Sample Solution
I recently conducted a pain assessment on my friend, Sarah. Her location of pain is in her lower back, specifically in the lumbar region. She reports that she has been experiencing this pain for about four days and describes it as a dull ache that gradually worsens throughout the day. Sarah rated her pain intensity as 5 out of 10 on the numeric rating scale, with 0 being no pain and 10 being worst imaginable. When asked about quality of the pain sensation, Sarah described it as “heavy” and stated the discomfort radiates down into her legs occasionally.
The chronology of her symptoms suggests that she initially began feeling mild discomfort around 4 days prior to our assessment but noted an increase in severity over time. She also reported exacerbation when sitting or standing for too long but some relief when lying down or taking ibuprofen regularly (400 mg 3x daily). Associated phenomena included fatigue and difficulty sleeping due to discomfort at night.
My nursing interventions focused primarily on non-pharmacological methods since Sarah was already taking ibuprofen regularly and did not want to take any stronger medications if possible. I suggested stretching exercises such as yoga or Pilates which can help improve posture while strengthening core muscles – both important components for improving lower back health(Farage et al., 2019). Additionally, applying heat with a heating pad may provide some temporary relief from soreness by increasing circulation to affected areas(Lipman et al., 2020).
In summary, Sarah is experiencing moderate lower back pain located in her lumbar region which has been present for approximately 4 days. Pain intensity is rated at 5 out of 10 on the numeric rating scale and is described as “heavy” with associated fatigue/difficulty sleeping at night due to discomfort while lying down. My recommended interventions included stretching exercises such as yoga or Pilates along with heat application through a heating pad.
ntentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by
