HLTH 6051 Week 11 Rights Position Paper Example

Course	HLTH 6051 Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice
Week	Week 11
Paper type	Position paper
Length	About 1,130 words, 7 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	MS in Health Education and Promotion
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 6051 Week 11

Deaf Patients Who Use American Sign Language at a County Hospital Are Owed Communication That Works: A Position Paper on Coverage, the Binding Standard, the Evidence of Shortfall and a Remedy the Hospital Board Can Adopt, With the Video Interpreting Objection Answered

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6051: Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title states the position, then lists the four parts the closing paper must argue in sequence and the specific objection it will answer, which is what the final rubric turns on.

Position

The board of Ridgeview County Medical Center, a composite county hospital, should adopt an effective communication policy that guarantees deaf patients who use American Sign Language an in-person qualified interpreter for consent discussions, discharge instructions and serious diagnoses, sets enforceable performance standards for video remote interpreting in all other encounters and requires staff to give primary consideration to the patient's stated choice of aid. The hospital's current practice, which defaults to video interpreting on a cart and to written notes when the video fails, does not meet the standard that binds it.

What this page is doingThe position is stated in the first paragraph, sized to an authority the board holds, before coverage or evidence appear.

Coverage

The position covers deaf patients and companions whose primary language is American Sign Language and who need a sign language interpreter to understand and be understood. It borrows the regulation's own categories rather than a general label. The federal list of auxiliary aids separates interpreters, whether on site or by video, from real-time transcription and from assistive listening devices (28 C.F.R. § 35.104). Late-deafened adults who never learned to sign and patients with partial hearing usually need one of those other aids. They are owed effective communication as well, but the remedy below is built for signing patients, and a companion policy should address the rest.

Standard

Ridgeview is county-run, which places it under the ADA's rules for state and local government, and it accepts Medicare and Medicaid, which places it under Section 1557. The binding sentence is short: the hospital must make its communications with patients who have disabilities "as effective as communications with others," supplying aids where needed and giving "primary consideration" to what the patient asks for (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). The Section 1557 rule adds that the aid must cost the patient nothing, come in time and respect the patient's privacy and independence (45 C.F.R. § 92.202). Three practices are ruled out in ordinary care: telling a patient to arrive with an interpreter, using a relative or friend in place of one and, outside emergencies, using a child (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). Video interpreting is allowed only if it works to a stated standard: smooth live video with no freezing or blurring, a picture showing the faces, arms, hands and fingers of both interpreter and patient, clear sound and staff who know how to run it (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). The hospital holds the duty, and its board holds the authority to write the policies that meet it.

Evidence

Published research documents the shortfall, and the hospital's own logs are the next source.

Deaf patients' accounts come first. James et al. (2022) interviewed 11 signing adults who had been to an emergency department within the previous two years. Asking for access was described as stressful and slow; video interpreting had real drawbacks alongside its benefits; an interpreter in the room was what patients expected and valued; and notes and speech left patients short of information.

The care itself can differ. Comparing 2018 emergency department records at one academic medical center, Conner et al. (2023) reported lower adjusted odds of laboratory testing for signing deaf adults than for hearing adults who spoke English (adjusted odds ratio 0.68), along with differences in some other routine practices. The design shows that a gap exists without showing what causes it.

A review of studies published from 2000 to 2015 reached the wider conclusion that deaf people meet serious communication barriers with health providers, and that signed communication and supporting technology are among the measures that improve access (Kuenburg et al., 2016).

Ridgeview can collect its own record: who asked for an interpreter, how long the wait was, which video sessions failed and what complaints followed. The policy below makes keeping those records mandatory.

Remedy

The remedy is sized to the board's authority and to the communications that carry the most weight.

1. In-person interpreters for high-stakes encounters. For informed consent discussions, discharge instructions, new serious diagnoses and end-of-life conversations, the hospital will provide an in-person qualified sign language interpreter, scheduled in advance where possible and available within a set time on request, unless the patient chooses video.

2. Performance standards for video interpreting. All video interpreting equipment will meet the regulation's requirements for real-time, full-motion video, a large and sharp image and clear audio, and staff in each unit will be trained to set it up. When a video session fails, staff will stop the clinical conversation, except in an emergency, and obtain another qualified interpreter rather than switch to written notes.

3. Primary consideration recorded. At registration, staff will ask deaf patients which aid they prefer and record it, and any departure from the patient's choice will be documented with a reason.

4. Accountability. The hospital will log every interpreter request, the time to fulfillment and every video failure, and the quality committee will report these figures to the board each quarter.

The Expected Objection

The objection the board will most likely hear is not that deaf patients do not matter but that video remote interpreting is already compliant and costs far less than in-person interpreters, so a policy requiring in-person interpreters for some encounters spends money the hospital does not need to spend.

The objection is partly right. The regulation allows video remote interpreting, and for many routine encounters it works well and saves time. But the regulation allows it only when it meets specific performance standards, and it requires primary consideration of the patient's request (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). The deaf patients interviewed by James et al. (2022) described video interpreting with both benefits and drawbacks, and the hospital's own practice of switching to written notes when video fails shows that the cart is not always a working substitute. For consent, discharge and serious diagnoses, the nature and importance of the communication are greatest, and a failed or degraded video link is least acceptable. The policy therefore keeps video interpreting as the default for routine care and reserves in-person interpreters for the encounters where failure is costliest.

The cost of in-person interpreting for a limited set of encounters is real but bounded, and the accountability measures will show the board exactly how often it is used.

Conclusion

Deaf patients who use American Sign Language are owed communication as effective as that offered to hearing patients, under a standard that binds Ridgeview directly. The evidence shows that this standard is often unmet in emergency care. The board can adopt a policy, within its authority, that guarantees in-person interpreters where the stakes are highest, holds video interpreting to the standards the regulation sets and records whether the hospital keeps its promise.

References

Auxiliary aids and services; definitions, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2026).

Conner, K. R., Jones, C. M., Wood, N., Aldalur, A., Paracha, M., Powell, S. J., Nie, Y., Dillon, K. M., & Rotoli, J. (2023). Use of routine emergency department care practices with deaf American Sign Language users. Journal of Emergency Medicine, 65(3), e163-e171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2023.05.001

Effective communication for individuals with disabilities, 45 C.F.R. § 92.202 (2026).

Effective communication; general, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160 (2026).

James, T. G., Coady, K. A., Stacciarini, J.-M. R., McKee, M. M., Phillips, D. G., Maruca, D., & Cheong, J. (2022). "They're not willing to accommodate Deaf patients": Communication experiences of Deaf American Sign Language users in the emergency department. Qualitative Health Research, 32(1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323211046238

Kuenburg, A., Fellinger, P., & Fellinger, J. (2016). Health care access among deaf people. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 21(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/env042

HLTH 6051 Week 11 instructions, in plain terms

The final paper asks students to argue a complete position: a group, a standard that binds a named duty holder, evidence of shortfall and a remedy sized to the authority of a specific body. The position should appear in the first paragraph. Coverage is defined by the standard's own categories so the argument holds for everyone it claims to cover. The standard section quotes operative language and names the duty holder. Evidence is attributed to the studies or systems that produced it. The remedy section is where the closing paper differs from earlier work: it must describe concrete actions the named body can adopt. Instructors reward papers that answer the objection the decision maker will most likely raise, not the easiest one. Ten to twelve pages under APA headings is typical. Sources include regulations, peer-reviewed studies and the institution's own records where available.

Inside the HLTH 6051 Week 11 example

The paper opens with the position and the gap in current practice, which defaults to a video cart and written notes. The coverage section limits the claim to signing deaf patients and their signing companions and sends other needs to a separate policy. The standard section quotes the requirement of communication as effective as with others, primary consideration of the patient's request, free and timely aids, limits on companions and children and video interpreting performance standards, naming the hospital as duty holder. The evidence section reports interview themes, the laboratory test odds ratio and the review's conclusions, and names the hospital records the board can obtain. The remedy lists four elements: in-person interpreters for high-stakes encounters, video standards with a stop rule when video fails, recorded patient choice and quarterly reporting. The objection section concedes video's value, then limits it where failure costs most.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6051 Week 11 rubric

Closing position papers are usually graded on the position, coverage, standard, evidence, remedy and objection handling. The position should be clear and early. Coverage earns credit when it uses the standard's categories and states exclusions. The standard criterion rewards quoted operative language and a named duty holder. Evidence is judged on attribution and accurate reporting. The remedy is often the most heavily weighted part: it must be concrete, within the named body's authority and tied to the standard. The objection section earns most when it addresses the decision maker's likely objection and concedes what is right in it. APA headings and organization complete the grade, along with clean entries for four regulation sections and three journal articles.

HLTH 6051 Week 11 help from the desk

Final position papers most often go wrong by proposing remedies no one in particular can adopt, such as "society should do better." Another frequent problem is answering a weak objection while ignoring the one decision makers will raise. Students also define coverage loosely, which lets a reader find exceptions. Before submitting, state your position and the body that can act on it in the first paragraph. Define coverage using the standard's own terms. Quote the operative requirement. Report evidence with its design and source. List remedy elements the named body can adopt and explain how each meets the standard. Answer the objection that body is most likely to raise and concede what is valid in it. A custom paper can argue a different position, such as language access in a county jail clinic or accessible medical equipment in a primary care network.

Get a HLTH 6051 Week 11 example written to your instructions

Closing papers answer a specific prompt, so send it with the rubric, the page expectation and any group, standard or policy your section has assigned across the term. The HLTH 6051 Week 11 sample carries thesis, coverage, standard, evidence, remedy, objection and concession in that order, inside 24 to 48 hours. The first custom one is free.

More HLTH 6051 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples

HLTH 6051 Week 11 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 6051 Week 11 sample paper?

This page presents a complete Week 11 position paper arguing for interpreters that work for signing deaf patients at Ridgeview, with a four-part remedy and six sources.

What position does the HLTH 6051 Week 11 example take?

That the hospital board should guarantee in-person sign language interpreters for high-stakes encounters, enforce video interpreting standards and record each deaf patient's chosen aid.

What objection does the paper answer?

That video remote interpreting is already compliant and cheaper; the paper agrees it suits routine care but limits it where communication failures would cost the most.

What performance standards apply to video interpreting?

Real-time, full-motion video without lags or blur, an image showing the interpreter's and patient's faces, arms, hands and fingers, clear audio and trained staff.

How would the board know the policy works?

The hospital would log every interpreter request, time to fulfillment and video failure, and the quality committee would report these figures each quarter.