics case analysis of a heart failure patient living in his car.
What are social determinants of health?
Everyday circumstances outside the clinic, like housing, food, income and transport, that shape health and access to care.
How do utilitarian and deontological ethics differ?
Utilitarian ethics judges actions by their consequences for everyone affected; deontological ethics judges them by duties and rules regardless of outcome.
How much is HCR 210 Understanding Personal Perspectives worth?
20 points in total, 10 for each part.
Does housing instability affect health care use?
Yes. In a national survey, low-income adults with unstable housing were more likely to postpone care and medications and to use emergency departments.