For my Capstone project, I will be using Jean Watson’s Caring Theory. This theory is applicable to healthcare contexts and emphasizes the importance of providing compassionate, patient-centered care that takes into consideration the physical, psychological, social, spiritual and cultural needs of the individual (Watson, 2008). It also focuses on promoting health and healing through meaningful nurse-patient interactions which are guided by ten carative factors: formation of a therapeutic environment; facilitation of trust; assistance with gratification of human needs; promotion of transpersonal teaching learning; development of interpersonal relationships; use or celebration for life values ceremonies; use for artistry/aesthetics in nursing practice; promotion/acceptance of death-rebirth dynamic process where appropriate in text citation.
I believe this theoretical framework is very relevant to my research as it addresses many aspects involved in giving quality cancer care. The focus on developing connections between nurses and their patients allows nurses to better understand their patients’ perspectives and experiences while also providing an opportunity for them to meet the physical, emotional and spiritual needs they may have (Watson et al., 2016). Furthermore, Watson’s emphasis on being mindful during nurse-patient interactions supports evidence suggesting that such practices can lead to improved communication within healthcare teams which ultimately enhances patient safety (Morton et al., 2017). By incorporating this philosophical perspective into my study I hope to gain a deeper understanding regarding how nurses can improve cancer care delivery through fostering meaningful connections with their patients.
In conclusion, Jean Watson’s Caring Theory provides a valuable framework from which to base my research. By exploring how nurses can incorporate the principles outlined in her theory throughout their clinical practice I am confident that I will be able to gain further insight into how best quality cancer care can be provided.
detainees of war, they should do it for the right goal and for a noble motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legitimate to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury incurred by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is much more upright than Vittola’s view yet infers similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed just for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another in light of the fact that they have been a soldier. They should be treated as compassionately as could be expected. Nonetheless, the circumstance is heightened on the off chance that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, everything being equal. Generally, jus in bello proposes in wars, mischief must be utilized against soldiers, never against the blameless. However, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the district. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the protection of his country’ is the thing countries ought to be battling for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Subsequently, albeit the present world has created, we can see not entirely different from the pioneer accounts on fighting and the traditionists, giving one more part of the hypothesis of the simply war. By and by, we can in any case presume that there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war hypothesis in light of its normativity.
Jus post bellum
At last, jus post bellum recommends that the moves we ought to make after a conflict (Frowe (2010), Page 208). Right off the bat, Vittola contends after a conflict, it is the obligation of the pioneer to judge how to manage the foe (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332).. Once more, proportionality is underscored. For instance, the Versailles deal forced after WWI is tentatively excessively unforgiving, as it was not all Germany’s problem for the conflict. This is upheld by Frowe, who communicates two perspectives in jus post bellum: Moderation and Maximalism, which are very varying perspectives. Minimalists recommend a more merciful methodology while maximalist, supporting the above model, gives a crueler methodology, rebuffing the foe both financially and strategically (Frowe (2010), Page 208). At the last occasion, nonetheless, the point of war is to lay out harmony security, so whatever should be done can be ethically legitimate, assuming it observes the guidelines of jus promotion bellum. All in all, simply war hypothesis is truly contestable and can contend in various ways. Notwithstanding, the foundation of an equitable harmony is vital, making all war type circumstance to have various approaches to drawing closer (Frowe (2010), Page 227). By and by, the simply war hypothesis contains jus promotion bellum, jus in bello and jus post bellum, and it very well may be either ethically disputable or legitimate contingent upon the proportionality of the situation. Subsequently, there can’t be one conclusive hypothesis of the simply war yet just a hypothetical manual for show how wars ought to be battled, showing normativity in its record, which responds to the inquiry to what a conflict hypothesis is.
