| Course | HLTH 8054 Lifestyle and Chronic Diseases |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Peer critique reply |
| Length | About 480 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8054 Week 6
Week 6 Reply: Critique of Owen's Post on Lung Cancer and Personal Responsibility
Peer Critique: The Evidence on Tobacco and Lung Cancer Is Sound, but "Chose" and "Brought It on Themselves" Turn an Analysis Into a Verdict, Leave Out People Who Never Smoked and Carry a Cost in Delayed Care
Reply to Owen
Owen, your evidence is solid. Tobacco smoke is the leading cause of lung cancer, and the sources you cited support that claim well. My concern is with one sentence near the end of your post: "People who chose to smoke brought lung cancer on themselves." I think that sentence moves from analysis to a verdict, and I want to explain why in three parts, then suggest a rewrite.
First, the word "chose." Most people who smoke started young. The Surgeon General's report on youth and young adults found that nearly all adult smokers began before they turned 26, most of them before 18 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). A choice made at 14, often in a household or neighborhood where smoking was normal and under heavy marketing, is not the same as an adult decision with full information. Continuing to smoke is a different matter again, because nicotine dependence makes quitting hard even for people who want to stop. "Chose" treats starting, continuing and failing to quit as one free decision.
Second, the people the sentence leaves out. Lung cancer also occurs in people who have never smoked. A review described lung cancer in never smokers as distinct enough in its molecular features to be considered a different disease, with risk factors including secondhand smoke, radon, cooking fumes and other air pollution, and occupational exposures (Sun et al., 2007). A sentence that ties the disease to personal choice implies that everyone with lung cancer smoked.
Third, what blame costs. In a qualitative study of 45 people with lung cancer in the United Kingdom, participants felt particularly stigmatized because the disease is so closely associated with smoking; many, especially those who had quit years earlier or never smoked, felt unjustly blamed, and some concealed their illness (Chapple et al., 2004). Among people with symptoms in a US study, those who perceived more stigma tended to wait longer before going to a clinician, whether or not they had smoked (Carter-Harris, 2015). If blaming language makes people slower to report a cough or weight loss, it works against early diagnosis.
None of this means downplaying tobacco. You could keep every factual claim and change the framing. Here is one possible rewrite: "Tobacco smoke causes most lung cancer. Most smokers began as teenagers, and nicotine dependence makes quitting difficult. Lung cancer also affects people who have never smoked, through exposures such as radon and secondhand smoke. Public health responses work best when they reduce smoking and encourage anyone with symptoms to seek care without fear of blame."
Would that version still carry the point you wanted to make about prevention?
References
Carter-Harris, L. (2015). Lung cancer stigma as a barrier to medical help-seeking behavior: Practice implications. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 27(5), 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/2327-6924.12227
Chapple, A., Ziebland, S., & McPherson, A. (2004). Stigma, shame, and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: Qualitative study. BMJ, 328(7454), Article 1470. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38111.639734.7C
Sun, S., Schiller, J. H., & Gazdar, A. F. (2007). Lung cancer in never smokers: A different disease. Nature Reviews Cancer, 7(10), 778-790. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2190
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK99237/
The Walden HLTH 8054 Week 6 instructions
This week's task is a reply that critiques one classmate's chronic disease post, asking whether its language matches its evidence. The critique should identify what the post does well, point to specific wording that goes beyond the evidence and explain why, with sources. Faculty value critiques that address who is left out by a framing and what effects the framing might have. A suggested rewrite is often welcome. The tone should be collegial and the reply concise, with APA citations for any claims about stigma, risk or behavior. Most sections also expect the reply to end by asking the classmate something, so the exchange continues rather than closing with a correction.
How this HLTH 8054 Week 6 example is built
The reply opens by crediting the classmate's evidence on tobacco and naming the one sentence it will address. The second paragraph examines "chose," citing the Surgeon General's 2012 report on youth tobacco use for the age at which most smokers start, and separating starting from continuing. The third paragraph cites Sun and colleagues on lung cancer in people who never smoked and its distinct risk factors. The fourth cites Chapple and colleagues' interviews with 45 patients in the United Kingdom and Carter-Harris's finding on stigma and delayed help-seeking. A rewrite follows, four sentences that keep the causal claim and add the missing groups. The reply ends by asking whether the rewrite still serves the classmate's point about prevention.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8054 Week 6 rubric
Critiques this week are marked on precision. A reply that accuses a classmate of victim-blaming without pointing to specific words, or without evidence, earns little. The rubric rewards acknowledging the classmate's sound evidence first, then identifying the exact phrase and explaining what it implies beyond the data. Bringing in people the framing omits shows analytical range. Evidence on the consequences of stigma strengthens the critique considerably. A rewrite that keeps every fact shows that the objection is about framing, not about the science. Tone counts, and a respectful reply that invites a response scores higher than a correction. Length matters less than focus: one sentence examined well outscores five phrases touched lightly. Accurate citations in APA style complete the evaluation.
HLTH 8054 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Peer critiques on sensitive topics often fail in one of two directions. Some avoid the problem entirely and praise the post. Others react strongly and lecture the classmate, which rarely helps. A third weakness is objecting to wording without showing why it is inaccurate as well as unkind. To write a useful critique, start with what the post gets right. Quote the phrase you want to discuss. Explain what it implies and what the evidence actually shows, with a source. Name anyone the framing leaves out. Offer a short rewrite that keeps the facts. End with a question. If you want a critique of another classmate post modeled first, we can put one together around your thread.
Get a HLTH 8054 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Include the post you are critiquing, the peer response instructions and the rubric. The critique returned credits the evidence, pins the blame to the exact words carrying it, supports the objection with research, and offers a neutral rewrite that keeps every fact. That post was invented to be critiqued. Allow 24 to 48 hours; nothing is charged for a first critique.
More HLTH 8054 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8054 Week 1: Chronic Disease Definition Post
- HLTH 8054 Week 2: Physical Inactivity Discussion Post
- HLTH 8054 Week 3: COPD Condition Profile
- HLTH 8054 Week 4: Life Course Risk Trajectory
- HLTH 8054 Week 5: Alcohol Determinants Argument
- HLTH 8054 Week 7: Sodium Intervention Appraisal
- HLTH 8054 Week 8: Prevention Timing Discussion Post
- HLTH 8054 Week 9: Diabetes Report Register Critique
- HLTH 8054 Week 10: Paramedic Program Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 8054 Week 11: Tobacco Price Floor Proposal
- HLTH 8052 Week 6: Telemedicine Plan Peer Critique
- HLTH 8048 Week 6: Church to Barbershop Peer Critique
- HLTH 8035 Week 6: Immortal Time Peer Critique
- HLTH 8034 Week 6: Scale Shift Peer Critique
HLTH 8054 Week 6 questions, answered
Is it rude to critique a classmate's wording rather than their ideas?
Not when the critique is specific and credits what the post does well. The sample accepts the classmate's evidence first, then identifies one word and explains, with sources, why it is inaccurate as well as judgmental. That approach treats wording as part of the analysis, which is how this course grades it, and it gives the classmate something concrete to revise.
Does neutral wording mean ignoring that smoking causes lung cancer?
No. The sample keeps the causal claim intact and states it plainly. Neutral register changes how people are described, not what the evidence says. Writing that tobacco smoke is the leading cause of lung cancer is accurate and neutral; writing that people who chose to smoke brought it on themselves adds a verdict the evidence does not supply.
Should the critique include a rewrite?
It helps, and many rubrics reward it. A short rewrite shows the classmate that the analysis survives without the judgment, which is more persuasive than an objection alone. The sample rewrites the conclusion in two sentences, keeping every factual claim. Keep your rewrite brief and offer it as a suggestion rather than a correction of the classmate's work.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8054 Week 6 sample paper?
This page carries the full Week 6 peer critique, which questions the word "chose" and the blame in a classmate's lung cancer post, offers a rewrite and cites four sources.
What evidence does the critique give on the cost of blame?
A UK study of 45 people with lung cancer found felt stigma, unjust blame and concealment, and a US study found that greater perceived stigma was linked to delay in seeking help, regardless of smoking status.