Ethics101PUBH 603 · Khalifa University

Longitudinal reflection

Reflection ePortfolio

Six checkpoints across the course. Entries are saved to this browser only — export at any time to keep a personal copy.

Loading saved entries…

  1. Foundations of Public Health Ethics

    Checkpoint 1 — Mapping My Ethical Starting Point

    Before working through any scenario, describe the values and assumptions you currently bring to public health decisions. Which do you instinctively prioritize when individual freedom and collective wellbeing conflict, and why? Name any ethical frameworks you already recognize (Belmont, Beauchamp & Childress, Kass, utilitarian, deontological) and honestly assess how confident you feel applying each. Identify two questions you most want this course to help you answer.

    Your response should: Articulates a clear, honest baseline of personal values and assumptions rather than generic statements; Names at least two relevant frameworks and accurately characterizes the learner's current familiarity with them; Frames the individual-versus-collective tension in concrete terms and explains the learner's instinctive priority; Poses two specific, answerable learning questions to revisit later in the ePortfolio.

    0 words

  2. Ethical Frameworks & Principles

    Checkpoint 2 — Applying a Framework to a Dilemma

    Choose one interactive dilemma scenario you have completed. Reconstruct the decision you reached and analyze it explicitly through one structured framework (for example, the Kass six-step framework or the four-principle approach). Show how each step or principle shaped your reasoning, where principles came into tension, and what you traded off. Then state how a classmate using a different framework might justifiably reach a different conclusion.

    Your response should: Selects a single framework and applies every relevant step or principle accurately to the chosen scenario; Identifies at least one genuine tension or trade-off between principles rather than presenting a frictionless answer; Distinguishes the framework's reasoning from the learner's prior gut reaction in Checkpoint 1; Acknowledges a defensible alternative conclusion reached through a different framework.

    0 words

  3. Infectious Disease & Pandemic Response

    Checkpoint 3 — Autonomy versus the Collective Good

    Reflect on the vaccine-mandate and autonomy scenarios. Where do you now locate the ethical limit of individual autonomy when one person's choice affects the health of others? Use the harm principle, the least-restrictive-alternative principle, and the concept of reciprocity to defend a position on a specific mandate context (e.g., healthcare workers in a UAE hospital). Note where your view has shifted since Checkpoint 1 and what evidence or argument moved it.

    Your response should: States a clear, defensible position on a specific mandate context rather than an abstract generality; Correctly deploys the harm principle and least-restrictive-alternative reasoning to justify or bound the position; Engages the strongest opposing argument fairly before responding to it; Documents and explains any shift in the learner's own view with reference to a specific argument or piece of evidence.

    0 words

  4. Infectious Disease & Pandemic Response

    Checkpoint 4 — Justice in Conditions of Scarcity

    Drawing on the resource-allocation scenarios, design or critique an allocation rule for a genuinely scarce resource (e.g., ventilators, ICU beds, or limited vaccine supply). Justify your criteria using at least two theories of justice (such as utilitarian maximization, Rawlsian priority to the worst-off, prioritarianism, or fair innings). Address procedural fairness: how would your process satisfy transparency, consistency, and the right to appeal? Identify one group your rule could disadvantage and how you would mitigate that.

    Your response should: Proposes or critiques a concrete allocation rule with clearly stated criteria; Grounds the criteria in at least two named theories of justice and explains the trade-off between them; Addresses procedural fairness, including transparency, consistency, and an appeals mechanism; Names a group the rule could disadvantage and proposes a credible mitigation.

    0 words

  5. AI, Data, & Digital Health

    Checkpoint 5 — Technology, Data, and Trust

    Reflect on the AI-and-data-ethics scenarios. Choose a specific tool (e.g., an algorithmic risk score, digital contact tracing, or an AI triage chatbot) and analyze its principal ethical risks: bias from training data, privacy and data minimization, explainability, and accountability for harm. Recommend concrete safeguards a UAE health institution should require before deployment, and explain who should remain accountable when the tool errs.

    Your response should: Identifies a specific tool and analyzes at least three distinct ethical risks accurately; Connects an identified risk to a concrete, implementable safeguard rather than a vague aspiration; States clearly where human and institutional accountability must remain when the tool fails; Considers the UAE's multicultural and multilingual context where relevant to validity or fairness.

    0 words

  6. Climate, Environment, & Global Health

    Checkpoint 6 — Synthesis and Professional Commitment

    As a capstone, synthesize what you have learned across all scenarios into a personal framework for ethical public health decision-making, with explicit attention to equity and access. Revisit the two learning questions you posed in Checkpoint 1 and answer them with evidence from your ePortfolio. State how your reasoning has matured over the course, where you still feel uncertain, and one concrete commitment you will carry into future professional practice.

    Your response should: Integrates insights from multiple checkpoints into a coherent personal decision-making framework; Explicitly returns to and answers the Checkpoint 1 learning questions using evidence from the portfolio; Engages equity and access as a deliberate dimension of the synthesized framework; Names a specific, realistic professional commitment and acknowledges remaining areas of uncertainty.

    0 words