GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9 GEIT 3341 Database I

GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9
GEIT 3341 Database I
Lab 9
Database Design using ERDPlus II
Due Date:
Objective(s) Target CLO(s) Reference
To practice Entity Relationship (ER) 1 Instructor Demo
modeling of Chapter 12 by using a
Chapter 12
tool called ERDPlus to

1) Graphically create E-R diagrams
based on business rules.
AND
2) Generate the database by
automatically generating
complete DDL scripts.
ID
Name
Section

Instructions:
Use the ERDPlus tool to create an ER for a car dealership. The
dealership
sells both new and used cars. Base your design on the following
business
rules:
– A salesperson is identified by a salesperson 9 alphanumeric
character id and has a
first and last name.
– A salesperson may sell many cars, but each car is sold by
only one salesperson.
– A car is identified by a 5 alphanumeric character id and has a
17 alphanumeric
character serial number, make, model, color, and year.
– A customer is identified by a 5 alphanumeric character id, and
has first and last
name, phone number, address, and a 6 alphanumeric character

postal code.
– A customer may buy many cars, but each car is bought by
only one customer.
– A salesperson writes a single invoice for each car he or she
sells.
– A customer gets an invoice for each car he or she buys.
– An invoice is identified by an invoice 5 alphanumeric
character id, invoice date
and an invoice total.
– A customer may come in just to have his or her car serviced;
that is, a
customer need not buy a car to be classified as a customer.
– When a customer takes one or more cars in for repair or
service, one service
ticket is written for each car.
– A service ticket is identified by a 5 alphanumeric character id,
date
received, comments, and date returned back to customer.
– The car dealership maintains a service history for each of the
cars serviced. The

service records are referenced by the car’s serial number.
– A car brought in for service can be worked on by many
mechanics, and each
mechanic may work on many cars.
– A mechanic is identified by a 5 alphanumeric character id,
and has a first and last
name.
– A car that is serviced may or may not need parts (e.g.,
adjusting a carburetor
or cleaning a fuel injector nozzle does not require providing
new parts).
– A part is identified by a 5 alphanumeric character id, and has
a name and price.
Your diagram should look like the one shown in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1: ER Diagram
What you need to hand in:
1. Using the Export Image… option of MENU (see Figure 2),
generate an image for the
diagram (which will be in a PNG format) and hand in this
image. (8 points)
2. Using the Generate SQL option (see Figure 3), generate the
DDL, click on the Copy
button, copy this script into a Notepad/Word file and hand in
this file. (2 points)
Figure 2: Export Image Option

Figure 3: Generate SQL Option

LSHSS
Clinical Forum
Ethical Issues in Providing Services in
Schools to Children With Swallowing
and Feeding Disorders
Nancy P. Huffman
Churchville, NY
DeAnne W. Owre
Woonsocket School System, Woonsocket, RI
I ndividuals across the life span with swallowingand feeding
disorders (dysphagia) receive treatmentand management
services from speech-language
pathologists (SLPs). The 1999 American Speech-Language-
Hearing
Association (ASHA) Omnibus Survey reported that more than
50%
of SLPs were involved in the clinical management of dysphagia
(ASHA, 1999). Persons with dysphagia receive treatment in a
variety of settings. Treatment occurs at home via home health
care,
at early intervention program sites, hospitals, residential
facilities,
nursing homes, daycare centers and nursery schools, facilities
and

worksites for individuals with developmental disabilities,
rehabil-
itation facilities, clinics, agencies, and private practices. As
part
of their workload, SLPs in school-based settings routinely
provide
services to students who were born prematurely or who have
neurologic conditions, craniofacial anomalies, complex medical
conditions, head injury, or other serious chronic illnesses and
in-
juries. Many of these students1 require dysphagia treatment and
management. On the 2006 ASHA Schools Survey (ASHA,
2006a),
10% of respondents reported that they regularly serve students
with dysphagia and that the average number served in the
caseload
was four students.
Regarding schools in relation to other, primarily medical,
settings, Logemann and O’Toole (2000) observed,
Differences between professionals working in each setting are
decreasing
for two reasons. First, more sick children are expected by their
third-party
payers to receive their dysphagia management in the schools
and,
second, schools are billing third parties for the kinds of speech
and
swallowing treatment being provided in the educational setting.
Although, obviously, there are continuing differences between
the
various work settings, in the area of dysphagia, many
commonalities
exist between the medical and school settings. (p. 79)

This article will review and explore ethical issues in dysphagia
treatment that confront the SLP, including practice and ethical
considerations in the context of the school setting.
ABSTRACT: Purpose: This article is a commentary and
discussion
of ethical issues in dysphagia services as related to school-
based
practice in speech-language pathology.
Method: A review of the literature on ethical issues in the
provision of speech-language pathology services to individuals
with dysphagia was conducted, with particular emphasis on
students receiving school-based services.
Results: Issues in dysphagia management that were identified
in the literature review are discussed from the perspective of
biomedical ethics, professional ethics, and professional practice
issues pertinent to the school setting.
Conclusion: Considerations, suggestions, and resources for
ethically responsive action on the part of the school -based
speech-language pathologist are provided.
KEY WORDS: ethics, dysphagia, schools, competence
1Given the focus of this article on school-based practice, the
term “student” is used
when referring to infants, toddlers, children, and youth
receiving services via
school-based programs.
LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN
SCHOOLS • Vol. 39 • 167–176 • April 2008 * American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association
0161-1461/08/3902-0167

167
ETHICS AND DYSPHAGIA: LITERATURE REVIEW
AND DISCUSSION
Basic Concepts: Biomedical and Professional Ethics
An understanding of basic ethical concepts of self-
determination,
beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice (Beauchamp &
Childress,
2001; Horner, 2003; Strand, 1995) is necessary for the provision
of ethically responsible service to all persons who are served by
SLPs. Self-determination or autonomy refers to the
professional’s
responsibility to respect the right of the individual to make care
decisions for him- or herself. Beneficence refers to the profes-
sional’s responsibility to act for the benefit or good of the
client.
Nonmaleficence refers to the professional’s responsibili ty to
avoid
unnecessary harm to the client. Justice refers to the
professional’s
responsibility to act fairly, to distribute resources fairly, and to
see that the client receives the service that he or she deserves.
Horner provided a tutorial on values, morality, philosophy,
ethics,
and law and their relationship to one another in guiding courses
of action relative to these concepts. Consequently, in the
provision
of care to persons with dysphagia, SLPs must strive to (a)
respect
the wishes of their clients or their surrogate decision makers
(e.g.,

desire for oral feeding/desire for tube feeding); (b) do good or
do
the “right thing” (e.g., provide for appropriate intake of
nutrition);
(c) prevent harm (e.g., reduce negative, even life-threatening,
consequences associated with eating/feeding); and (d) do this by
fairly allocating resources, both human and financial.
Much of the speech-language pathology literature on ethical
decision making in dysphagia explores in depth the concepts of
self-
determination, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice in vari-
ous situations (Flather-Morgan, 1994; Goldsmith, 1999; Groher,
1990, 1994; Landes, 1999; Lazarus, 1996; Lefton-Greif, 2001;
Lefton-Greif & Arvedson, 1997; Pittenger, 1997; Rubin,
Wilson,
Fischer, & Vaughn, 1992; Segal & Smith, 1995; Serradura-
Russell,
1992; Sharp & Genesen, 1996; Shelley, 1995; Strand, 1995,
2003).
In providing dysphagia services, SLPs must deal with medical
realities, the client’s personal preferences, and considerations
for
quality of life. This must all be done within a larger context of
considerations including family preferences, care team
preferences,
caregiver preferences, legal/regulatory rules, costs, and
adherence
to professional ethical obligations. Decision-making models for
dysphagia services (as well as other life-impacting medically
com-
plex conditions) attempt to balance the basic tenets of
autonomy,
beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice given the client’s cir -
cumstance (Beauchamp & Childress; 2001; Flather-Morgan,
1994;

Lefton-Greif, 2001; Lefton-Greif & Arvedson, 1997; Sharp &
Genesen, 1996; Strand, 1995, 2003).
Professional ethics are promulgated in codes of ethics such as
the Code of Ethics of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association (ASHA, 2003a). Professional codes involve rules or
standards that have been agreed on by the members of the or-
ganization or profession and that govern the conduct and
activities
of its members.
The ASHA Code of Ethics (ASHA, 2003a) consists of four
principles of ethics that constitute the moral basis for the code.
These four principles deal with responsibilities to persons
served
professionally, responsibility for one’s professional
competence,
responsibility to the public, and responsibilities involving inter -
and
intraprofessional relationships. Each principle has its associated
rules of ethics that further elaborate on acceptable or
unacceptable
conduct.
Professional ethics and biomedical ethics are indeed
intertwined.
As students with medically compromising issues (such as
dysphagia)
continue to enter school caseloads, SLPs in schools will find
themselves involved in discussions not only within the
framework
of professional ethics but also, and to a greater extent than pre -
viously, within the framework of biomedical ethics. That is,
bal-
ancing doing what is of benefit to the student (beneficence)

with
doing no harm (nonmaleficence); considering the wishes of a
parent
or a surrogate acting on behalf of the student who legally,
and/or
because of age, or because of the degree of disability, is unable
to
express wishes or participate in decisions (client autonomy in
self-
determination); or determining type, intensity, and frequency of
services given the school district’s resources (justice).
Arvedson (2000), Brady (1998a), Lefton-Greif and Arvedson
(1997), and Lefton-Greif (2001) focused on pediatric
populations.
Informed decision making brings its own set of issues in
pediatric
populations where parents act on behalf of their child. For
exam-
ple, questions may arise as to whether in acting “on behalf of
their
child” a parent is acting “in the child’s best interest.” Treatment
planning also brings its own set of considerations. For example,
in the pediatric population, children are developing and
changing.
Their medical and communicative status must be monitored as a
function of growth and development or lack thereof. As children
change or present with additional challenges, modifications in
treatment may need to occur or new technology may need to be
introduced. Issues between caregivers and care providers on
how
to proceed may arise and need to be resolved. Service delivery
in
natural environments (home, daycare centers, preschools,
schools)
has its set of considerations. For example, issues may have to be

resolved regarding safety, availability of emergency help,
transition
from one setting to another, or consistency of techniques
between
settings (e.g., home and school) and caregivers.
Riquelme (2004) explored dysphagia services with regard to
the SLP’s cultural competence. He wrote that decisions are in-
fluenced by client/family dietary rules and conventions,
concepts
of wellness, concepts of time, feelings about types of medical
intervention, access to medical care, family rules for decision
making, beliefs about medicine, and the primary treatment pro-
vider used by the family. All have potential issues of ethical
significance in dysphagia treatment. Sensitivity and respect for
what the client brings to the situation is critical. ASHA’s Issues
in Ethics statement—Cultural Competence (ASHA, 2005a)—
provides an expanded discussion of cultural competence, ethics,
and the need for the practitioner to recognize one’s own cultural
and
life experience as well as that of the client in planning and
delivering ethically responsible services.
Case Scenarios
Ethical issues, dilemmas, and debates usually arise because of
circumstances and relationships surrounding the people
involved,
such as issues of attitude, competence, education, and
expectations.
Ethical issues also arise out of circumstances involving
workplace
systems, workplace operating procedures, legal mandates,
regulatory
requirements, reimbursement streams, employer expectations,
and

site-specific planning and preparedness or lack thereof. When
considering ethical issues in providing services to individuals
with
dysphagia, instructive guidance comes through the presentation
of
168 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN
SCHOOLS • Vol. 39 • 167–176 • April 2008
case studies. By reviewing and analyzing case scenarios, it
becomes
clear that there may not be a “single” or “right” or “wrong”
answer to
the ethical questions posed; rather, there may be several
ethically
responsive alternatives to handling a situation. As Groher
stated,
“each individual presents with a unique set of medical
circumstances
and a unique set of beliefs as they relate to their medical care”
(1994,
p. 11). Groher continued by pointing out that the complexity of
interactions between the persons involved (i.e., client,
physician,
parent, family members, professionals, other team members)
rarely
results in the same decision when identical dysphagia scenarios
are
presented (1994). Several case studies are available (Brady,
1996a,
1996b, 1997a, 1997b, 1998b, 1999, 2000, 2001; Goldsmith,
1999;
Lefton-Greif, 2001; Lefton-Greif & Arvedson, 1997; Pittenger,
1997; Sharp & Genesen, 1996; Strand, 1995). Table 1 depicts a

representative example of topics of ethical interest in dysphagia
that
are covered in these case scenarios.
One case study (Brady, 2001) will be elaborated on primarily
because it takes place in a school setting. It is demonstrative of
the dynamic between parent, teacher, SLP, and physician. This
sce-
nario is illustrative of ethical issues related to autonomy, in
terms
of respecting the wishes of the child’s parent/decision maker;
beneficence, in terms of the SLP’s need to promote what is
believed
to be good for the child; and nonmaleficence, in terms of the
SLP’s
concern that oral feeding may cause harm. In Brady’s opinion,
the
scenario represents “one of the most challenging ethical
dilemmas
speech-language pathologists face—when the expressed
preference
of a parent for their child is in direct opposition to what is (at
least
initially) seen to be the most ‘beneficent’ plan of care” (p. 20).
To summarize, a parent obtained a prescription from the phy-
sician ordering oral feeding for her daughter who was receiving
tube-fed nutrition, hydration, and medications. The prescription
was
sent to the child’s teacher, who showed it to the SLP. It was the
opinion of the SLP that it would be against professional
standard
to allow the child to eat orally. Further, the SLP questioned
what
she perceived to be the mother’s and physician’s limited under -

standing of what was in the child’s best interest. Brady makes a
number of key points. First, this scenario (parent–SLP–school–
physician disagreement) is not an unfamiliar experience for
school-
based SLPs. Rather, what may be unfamiliar is the urgency and
nature of concern for potentially medically compromising, l ife-
threatening outcomes. Second, a typical approach to ethical
questions is to seek an answer that promotes a single course of
action that is the “right” way to go. Brady points out that in the
framework of clinical ethics, the emphasis is on “developing
practical solutions that comprise a range of options” (p. 18)
given
each individual case and its facts and context. In this scenario,
Brady suggests that the first line of consideration be
recognizing
that the “team” extends beyond the school walls and that the
team
must be operating with the same set of facts. Thus, all
interested
parties need to be identified, involved, and communicating reg-
ularly. Third, Brady reminds the reader that adults who have
identified a proxy have likely had discussions with that proxy
whereby instruction has been given about wishes. Children, on
the other hand, may not have the capability to express wishes or
make self-determining decisions. Thus, when dealing with the
parent/proxy decision maker as in this scenario, it is helpful for
the team to identify and discuss together the concerns that
might
have motivated the request for oral feeding. Presumably,
parents
act in the child’s best interest. Consider that in this scenario,
the
parent has not requested that the feeding tube be removed. The
parent is not ignoring the child’s needs. Rather, the request may
be
coming from a quality-of-life perspective viewing feeding as a

social activity integral to the parent–child relationship.
Where issues of disagreement, safety, doing harm versus doing
good, and urgency exist, as in this case, team leadership, com-
munication, negotiation, and consideration of an array of
possible
alternatives are key. An ethically responsive plan that emerged
in
this instance was a carefully considered and monitored time-
limited
Table 1. Topics of ethical interest in dysphagia from case
studies.
Topic Citation(s) of case scenario(s)
Removal of feeding tube; demand of family for oral feeding
Brady (2000, 2001), Lefton-Greif (2001)
Introduction of feeding tube Brady (1996a), Lefton-Greif &
Arvedson, (1997, Case 2),
Sharp & Genesen (1996, Cases 1, 2, 3), Strand (1995, Cases 3,
4, 5)
Family insisting on intense therapy (frequency and duration)
from
SLP; family insisting for more care than would have been
recommended
Brady (2000)
Team member disagreement/conflict; SLP disagreeing
with colleagues; conflict in opinion and professional judgment
Brady (1998a, 1999, 2001), Lefton-Greif & Arvedson (1997,
Case 1)

Disagreement between team and client/family Brady (2001),
Pittenger (1997)
& refusal of team recommendations
& unilateral decision of team parent and physician
Sensitivity to cultural factors Lefton-Greif & Arvedson (1997,
Case 2)
Patient preference; decision-making capacity; surrogate
decision maker Brady (1996a, 1996b, 1999, 2001), Goldsmith
(1999),
Sharp & Genesen (1996, Cases 1, 2, 3), Strand (1995, Cases 1,
4, 5)
Informed consent Brady (1996a, 1996b)
Caregiver not able to carry through with recommendations and
strategies Brady (1997a)
Oral diet under certain conditions Brady (1997b, 1998a)
Staff members handling meal supervision Brady (1997b, 1998a)
Paternalism and patient family interest Brady (2000)
Clinician values in conflict with parent choices Brady (1998b)
Quality-of-life concerns Sharp & Genesen (1996, Case 2)
Huffman & Owre: Ethical Issues in Providing Services in
Schools 169
trial with defined and detailed conditions, roles, and
observations.
Following the time-limited trial, a jointly developed plan of ac-
tion emerged.
The ethical issues raised in this and the other scenarios listed
in Table 1 are particularly instructive to school-based SLPs be-
cause the ethical questions and dilemmas raised transcend a

variety
of worksites, including a skilled nursing facility, a
rehabilitation
hospital, a public school, and a private residential school. The
issues
around team conflict, caregivers’ management of clients, parent/
surrogate decision makers, special diets, defined conditions for
certain eating activities, family demands for treatment beyond
what
would have been recommended, and educating less informed
col-
leagues are quite within the realm of experience of school -based
SLPs.
In discussions of basic concepts in ethics and through pre-
sentations of case studies, authors identify key questions to ask
and propose models to use in order to make decisions that are
ethically responsible for dysphagia services. Consistent across
all
decision-making frameworks is the importance of (a) gathering
the
facts, (b) carefully outlining the ethical concerns, (c) listing the
alternatives and the pros and cons of potential outcomes for
each
alternative, (d) arriving at an ethically responsible course(s) of
action acknowledging that there may be no single answer, and
(e) reflection and analysis (Goldsmith, 1999; Landes, 1999;
Lefton-
Greif, 2001; Lefton-Greif & Arvedson, 1997; Pittenger, 1997;
Rubin et al., 1992; Segal & Smith, 1995; Serradura-Russell,
1992; Sharp & Genesen, 1996; Strand, 1995).
From a professional ethics point of view, Huffman (2001) and
Chabon and Morris (2004) offered strategies for analyzing
ethical
problems that can be applied to issues surrounding dysphagia.

In
an ASHA publication, Ethics and IDEA (2003b), ethical
decision-
making strategies are presented through the study of vignettes
drawn from issues related to the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA, 1990). The focus is on ethically
responsive
conduct in the context of regulatory rules, including team
function-
ing, outside referral, and employer demands.
Ethics and School-Based Dysphagia Services
The importance of the educational preparation and competency
of the school-based SLP in the area of dysphagia is emphasized
by Power-deFur (2000). In reviewing state requirements for
certification/licensure in speech-language pathology, Power-
deFur
found mention of competency in dysphagia to be “rare” (p. 77).
One exception was the state of Virginia, where candidates for
education (i.e., teacher certification) licensure were expected to
demonstrate “understanding of the knowledge, skills and pro-
cesses of the evaluation and treatment of disorders of the oral
and pharyngeal mechanisms as they relate to communication,
including but not limited to dysphagia” (p. 77).
Power-deFur (2000) directs attention to the ASHA Code of
Ethics and the ASHA-certified SLP’s affirmative obligation to
“engage in only those aspects of the professions that are within
the scope of their competence, considering their level of
education,
training and experience” and “to continue their professional
devel-
opment throughout their careers” (ASHA, 2003b, p. 14). In the
area
of dysphagia, continuing education goes beyond self-study and

should include observation of experienced clinicians and
opportuni-
ties for supervised clinical experiences. In discussing the need
for
school-based SLPs to pursue continuing education to develop
and
maintain expertise in dysphagia, Power-deFur makes a potent
point:
Failing to attain this competency [in dysphagia] results in three
outcomes:
(a) failure to provide dysphagia services to the student by any
school
personnel, (b) provision of dysphagia services to the student by
other
health-related school personnel who may not have the
knowledge and
skills to assess or treat dysphagia (e.g. the occupational
therapist, the
school nurse) or school personnel with limited awareness or
knowledge
of dysphagia (e.g. the teacher, school paraprofessionals), or (c)
provision
of services by a speech-language pathologist who is
inadequately
prepared. (p. 78)
Power-deFur suggests that each school district have at least one
SLP
who has received the necessary continuing education to provide
appropriate services to students with swallowing and feeding
disorders.
O’Toole’s discussion (2000), although more focused on han-
dling dysphagia services from a regulatory process point of
view

under IDEA, does touch on ethical, liability, and risk
management
considerations as they relate to practice under IDEA. He
primarily
addresses the need for practitioners to obtain education and
train-
ing beyond that necessary for ASHA clinical certification
standards
that were in effect at that time.2
Owre (2001) cited concerns related to the education and clinical
training of SLPs; the range of dysphagia expertise found in
school
systems; the appropriateness of various service delivery models;
attitudes among SLPs as to whether or not dysphagia
intervention
belongs in the school setting; employer demands to become
familiar
with dysphagia intervention as part of third-party
reimbursement
programs; and the lack of understanding among school district
administrators, parents, and school staff regarding the role of
the
SLP in managing swallowing and feeding disorders.
Arvedson and Homer (2006) emphasized the need for a school -
based dysphagia team, suggesting that “no one discipline can,
nor should, manage children with issues surrounding their
feeding
and swallowing” (p. 8). It is critical that school-based teams
and
medically based teams communicate regularly so that “all
health,
developmental, and feeding issues are handled in ways that
max-
imize each student’s safety for oral [or tube] feeding and to

facilitate
the ability to participate fully in the academic process” (p. 8).
Owre (2006a, 2006b) reported on the results of an informal
questionnaire for school-based SLPs providing dysphagia
services.
The questionnaire was developed by a committee established in
2005 to coordinate the efforts of ASHA Special Interest Divi -
sions 13 (Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders) and 16
(School-
Based Issues) on dysphagia management in school settings. It
was disseminated to 7,781 affiliates of the two divisions via
their
respective newsletters, Perspectives. There were 187
respondents.
Owre (2006a, p. 16) summarized,
Concern about liability issues was prominent in the concerns of
SLPs, as
was lack of experience/expertise and proving “educational
relevance”.
Probably the strongest reaction from respondents was the
expressed need
for more courses and training in dysphagia management in
colleges/
universities. Additional needs included development of an
ASHA
position statement and guidelines for dysphagia management in
schools,
the development of basic competencies and the need for more
information
on the topic via professional development offerings. (p. 17)3
2Effective January 2005, ASHA certification requirements
specify demonstration
of knowledge and skills in swallowing processes; swallowing

disorders; and their
prevention, assessment, and intervention (ASHA, 2006b).
3The 2005 (ASHA Dysphagia in Schools Coordinating
Committee members were
Joan Sheppard (Chair), Sheryl Amaral, Joan Arvedson, Emily
Homer, DeAnne
Wellman Owre, Celia Hooper (ASHA Vice President for
Professional Practices in
Speech-Language Pathology and monitoring Vice President),
and Janet Brown (ASHA
Director of Health Care Services in Speech-Language
Pathology, Ex Officio).
The questionnaire asked school-based SLPs to indicate how they
were involved in the delivery of dysphagia services. A broad
range
of activities was identified. The 10 most frequently reported
areas
(Owre, 2006a, p.16) for SLP involvement were as follows:
1. Evaluating and providing of “hands on” therapy (e.g. oral
motor exercises, swallowing techniques) – 42%
2. Providing in-service to school staff regarding dysphagia and
safe feeding – 39%
3. Obtaining medical information from the child’s physician –
37%
4. Identifying and referring to medical personnel (e.g. medi -
cally-based SLP) as indicated – 35%

5. Collaborating with other professionals (e.g. OT, PT and/or
nurse) in the dysphagia management process – 30%
6. Managing dysphagia interventions independently – 26%
7. Coordinating with medical SLP and school team (including
family members) to evaluate and establish intervention plan
in the school setting (SLP writes school plan) – 26%
8. Obtaining medical clearance from a physician for dysphagia
intervention – 25%
9. Establishing accommodations and precautions only and
ensuring follow-through as a consultant – 25%
10. Implementing established district-wide dysphagia program
and procedures – 14%
SLPS were also asked to identify dysphagia management bar -
riers in school settings. In order of priority (Owre, 2006a, p.
17),
they were:
a. liability issues
b. own lack of experience/expertise in dysphagia
c. restrictions of a school setting versus a medical setting
Regarding future involvement of ASHA and Divisions 13 and
16 in addressing issues identified, the questionnaire asked SLPs
to prioritize the kinds of support needed for the acquisition of
knowledge, expertise, and competence in dysphagia
management
in schools. Respondents gave highest priority (Owre, 2006a, p.

17)
to the following:
a. Promotion of more courses, offerings and training in school-
based dysphagia management at the university/college level,
b. Development of guidelines and position statement for
dysphagia management in schools,
c. Development of recommended basic competencies for the
SLP providing dysphagia management in schools,
d. Provision of information via The ASHA Leader, ASHA
Division Perspectives, Web forums, etc.
Given the wide range of areas of SLP involvement in the de-
livery of dysphagia services in the school setting, and the
barriers
identified by school-based SLPs currently providing services to
students with dysphagia, the questionnaire results offer rather
clear
direction with regard to next steps for the profession based on
the expressed needs of SLPs.4
DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR
ETHICALLY RESPONSIVE PLANNING FOR
THE PROVISION OF SERVICES IN SCHOOL
SETTINGS TO STUDENTS WITH DYSPHAGIA
SLPs involved with school-based dysphagia services should be
familiar with ASHA’s Scope of Practice in Speech-Language
Pathology (2001b), Preferred Practice Patterns for the
Profession
of Speech-Language Pathology (2004c), and Code of Ethics
(2003a). ASHA’s Scope of Practice in Speech-Language
Pathology

defines areas of professional practice for, and services rendered
by,
ASHA-certified SLPs. It is a statement to various “publics”
(e.g.,
other professionals, consumers, regulators, educators, health
care
personnel), and a reminder to SLP practitioners themselves, of
what
SLPs are competent to do based on their education, training,
and
experience. ASHA’s Preferred Practice Patterns for the
Profession
of Speech-Language Pathology defines activities (such as #40
Swallowing and Feeding Assessment—Children, or #41 Swal-
lowing and Feeding Intervention—Children) that fall within the
SLP scope of practice and current practice patterns that would
“ap-
ply across all settings in which the procedure is performed” (p.
iii).
The setting in which SLPs work does not “define” scope of
prac-
tice. In other words, there is not a “scope of practice” for
schools or
hospitals or other practice settings. The setting in which SLPs
work,
however, often influences how services in the professional
scope
of practice are carried out. To illustrate, ASHA’s Guidelines for
the
Roles and Responsibilities of the School-Based Speech-
Language Pa-
thologist (2000b), while consistent with ASHA’s scope of prac-
tice and preferred practice patterns, addresses issues, practices,
and
roles that are specific to school-based SLPs; and, pertinent for
this

discussion, addresses swallowing intervention in the school
setting.
The ASHA Code of Ethics (2003a) undergirds professional
practice. It embraces the profession’s values and defines ethical
commitments for ASHA members, whether certified or not;
ASHA
nonmembers who hold the certificate of clinical competence
(CCC);
applicants for ASHA membership or certification; or clinical
fellows seeking to fulfill standards for ASHA certification.
Education and Competence
Attention to competence is a valid ethical concern in any setting
when a client presents with a disorder with which the SLP has
had
little or no experience. School-based SLPs are asking for more
academic and clinical preparation as well as the development of
guidelines and competencies for the provision of school -based
management of dysphagia (Owre, 2006b). Current ASHA
standards
for the CCC require demonstration of knowledge in the area of
swallowing, including supervised practicum with client
populations
with various types and severities of communication and/or
related
disorders (ASHA, 2006b). Those SLPs who were certified
before
the implementation of current standards may have had limited,
perhaps no, preservice education and training. Current
certification
standards, however, also require all holders of the CCC-SLP to
demonstrate continued professional development for
maintenance
of certification. Thus, even though certified, a need exists for

SLPs
to seek continuing education in dysphagia.
The ASHA Code of Ethics (2003a) repeatedly speaks to
competence on the part of the clinical service provider as well
as
supervisors of staff who are SLPs:
4The results of this questionnaire were the impetus for ASHA to
form a Working Group
on Dysphagia in Schools charged with developing a new
guidelines document,
Guidelines for Speech-Language Pathologists Providing
Dysphagia Services in
Schools (ASHA, 2007).
Schools 171
& “Individuals shall provide all services competently.”
(Principle I, Rule A)
& “Individuals shall engage in only those aspects of the
professions that are within the scope of their competence,
considering their level of education, training, and experience.”
(Principle II, Rule B)
& “Individuals shall not require or permit their professional
staff
to provide services or conduct research activities that exceed
the staff member’s competence, level of education, training,
and experience.” (Principle II, Rule C)
& “Individuals shall continue their professional development

throughout their careers.” (Principle II, Rule C)
SLP responsibilities and roles in all settings must be responsive
to progress in medicine and technology and impact on diagnosis
and treatment. Consideration of one’s knowledge and skills and
acknowledging what one knows and does not know are critically
important for the SLP in today’s everchanging and challenging
clinical environment. This acknowledgment and associated self-
reflection serve as a basis for an SLP’s professional
development to
fulfill the ethical obligations of holding client welfare
paramount
and continuing professional development throughout one’s
career
(ASHA, 2003a). Thus, in the context of this discussion, an
ethically
responsive SLP would design and execute a continuing
competency
plan to develop and/or hone knowledge and skills in dysphagia
diagnosis, management, and treatment. There are continuing
edu-
cation opportunities and venues in this regard including
academic
coursework, formal continuing education workshops, indepen-
dent study, self-study, mentorships, journal study groups,
clinical
exchanges, and teleseminars.
On a different note, it would be profoundly disturbing if a
practitioner were to cite lack of competence as an excuse or a
screen
to hide behind in order to avoid any involvement or
responsibility in
handling an unfamiliar or challenging case. The ASHA Code of
Ethics is instructive here as well:

& “Individuals shall use every resource, including referral
(emphasis added) when appropriate, to ensure that
high-quality service is provided.” (Principle I, Rule B)
& “Individuals shall not discriminate in the delivery of
professional services or the conduct of research and
scholarly activities on the basis of age, religion, national
origin, sexual orientation, or disability (emphasis added).”
(Principle I, Rule C)
ASHA’s Code of Ethics (2003a) focuses on the ethical respon-
sibilities of individuals. However, as an employer of SLPs, a
school
district also has a strong, educationally relevant, and ethical in-
centive to provide professional development in dysphagia. From
a pragmatic perspective, schools have an obligation to ensure
that
children are safe while at school, which includes ensuring a safe
eating environment. During the course of the day, nutritious
meals
(breakfast, school lunch) are available to all students. Snacks
are
very much a part of the typical school day as well. For all
students,
social communication skills development is connected to social
activities that involve meals and snacks in school. Schools are
already accommodating students who have food allergies,
special
diet requirements, or frequency of eating requirements. Of
course,
health services are considered a related service under IDEA,
and
certain health and related services are reimbursable under
public
and private health insurance.

By supporting and providing opportunities for continuing
education for SLPs and other key personnel, school districts are
more likely to recognize that eating and taking nourishment is a
major life function that is impaired by dysphagia and requires
accommodation during the school day. Districts are more likely
to have increased awareness of issues faced by students with
dysphagia and how their alertness, well-being, potential for
learning,
and participation in the academic process is facilitated by
appropriate
services. Thus, guided by the tenets of self-determination,
benef-
icence, nonmaleficence, and justice, school districts are more
likely
to develop a dysphagia management program that meets profes-
sional standards of care, satisfies legal and regulatory
requirements,
involves risk management planning, and addresses the safety of
students with dysphagia.
Working on Multidisciplinary Teams
and Scope of Practice
School-based dysphagia management and treatment programs
require a team of players from within and beyond the school
walls
(Arvedson & Homer, 2006). It is the team that makes decisions
balancing self-determination, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and
justice. Teamwork calls for a level of interdependence based on
the skills and knowledge that each member brings to the table.
Teamwork also calls for respect of the scope of practice and
exper-
tise of each member. Teams may include parents, nurses,
dieticians,
paraprofessionals, physicians, SLPs, SLP consultants, occupa-
tional therapists, physical therapists, building principals, higher

level administrators, regular and special education teachers,
trans-
portation providers, cafeteria workers, and social workers. The
list changes as the student’s needs change.
In the quest to act on the given principles of self-determination,
beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, teams are faced with
challenges such as those associated with scope of practice,
shared
roles, levels of expertise, cultural competence, strong opinions,
attitudes, and expectations. A skilled team leader with excellent
communication skills will promote collaboration and
cooperation
among team members, resulting in utilization of the “best from
each” given their expertise and scopes of practice.
Dysphagia is part of the speech-language pathology scope of
practice (ASHA, 2001b). Therefore, in school districts around
the
country, SLPs are seen as a primary provider and often the point
person in the management of dysphagia services (Arvedson &
Homer, 2006; Owre, 2006a, 2006b). Although this may be true,
scope of practice issues do arise. ASHA’s position statement
and
technical report, Speech-Language Pathologists Training and
Supervising Other Professionals in the Delivery of Services to
Individuals With Swallowing and Feeding Disorders (2004e,
2004f ), reinforces the importance of multidisciplinary teams
and
addresses SLPs’ scope of practice: “This statement recognizes
the importance of other professionals working with SLPs on a
multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary team to address all the
needs
of the client/patient in swallowing and feeding; however the
role
of the SLP is not replaceable by members of other professions”

(2004e, p. 1). These documents (2004e, 2004f ) are cautionary
about teaching and training others to perform an activity that is
clearly within the speech-language pathology scope of practice.
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are primary providers of
evaluation and treatment for swallowing and feeding
disorders.IIt is
the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association
that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) should not train, via
professional education courses or on-the-job training, or
provide
direct clinical supervision to individuals or groups of
individuals
from other professions in the delivery of evaluation and
treatment for
infants, children, and adults with swallowing and feeding
disorders.
(ASHA, 2004e, p. 1)
This is consistent with Principle II, Rule D of the ASHA Code
of Ethics:
Individuals shall delegate the provision of clinical services only
to:
(1) persons who hold the appropriate Certificate of Clinical
Competence;
(2) persons in the education or certification process who are
appropriately
supervised by an individual who holds the appropriate

Certificate of Clinical
Competence; or (3) assistants, technicians, or support personnel
who are
adequately supervised by an individual who holds the
appropriate
Certificate of Clinical Competence. (ASHA, 2003a)
However, the position statement (ASHA, 2004e) also indicates
what SLPs can do both ethically and professionally. For
example,
SLPs can share information for “purposes such as teaching
another
professional to screen for potential dysphagia” (ASHA, 2004e,
p. 1)
or recognize signs of dysphagia in order to refer a student for
eval-
uation by an SLP. SLPs can share information for “advancing
the
scientific knowledge base across professions” (2004e, p. 1) so
others
will have increased understanding of the disorder and how it is
treated. SLPs can “inservice other professionals and
nonprofessionals
about the role and activities of SLPs in evaluating and treating
swal-
lowing disorders” (2004e, p. 1). SLPs can and should train
family
members, caregivers, paraprofessionals, and others to use
patient-
specific techniques that have been developed as a result of the
SLP’s
evaluation and treatment planning to help the individual with
dysphagia carry over skills outside the treatment session.
Existing Models

Concern regarding the restrictions of a school setting versus
a medical setting has been identified as a barrier to dysphagia
management in schools (Owre, 2006a, 2006b). Fortunately,
there
are school-based dysphagia management programs in place that
can be replicated. The following program elements should be
considered and defined when developing a dysphagia
management
program: team composition, protocols for referral, evaluation,
plan-
ning, medical support, consultations, student
feeding/swallowing
plans, diet prescription documentation, responsibilities of
persons
involved with the student, handling emergencies, education, and
in-service training (Arvedson & Homer, 2006; Homer, 2003;
Homer
& Arvedson, 2006; Homer, Bickerton, Hill, Parham, & Taylor,
2000). Overall, programs require extensive planning and
support
by the school district administration in view of its overarching
responsibility relative to self-determination, beneficence, non-
maleficence, and justice. District allocation of resources such as
legal counsel is integral to program planning, procedure
development,
and assurance of adherence to procedures (Arvedson & Homer
2006;
Homer & Arvedson 2006). Programs give attention to
addressing
and monitoring accountability standards, risk management, and
liability in order to protect the student, the employee, and the
district.
Existing dysphagia management programs have also been
presented and described as part of continuing education
offerings

such as ASHA convention short courses (Arvedson, Homer,
Owre,
& Amaral, 2005) and teleseminars (Homer & Arvedson, 2006).
Kurjan (2000) and Arvedson et al. (2005) provide accounts of
SLP
leadership in a school district’s planning and service provision.
Finally, there are several ASHA policy documents that are
instructive (some to a greater extent than others) to the
management
and treatment of dysphagia in school settings and the
establishment
of school-based programs for dysphagia management (ASHA,
2000a, 2000b, 2001a, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c, 2002d, 2004a,
2004b,
2004d, 2004e, 2004f, 2005b, 2005c). Two documents are of
particular interest: Guidelines for Speech-Language
Pathologists
Providing Dysphagia Services in Schools (ASHA, 2007) and
Guidelines for the Roles and Responsibilities of the School -
Based
Speech-Language Pathologist (2000b). The ASHA Web site
(http://
www.asha.org/members/slp/clinical/dysphagia) offers extensive
resources under topics such as pediatric dysphagia and
dysphagia
practice issues, discussion via ASHA members’ forums,
consumer
information, professional development products, technical assis -
tance packets, special interest division articles (Division 13 and
Division 16 sites), The ASHA Leader articles, ASHA journal
articles, and Access Schools.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Considering this discussion on ethics issues associated with the
provision of services in school settings to students with
dysphagia,
Tables 2 and 3 provide examples of ethically responsive actions
and ethically questionable actions/potentially unethical actions
by
school-based SLPs. Table 2 focuses on SLPs who are
knowledge-
able and skilled in dysphagia. Table 3 focuses on SLPs who do
not
have knowledge and skills in the area of dysphagia.
The evaluation, treatment, and management of dysphagia is a
challenging area of speech-language pathology practice
regardless
of work setting. Even though schools are educating students
with
medical issues that must be dealt with on a daily basis, schools
are
educational institutions, not medical sites. They are under the
aegis
of education administrators, boards of education, and state de -
partments of instruction. Related service providers typically see
themselves as part of the educational institution, not the
medical
setting, where the priority is on medical services and where
medical
support is readily accessible.
When dealing with medically fragile students, school districts
and staff are thrust into handling the life-threatening issues that
these
students face. School districts today are providing education
and
related services to students with many kinds of disabilities,
including

serious medical conditions. The nature of services has evolved
to
the point where it is not uncommon in today’s school
environment to
see a one-on-one paraprofessional or full-time nurse assigned to
a
particular student; medical plans and do-not-resuscitate orders
as part
of a student’s health plan; or student service teams extending
far
beyond the schoolhouse walls and consisting of a variety of
players
such as dieticians, physicians, and consultants.
Not all school districts employ certified SLPs, and even
where they do, not all certified SLPs are competent in
dysphagia.
Nonetheless, the SLP does have professional and ethical respon-
sibility to ensure that students receive appropriate services
while
in school. A professional activity is not deemed to be “ethical”
or
“unethical” based on the setting in which it is delivered. Rather,
ethical principles, including those associated with biomedical
ethics
Schools 173
Table 2. Suggestions for ethically responsive actions or options
available to the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP)
who is knowledgeable
in the area of dysphagia management and treatment.

When the SLP has knowledge and skills in the area of
dysphagiaI
ASHA Code of Ethics principle(s)
and rule(s) relative to this action
Examples of ethically responsive actions
& Be proactive and take a leadership role in your school district
to develop a
plan for managing dysphagia.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rules A, B
& Help administrators understand the nature of dysphagia and
the gravity of potential
problems associated with swallowing and feeding disorders.
& Work to create a district dysphagia team. ASHA Code of
Ethics, Principle I, Rules A, B
& Work with school administrators to advocate for workload
accommodations
when managing students with swallowing and feeding disorders.
& Facilitate the training of SLPs in the district who may not be
competent in dysphagia. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I,
Rules A, B
& Work with the dysphagia team to develop procedures (e.g.,
referral, evaluation,
setting up special diets, and handling emergency situations).
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rules A, B;
Principle IV, Rule G.

& Develop appropriate forms and checklists for procedures,
releases or other activities. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I,
Rules A, B
& Provide in-service to school staff about dysphagia (what it is,
risk for,
signs and symptoms, complications of, the need for a safe
eating environment).
& Work with the dysphagia team in developing and executing
the treatment plan; train
in-school caregivers.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rules A, B;
Principle IV, Rule G.
& Engage in continuing education. ASHA Code of Ethics,
Principle II, Rule C
& Engage in interdisciplinary consultation; facilitate and be
involved in monitoring/observing
various procedures.
& Consider the basic ethical principles of self-determination,
beneficence, nonmaleficence,
and justice in making decisions regarding the student.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle of Ethics I
& Address issues with administrators that may preclude your
involvement in a dysphagia
management program so alternatives can be explored.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle of Ethics I;

Principle I, Rule A; Principle II, Rule B
Examples of ethically questionable/ potentially unethical
actions
& Act “solo” without regard for team planning and expertise of
team members. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle of Ethics I;
Principle I, Rule B
& Refuse to be involved (client abandonment). ASHA Code of
Ethics, Principle of Ethics I
& Train/teach other professionals to do what is in the SLP scope
of practice (evaluation,
developing feeding/eating treatment plans, supervising
dysphagia treatment).
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle II Rule C
Table 3. Ethically responsive actions or options available to the
school-based SLP who is not knowledgeable in the area of
dysphagia management
and treatment.
When the SLP does not have knowledge and skills in the area of
dysphagiaI
ASHA Code of Ethics Principle(s)
and Rule(s) relative to this action
Examples of ethically responsive actions
& Give advance warning to your district of areas of practice
where you have limited
or no knowledge and competency. Explore strategies for
acquisition of competency.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle II. Rules B, C
& Work with the district to arrange for a consultant SLP who is

experienced in dysphagia
to be involved. Continue to be involved on the student’s team
and in team planning.
ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rule B
& Advocate for the establishment of a dysphagia management
program and be involved
in its planning. Use available resources to determine what
questions to ask and what
needs to be addressed.
& Facilitate and advocate for in-service of school staff. ASHA
Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rule B
& Research and study available resources, such as ASHA
position statements relating
to dysphagia, case scenarios, preferred practice patterns, and
SLP scope of practice.
& Engage in continuing education. ASHA Code of Ethics,
& Acquire and/or enhance clinical skills. ASHA Code of Ethics,
Examples of ethically questionable/potentially unethical actions
& Conduct evaluation and treatment without the requisite
knowledge and skill. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rule A;
Principle II, Rule B
& Avoid any involvement. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I,
Rules B, C
& Refuse to use resources available such as outside consultants.

& Refuse to participate on the school team. ASHA Code of
Ethics, Principle I, Rule B
& Refuse to engage in professional development to improve
skills. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle II, Rule C
& Refuse to refer. ASHA Code of Ethics, Principle I, Rule B
and professional ethics, must be considered and applied in the
practice of speech-language pathology wherever it takes place.
By
virtue of current certification standards (ASHA, 2006b), scope
of
practice (ASHA, 2001b), and affirmative ethical obligations
(ASHA,
2003a), the SLP is frequently the leader that the school district
relies
on to develop and oversee safe eating programs for students
with
dysphagia. Therefore, it is incumbent on the SLP to promulgate,
by
advocacy and example, ethically responsible practices.
REFERENCES
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1999).
Omnibus
survey. Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000a).
Clinical
indicators for instrumental assessment of dysphagia

[Guidelines]. ASHA
Desk Reference, 3, 225–233.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2000b).
Guidelines
for the roles and responsibilities of the school-based speech-
language
pathologist. Rockville, MD: Author.
Roles of
speech-language pathologists in swallowing and feeding
disorders. ASHA
Desk Reference, 3, 181–199.
Scope of
practice in speech-language pathology. Rockville, MD: Author.
Knowledge
and skills for speech-language pathologists performing
endoscopic
assessment of swallowing disorders. ASHA Supplement, 22,
107–112.
Knowledge
and skills needed by speech-language pathologists providing
services
to individuals with swallowing and/or feeding disorders. ASHA
Supplement, 22, 81–88.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002c).
Roles of

disorders:
Position statement. ASHA Supplement, 22, 73.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2002d).
Roles of
disorders:
Technical report. ASHA Desk Reference, 3, 181–199.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2003a). Code
of
ethics (revised). ASHA Supplement, 23, 13–15.
Ethics and
IDEA. A guide for speech-language pathologists and
audiologists who
provide services under IDEA. Rockville, MD: Author.
Guidelines
for speech-language pathologists performing videofluoroscopic
swal-
lowing studies. ASHA Supplement, 24, 77–92.
Knowledge
and skills needed by speech-language pathologists performing
video-
fluoroscopic swallowing studies. ASHA Supplement, 24, 178–
183.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004c).
Preferred
practice patterns for the profession of speech-language
pathology.

Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/members/deskref-
journals/deskref/
DRVol1.htm#scope.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004d). Role
of the
speech-language pathologist in the performance and
interpretation of
endoscopic evaluation of swallowing: Guidelines. Retrieved
from
http://www.asha.org/members/deskref-journals/deskref/default.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004e).
Speech-
language pathologists training and supervising other
professionals in the
delivery of services to individuals with swallowing and feeding
disorders
[Position statement]. Available from
http://www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004f).
Speech-
language pathologists training and supervising other
professionals in the
delivery of services to individuals with swallowing and feeding
disorders
[Technical report]. Available from http://www.asha.org/policy.
Cultural
competence [Issues in ethics]. Available from
http://www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005b). The

role
of the speech-language pathologist in the performance and
interpretation
of endoscopic evaluation of swallowing [Position statement].
Available
from http://www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2005c). The
role
of the speech-language pathologist in the performance and
interpretation
of endoscopic evaluation of swallowing [Technical report].
Available
from http://www.asha.org/policy.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2006a). 2006
schools
survey: Caseload characteristics. Retrieved from
www.asha.org/about/
membership-certification/member-
data/schools_resources_data.htm.
Standards
and implementation for the certificate of clinical competency in
speech-
language pathology. Retrieved September 14, 2006, from
http://www.asha.
org/about/membership-
certification/handbooks/slp/slp_standards.htm.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2007).
Guidelines
for speech-language pathologists providing dysphagia services
in
schools [Guidelines]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.

Arvedson, J., Homer, E., Owre, D., & Amaral, S. (2005,
November).
Managing dysphagia in the schools: It can be done! Short course
presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-
Language-
Hearing Association, San Diego, CA.
Arvedson, J. C. (2000). Evaluation of children with feeding and
swal-
lowing problems. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools,
31, 28–41.
Arvedson, J. C., & Homer, E. M. (2006, September 26).
Managing
dysphagia in the schools. The ASHA Leader, 11(13), 88–9, 28–
30.
Beauchamp, R. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of
biomedical
ethics (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Brady, L. C. (1996a). Ethical dilemmas: The case of “Mr. E.”
ASHA
Division 13 Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia),
5(3),
16–18.
Brady, L. C. (1996b). Ethical dilemmas: The case of “Ms. D.”
ASHA
5(2), 7–9.
Brady, L. C. (1997a). Ethical dilemmas: The case of Mr. S.
ASHA Division

13 Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 6(2), 9–
10.
Brady, L. C. (1997b). Ethical dilemmas: The case of Mrs. J.
ASHA Divi-
sion 13 Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia),
6(3), 3–4.
Brady, L. C. (1998a). Ethical dilemmas: Considerations in the
care of
the pediatric patient. ASHA Division 13 Swallowing and
Swallowing
Disorders (Dysphagia), 7(3), 9–10.
Brady, L. C. (1998b). Ethical dilemmas: Return to the case of
Mrs. J.—The
conclusion. ASHA Division 13 Swallowing and Swallowing
Disorders
(Dysphagia), 7(2), 5–8.
Brady, L. C. (1999). Ethical dilemmas: The case of Mr. I
continued. ASHA
8(2), 8–9.
Brady, L. C. (2000). Clinical Issues: Ethical issues in dysphagia
manage-
ment: The case of Mr. Y. ASHA Division 13 Swallowing and
Swallowing
Disorders (Dysphagia), 9(3), 7–10.
Brady, L. C. (2001). Dysphagia management for school
children: Dealing
with ethical dilemmas: The case of Hillary. ASHA Division 16
School-
Based Issues, 2(2), 18–20.

Schools 175
Chabon, S., & Morris, J. F. (2004, February 17). A consensus
model for
making ethical decisions in a less-than-ideal world. The ASHA
Leader, 9,
18–19.
Flather-Morgan, A. (1994). Caring for patients with dysphagia:
Some
ethical considerations. ASHA Special Interest Division 13
Swallowing
and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 3(2), 8–11.
Goldsmith, T. (1999). Ethical issues facing the speech-language
pathologist
in the acute care setting. ASHA Division 2 Neurophysiology
and Neurogenic
Speech and Language Disorders Newsletter, 9(2), 20–23.
Groher, M. E. (1990). Ethical dilemmas in providing nutrition.
Dysphagia,
5, 102–109.
Groher, M. E. (1994). Response to Flather-Morgan’s “Caring
for patients
with dysphagia: Some ethical considerations.” ASHA Division
13
Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 2, 11–12.
Homer, E. M. (2003). An interdisciplinary approach to
providing dys-

phagia treatment in the schools. Seminars in Speech and
Language, 24,
215–234.
Homer, E. M., & Arvedson, J. C. (2006, February). Dysphagia
in
schools: An interdisciplinary team approach [Teleseminar].
Rockville,
MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Homer, E. M., Bickerton, C., Hill, S., Parham, L., & Taylor, D.
(2000).
Development of an interdisciplinary dysphagia team in the
public
schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
31, 62–75.
Horner, J. (2003). Morality, ethics, and law: Introductory
concepts.
Seminars in Speech and Language, 24, 263–274.
Huffman, N. P. (2001). Ethics in school-based practice: Using
ASHA’s
Code of Ethics proactively. ASHA Division 16 School-Based
Issues,
2(1), 6–9.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400
et seq.
(1990).
Kurjan, R. M. (2000). The role of the school-based speech-
language
pathologist serving preschool children with dysphagia.
Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 42–49.

Landes, T. L. (1999). Ethical issues involved in patients’ right
to refuse
artificially administered nutrition and hydration and
implications for the
speech-language pathologist. American Journal of Speech-
Language
Pathology, 8, 109–117.
Lazarus, C. (1996). Syringe feeding. ASHA Division 13
Swallowing and
Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 5(1), 1–2.
Lefton-Greif, M. (2001). Ethical decision making for infants
and children
with dysphagia. ASHA Division 13 Swallowing and Swallowing
Dis-
orders (Dysphagia), 10(2), 27–30.
Lefton-Greif, M. A., & Arvedson, J. C. (1997). Ethical
considerations in
pediatric dysphagia. Seminars in Speech and Language, 18, 79–
86.
Logemann, J. A., & O’Toole, T. J. (2000). Epilogue:
Identification and
management of dysphagia in the public schools. Language,
Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 79.
O’Toole, T. J. (2000). Legal, ethical, and financial aspects of
providing
services to children with swallowing disorders in the public
schools.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 56–61.

Owre, D. W. (2001). Dysphagia intervention in schools: An
ethical
dilemma? ASHA Division 16 School-Based Issues, 2(1), 21–23.
Owre, D. W. (2006a). Dysphagia management in schools;
Survey results—
Issues and barriers. Perspectives on School-Based Issues, 7(3),
16–18.
Owre, D. W. (2006b). Dysphagia management in schools;
Survey results—
Issues and barriers. Perspectives on Swallowing and Swallowing
Disorders, 15(3), 27–28.
Pittenger, A. (1997). Dysphagia ethics: The case of “Ms. F.”
ASHA Division
13 Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 6(1),
14–17.
Power-deFur, L. (2000). Serving students with dysphagia in the
schools?
Educational preparation is essential! Language, Speech, and
Hearing
Services in Schools, 31, 76–78.
Riquelme, L. F. (2004, April 13). Cultural competence in
dysphagia. The
ASHA Leader, 9, p. 8, 22.
Rubin, S. E., Wilson, C. A., Fischer, J., & Vaughn, B. (1992).
Ethical
practices in rehabilitation: A series of instructional models for
reha-
bilitation education programs. Unpublished student workbook,
Southern
Illinois University–Carbondale.

Segal, H. A., & Smith, M. L. (1995). To feed or not to feed.
American
Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 4, 11–14.
Serradura-Russell, A. (1992). Ethical dilemmas in dysphagia
management
and the right to die a natural death. Dysphagia, 7, 102–105.
Sharp, H. M., & Genesen, L. B. (1996). Ethical decision-making
in
dysphagia management. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 5, 15–22.
Shelley, G. L. (1995). Is this an ethical dilemma? Must we have
a MSS on
every dysphagia patient? A possible solutionI. ASHA Division
13
Swallowing and Swallowing Disorders (Dysphagia), 4(3), 1–2.
Strand, E. A. (1995). Ethical issues related to progressive
disease. ASHA
Division 2 Neurophysiology and Neurogenic Speech and
Language
Disorders, 5(3), 3–8.
Strand, E. A. (2003). Clinical and professional ethics in the
management of
motor speech disorders. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24,
301–311.
Received March 1, 2006
Revision received October 30, 2006
Accepted April 2, 2007
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2008/017)

Contact author: Nancy P. Huffman, 590 Stearns Road,
Churchville,
NY 14428. E-mail: [email protected]

GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9 GEIT 3341 Database I

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9 GEIT 3341 Database I

Similar to GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9 GEIT 3341 Database I (20)

More from MatthewTennant613

More from MatthewTennant613 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

GEIT 3341 DATABASE I LAB 9 GEIT 3341 Database I