Case Study: Fetal Abnormality Jessica is a 30-year-old immigrant from Mexico City. She and her husband Marco have been in the United States for the last three years and have finally earned enough money to move out of their Aunt Maria’s home and into an apartment of their own. They are both hard workers. Jessica works 50 hours a week at a local restaurant and Marco has been contracting side jobs in construction. Six months before their move to an apartment, Jessica finds out she is pregnant. Four months later, Jessica and Marco arrive at the county hospital, a large, public, nonteaching hospital. A preliminary ultrasound indicates a possible abnormality with the fetus. Further scans are conducted, and it is determined that the fetus has a rare condition in which it has not developed any arms and will not likely develop them. There is also a 25% chance that the fetus may have Down syndrome. Dr. Wilson, the primary attending physician, is seeing Jessica for the first time, since she and Marco did not receive earlier prenatal care over concerns about finances. Marco insists that Dr. Wilson refrain from telling Jessica the scan results, assuring him that he will tell his wife himself when she is emotionally ready for the news. While Marco and Dr. Wilson are talking in another room, Aunt Maria walks into the room with a distressed look on her face. She can tell that something is wrong and inquires of Dr. Wilson. After hearing of the diagnosis, she walks out of the room wailing loudly and praying aloud. Marco and Dr. Wilson continue their discussion, and Dr. Wilson insists that he has an obligation to Jessica as his patient and that she has a right to know the diagnosis of the fetus. He furthermore is intent on discussing all relevant factors and options regarding the next step, including abortion. Marco insists on taking some time to think of how to break the news to Jessica, but Dr. Wilson, frustrated with the direction of the conversation, informs the husband that such a choice is not his to make. Dr. Wilson proceeds back across the hall, where he walks in on Aunt Maria awkwardly praying with Jessica and phoning the priest. At that point, Dr. Wilson gently but briefly informs Jessica of the diagnosis and lays out the option for abortion as a responsible medical alternative, given the quality of life such a child would have. Jessica looks at him and struggles to hold back her tears. Jessica is torn between her hopes of a better socioeconomic position and increased independence, along with her conviction that all life is sacred. Marco will support Jessica in whatever decision she makes but is finding it difficult not to view the pregnancy and the prospects of a disabled child as a burden and a barrier to their economic security and plans. Dr. Wilson lays out all of the options but clearly makes his view known that abortion is “scientifically” and medically a wise choice in this situation. Aunt Maria pleads with Jessica to follow through with the ...

1. Case Study: Fetal Abnormality
Jessica is a 30-year-old immigrant from Mexico City. She and
her husband Marco have been in the United States for the last
three years and have finally earned enough money to move out
of their Aunt Maria’s home and into an apartment of their own.
They are both hard workers. Jessica works 50 hours a week at a
local restaurant and Marco has been contracting side jobs in
construction. Six months before their move to an apartment,
Jessica finds out she is pregnant.
Four months later, Jessica and Marco arrive at the county
hospital, a large, public, nonteaching hospital. A preliminary
ultrasound indicates a possible abnormality with the fetus.
Further scans are conducted, and it is determined that the fetus
has a rare condition in which it has not developed any arms and
will not likely develop them. There is also a 25% chance that
the fetus may have Down syndrome.
Dr. Wilson, the primary attending physician, is seeing Jessica
for the first time, since she and Marco did not receive earlier
prenatal care over concerns about finances. Marco insists that
Dr. Wilson refrain from telling Jessica the scan results, assuring
him that he will tell his wife himself when she is emotionally
ready for the news. While Marco and Dr. Wilson are talking in
another room, Aunt Maria walks into the room with a distressed
look on her face. She can tell that something is wrong and
inquires of Dr. Wilson. After hearing of the diagnosis, she
walks out of the room wailing loudly and praying aloud.
Marco and Dr. Wilson continue their discussion, and Dr. Wilson
insists that he has an obligation to Jessica as his patient and that
she has a right to know the diagnosis of the fetus. He
furthermore is intent on discussing all relevant factors and
options regarding the next step, including abortion. Marco
insists on taking some time to think of how to break the news to
Jessica, but Dr. Wilson, frustrated with the direction of the
conversation, informs the husband that such a choice is not his

2. to make. Dr. Wilson proceeds back across the hall, where he
walks in on Aunt Maria awkwardly praying with Jessica and
phoning the priest. At that point, Dr. Wilson gently but briefly
informs Jessica of the diagnosis and lays out the option for
abortion as a responsible medical alternative, given the quality
of life such a child would have. Jessica looks at him and
struggles to hold back her tears.
Jessica is torn between her hopes of a better socioeconomic
position and increased independence, along with her conviction
that all life is sacred. Marco will support Jessica in whatever
decision she makes but is finding it difficult not to view the
pregnancy and the prospects of a disabled child as a burden and
a barrier to their economic security and plans. Dr. Wilson lays
out all of the options but clearly makes his view known that
abortion is “scientifically” and medically a wise choice in this
situation. Aunt Maria pleads with Jessica to follow through with
the pregnancy and allow what “God intends” to take place and
urges Jessica to think of her responsibility as a mother
Some references:
Human Dignity: A First Principle "Human Dignity: A First
Principle," by Mitchell, from Ethics & Medicine
(2014).https://search-proquest-
com.lopes.idm.oclc.org/docview/1610748447/fulltextPDF/FC4B
7FE8C99D4F60PQ/3?accountid=7374
Practicing Dignity: An Introduction to Christian Values and
Decision Making in Health Care (1st Edition)
https://lc.gcumedia.com/phi413v/practicing-dignity-an-
introduction-to-christian-values-and-decision-making-in-health-
care/v1.1/#/chapter/2
Article for qsn 1
Establishing a Security Culture
The predominant exposure to a cyber attack often comes from
care- less behaviors of the organization’s employees. The first
step to avoid poor employee cyber behaviors is to have regular
communication with staff and establish a set of best practices

3. that will clearly protect the business. However, mandating
conformance is difficult and research has consistently supported
that evolutionary culture change is best accomplished through
relationship building, leadership by influence (as opposed to
power-centralized management), and ultimately, a presence at
most staff meetings. Individual leadership remains the most
important variable when transforming the behaviors and prac-
tices of any organization.
Understanding What It Means to Be Compromised
Every organization should have a plan of what to do when
security is breached. The first step in the plan is to develop a
“risk” culture. What this simply means is that an organization
cannot maximize protection of all parts of its systems equally.
Therefore, some parts of a company’s system might be more
protected against cyber attacks than others. For example,
organizations should maximize the protection of key company
scientific and technical data first. Control of network access
will likely vary depending on the type of exposure that might
result from a breach. Another approach is to develop consistent
best practices among all contractors and suppliers and to track
the move- ment of these third parties (e.g., if they are
merged/sold, disrupted in service, or even breached indirectly).
Finally, technology execu- tives should pay close attention to
Cloud computing alternatives and develop ongoing reviews of
possible threat exposures in these third- party service
architectures.
Cyber Security Dynamism and Responsive Organizational
Dynamism
The new events and interactions brought about by cyber security
threats can be related to the symptoms of the dynamism that has
been the basis of ROD discussed earlier in this book. Here,
however, the digital world manifests itself in a similar
dynamism that I will call cyber dynamism.
Managing cyber dynamism, therefore, is a way of managing the
negative effects of a particular technology threat. As in ROD,
cyber strategic integration and cyber cultural assimilation

4. remain as distinct categories, that present themselves in
response to cyber dynamism. Figure 9.2 shows the components
of cyber ROD.
Article for Qsn-2
The IT Leader in the Digital Transformation Era
When we discuss the digital world and its multitude of effects
on how business is conducted, one must ask how this impacts
the profession of IT Leader. This section attempts to address the
perceived evolution of the role.
1. The IT leader must become more innovative. While the
business has the problem of keeping up with changes in their
markets, IT needs to provide more solutions. Many of these
solutions will not be absolute and likely will have short shelf
lives. Risk is fundamental. As a result, IT lead- ers must truly
become “business” leaders by exploring new ideas from the
outside and continually considering how to implement the needs
of the company’s consumers. As a result, the business analyst
will emerge as an idea bro- ker (Robertson & Robertson, 2012)
by constantly pursuing external ideas and transforming them
into automated and competitive solutions. These ideas will have
a failure rate, which means that companies will need to produce
more applications than they will inevitably implement. This will
certainly require organizations to spend more on software
development.
2. Quality requirements will be even more complex. In order to
keep in equilibrium with the S-curve the balance between
quality and production will be a constant negotiation. Because
applications will have shorter life cycles and there is pressure to
provide competitive solutions, products will need to sense
market needs and respond to them quicker. As a result, fixes
and enhancements to applications will become more inherent in
the development cycle after products go live in the market.
Thus, the object paradigm will become even more fundamental
to better software development because it provides more readily

5. tested reusable applications and routines.
3. Dynamic interaction among users and business teams will
require the creation of multiple layers of communities of prac-
tice. Organizations involved in this dynamic process must have
autonomy and purpose (Narayan, 2015).
4. Application analysis, design, and development must be
treated and managed as a living process; that is, it never ends
until the product is obsolete (supporter end). So, products must
con- tinually develop to maturity.
5. Organizations should never outsource a driver technology
until it reaches supporter status.