"Developing a Health Resource - Cancer Screening" is a delightful example of a paper on cancer. For a long time clinicians, professional associates and academics thought that cancer screening to be a simple and safest way to save lives. There were many health messages and campaigns organized to mobilize a large group so that they can attend a screening. The obvious approach was to use, powerful tools for persuasion so that people could take a step and get screened. The tools for persuasion included fear, guilt and a sense of personality that were aimed at making people vulnerable, and eventually, giving them hopes to protect themselves (Feldman & Greenberg, 2005).
The approach was meant to induce vulnerability, and then, offer hope that there are strategies for protecting people without telling people the risk involved. Women over 35 years were encouraged to schedule a mammogram so that they could be checked. In this case, women were being encouraged to have more than their breasts checked for cancer. This type of screening campaign is just meant for persuasion. This campaign was ended by the American society for cancer in the 1970s, but for sure, the campaigns of persuasion are still growing strong (Andreason, 2006).
For instance, memorial Sloan-Kettering center published an advertisement in the New York Times about signs of colon cancer. The advertisement stated that people age 50 who feel great and have a healthy appetite, are likely to have colon cancer. It is quite ridiculous that people of age 50, who find this message scary are not like to have colon cancer nor are they likely to develop colon cancer any time soon. Cancer screening advertisements are strong marketing tools that are made of the hard-hitting message with no transparent information (Berry, 2007).
A persuasive message about cancer screening can be justified; if at all cancer screening does not carry any harm. Unfortunately, research shows that cancer screening has negative effects, and often harm the body of a person. However, effective screening tests have proven to prevent cancer deaths. For instance, Papanicolaou tests are very reliable in reducing cervical cancer (Corcoran, 2007). Consequently, people should bear in mind that cancer screening causes harm. For people to get past persuasion and get informed decision making they are supposed to make it easy for doctors and patients to get data about the benefits and harms of screening in an appropriate context (Dixey, 2013).
There are different groups that have tried to ensure appropriate decision making about screening, but the implementation has been quite slow. In addition, it is very important to provide fundamental issues that communicate about the effects of screening (Hayden, 2014). It is quite unfortunate that patients and doctors do not have a chance to get information about the risks associated with the screen; therefore, this means they do not have a chance to make informed decisions.
The basic principles of cancer screening evolve around the personality of the professionals in this field. The behavior of a professional in the field of cancer screening has a direct impact on the handling of patients. Clients in health institutions will be either positively or negatively affected based on the information they are given (Green and Tones, 2010). Institutions that deal with cancer conditions, advocate for very high moral standards.
During the delivery of cancer-related information, cases of ethics dictate that cases of immoral conduct such as dishonesty are prohibited (Townsend, 2014). Lying about a patient’ s state or condition is not tolerated. A patient’ s condition depends on the correct analysis of the condition and the treatment to be administered (Aston & Hallam, 2011). Incorrect information may lead to the wrongful diagnosis, leading to wrongful treatment. Another case of immorality includes engaging in fraudulent activities. In making decisions regarding the wellbeing of a patient, high morals are observed since it affects directly on another person’ s condition both physically and emotionally (Lange, 2012).
The interest of the patient is a priority and needs safeguarding to protect the integrity of the profession. In pointing out that in analyzing situations at disposal and giving information connected to cancer, screening requires neutrality (Dreher & Glasgow). This is important to ensure facts about disease and condition are extracted. Careful evaluation of a patient's condition based on professional skills, the experience is necessary for the patient to fully understand the genesis, current, and future expected condition of the patient.
In pointing out these facts, the patient’ s treatment is carefully planned and gives enough time to the patient to seek funds for medical care. Another basic principle about cancer screening tests is fair dealing with the distribution of the available resources. Some health institutions discriminate against a certain class of patients in administering services. Professional ethics call for fairness for all classes of people (Perry, Potter & Ostendorf, 2013). Conclusively, there were many health messages and campaigns organized to mobilize a large group so that they can attend a screening.
This type of screening campaign is just meant for persuasion. Cancer screening advertisements are strong marketing tools that are made of the hard-hitting message with no transparent information (Lange, 2012). However, effective screening tests have proven to prevent cancer deaths. For people to get past persuasion and get informed decision making they are supposed to make it easy for doctors and patients to get data about the benefits and harms of screening in the appropriate context.
Andreason, A. R. (2006). Social marketing in the 21st century.
Aston, L., & Hallam, P. (2011). Successful mentoring in nursing. Exeter [U.K.: Learning Matters.
Berry, D. (2007). Health Communication.
Corcoran, N. (2007). Communicating Health.
Dreher, H. M., & Glasgow, M. E. S. (2011). Role development for doctoral advanced nursing practice. New York: Springer Pub. Co.
Dixey. (2013). Health Promotion.
Feldman, H., & Greenberg, M. (2005). Educating Nurses for Leadership. New York: Springer Pub. Co. NURSING
Green and Tones. (2010). Health Promotion.
Hayden. (2014). Introduction to Health Behavior.
Lange, J. W. (2012). The nurse's role in promoting optimal health of older adults: Thriving in the wisdom years. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.
Townsend, M. C. (2014). Essentials of psychiatric mental health nursing: Concepts of care in evidence-based practice.
Perry, A. G., Potter, P. A., & Ostendorf, W. (2013). Clinical nursing skills & techniques.