| Course | HLTH 8136 Leadership, Professionalism, and Ethics in Public Health Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Counterargument brief |
| Length | About 780 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8136 Week 10
Counterargument Brief: The Strongest Case for Waiting on Review Before Sharing a Preliminary Cancer Cluster Analysis With a Worried Community, Argued Against My Own Earlier Ruling
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8136: Leadership, Professionalism, and Ethics in Public Health Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Counterargument Brief: The Strongest Case for Waiting on Review Before Sharing a Preliminary Cancer Cluster Analysis With a Worried Community, Argued Against My Own Earlier Ruling
The Earlier Ruling
My earlier paper held that an epidemiologist at a composite state health agency should share a preliminary analysis of a suspected cancer cluster with the community that reported it, before the agency's internal review was complete. Residents near a closed industrial site had counted several childhood leukemia cases on their streets and asked the agency to investigate. The preliminary analysis showed more cases than expected in the area, though with wide uncertainty. My ruling rested on the community's right to information it needs for decisions. The obligation it set aside was adherence to review and scientific caution. This brief argues for that obligation.
Argument 1: Suspected Clusters Usually Dissolve
Most suspected cancer clusters do not hold up. A review of 428 state and federal cancer cluster investigations in the United States since 1990, covering 567 cancers of concern, found that an increase in incidence was confirmed for 72, about 13%; only three of those were linked to the hypothesized exposure, and only one investigation found a clear cause (Goodman et al., 2012). A preliminary count that shows an excess is often the first stage of a process that ends with no confirmed increase, once cases are verified, boundaries are checked and the expected number is recalculated. Releasing the preliminary result tells the community that something is wrong when, on the record of past investigations, it probably is not. Fear released early is not easily withdrawn. A parent told that the neighborhood has too many leukemia cases may sell the house, keep children indoors or distrust the later report that the excess disappeared.
Argument 2: Review Protects the Community From the Analyst
Internal review exists to catch errors, and the person whose work is being reviewed is the least able to see them. The CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists set out a stepwise approach to suspected cancer clusters, moving from initial response through assessment to a feasibility study and only then to an etiologic investigation, and noted that even a confirmed cluster may not reveal a common cause (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Each step includes checks: confirming diagnoses, verifying addresses, choosing the comparison population and the time period. A preliminary analysis skips some of these. An epidemiologist who shares it early is asking the community to trust a result that the analyst's own colleagues have not yet tested. The field's ethics code asks agencies to share what communities need to know (Thomas et al., 2002), and what they need is correct information, not a draft.
Argument 3: A Retracted Finding Costs the Next Warning
An agency's credibility is a resource it spends when it warns. If the agency announces a possible excess and then retracts it, the community learns that the agency's early findings cannot be relied on. The next time the agency needs residents to act quickly, on contaminated water or a disease outbreak, they may wait for confirmation that never comes in time. The cost of a false alarm is therefore borne not only by the community near the industrial site but by every community the agency will warn later.
The Moral Remainder
Even if these arguments are right, something is lost by waiting. Williams (1973) described the moral remainder: when one duty is overridden by another, the overridden duty does not vanish, and an agent may rightly feel regret for what was not done. If the agency waits, residents are kept in the dark about a possible risk for weeks or months, and some may feel that the agency protected itself rather than them. The case for review has to acknowledge that cost. It could reduce it by telling the community, early and plainly, that an investigation is under way, what steps it involves and when results will be shared, without releasing the preliminary count.
Which Argument Is Hardest to Answer
The first argument is the hardest for my earlier ruling to meet. The second and third depend on how the release is handled; a carefully framed preliminary release with clear caveats might avoid some error and some loss of credibility. But the base rate does not change with framing. If most suspected clusters dissolve, then early release will usually tell a community about an excess that is not there, and the harm of that fear falls on the people the ruling was meant to protect. My final paper will need to show either that this community's case differs from the usual one or that the community's claim to information outweighs a likely false alarm.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Investigating suspected cancer clusters and responding to community concerns: Guidelines from CDC and the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 62(RR-8), 1-24. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6208a1.htm
Goodman, M., Naiman, J. S., Goodman, D., & LaKind, J. S. (2012). Cancer clusters in the USA: What do the last twenty years of state and federal investigations tell us? Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 42(6), 474-490. https://doi.org/10.3109/10408444.2012.675315
Thomas, J. C., Sage, M., Dillenberg, J., & Guillory, V. J. (2002). A code of ethics for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(7), 1057-1059. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.92.7.1057
Williams, B. (1973). Problems of the self: Philosophical papers 1956-1972. Cambridge University Press.
The Walden HLTH 8136 Week 10 instructions
The Week 10 brief asks students to argue against their own earlier ruling by building the best case for the obligation it set aside. The brief should restate the earlier ruling briefly, then present several arguments for the overridden obligation, each supported by published evidence or reasoning. Faculty expect the arguments to be strong rather than straw versions. A discussion of what remains owed even if the original ruling stands, often framed as moral remainder, adds depth. The brief should close by naming the argument hardest to answer. Length tends to run near five pages. Faculty in this course read the closing section closely, since naming the hardest argument sets the agenda for the final paper.
Inside the HLTH 8136 Week 10 example
The opening restates the earlier ruling: share a preliminary leukemia cluster analysis with residents near a closed industrial site. The first argument cites Goodman and colleagues' review of state and federal investigations and their confirmation rate, and describes the fear a released excess can leave behind. The second cites the CDC and CSTE guidelines' four-step approach and the checks each step includes, and argues that the duty to inform is a duty to inform accurately. The third explains how a retraction weakens the agency's later warnings. A section on Williams's moral remainder describes the cost of waiting and proposes telling residents early that an investigation is under way. The final section names the base-rate argument as hardest to answer and sets out what the final paper must show.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8136 Week 10 rubric
Counterargument briefs are graded on how strongly they argue against the author's own position. A brief that sets up weak objections and quickly dismisses them is a disguised defense and earns low marks. The rubric rewards arguments supported by evidence, each with a clear mechanism. Faculty look for accurate use of investigation data and guidelines. Acknowledging what is lost if the overridden obligation wins shows maturity, and the moral remainder concept is credited when used correctly. The final section should name the hardest argument honestly and say what the next paper must do about it. Clear structure and accurate references finish the grade.
Common HLTH 8136 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often find it hard to argue against themselves, and the brief ends up defending the original ruling with token objections. Another common problem is arguing from general caution without evidence. Some briefs also forget to say what the overridden duty still requires. To write a stronger brief, imagine a respected colleague who disagrees with you and write the three best arguments that person would make. Find evidence for each. Explain what would be lost if you ignored them. Name the argument you cannot yet answer. If a counterargument brief against a ruling from your own course would help you plan, we can draft one around it.
Get a HLTH 8136 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Include your earlier ruling or paper, plus the Week 10 prompt and rubric; the desk builds the strongest case for the obligation you set aside and a proportionate response, returned in 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. Without an earlier paper, a short summary of the ruling to be challenged works as the starting point.
More HLTH 8136 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8136 Week 1: Professional Duties Framing Post
- HLTH 8136 Week 2: Syringe Services Pressure Post
- HLTH 8136 Week 3: Outreach Count Duty Analysis
- HLTH 8136 Week 4: Data Warehouse Position Paper
- HLTH 8136 Week 5: Filter Vendor Conflict Case
- HLTH 8136 Week 6: Interpreter Cut Peer Critique
- HLTH 8136 Week 7: Overdose Report Disclosure Case
- HLTH 8136 Week 8: Colleague Concern Discussion Post
- HLTH 8136 Week 9: Cooling Center Accountability Brief
- HLTH 8136 Week 11: Ethics Synthesis Paper
- HLTH 8054 Week 10: Paramedic Program Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 8052 Week 10: Contracting Counterposition Brief
- HLTH 8048 Week 10: RE-AIM Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 8035 Week 10: Causal Claim Audit
HLTH 8136 Week 10 questions, answered
Does the brief have to reverse my earlier ruling?
No. The goal is to build the opposing case fully and then decide honestly. Your ruling may survive, change or fall. What readers watch for is whether the response engages the counterargument you built. A ruling that survives unchanged is acceptable if you show why each argument for the other side did not move it.
What is the moral remainder?
Bernard Williams argued that when one obligation overrides another, the overridden one does not simply vanish; it leaves a residue, which is why regret can be appropriate even after a right choice. In a counterargument brief, it lets you say what the overridden duty still requires, such as an uncertainty statement or a follow-up, even when your ruling stands.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8136 Week 10 sample paper?
The complete Week 10 counterargument brief appears above, building the case for internal review before sharing a preliminary cancer cluster analysis, with three arguments, a moral remainder section and four references.
How often are suspected cancer clusters confirmed?
In a review of 428 US investigations covering 567 cancers of concern, an increase was confirmed for 72, about 13%, three were linked to the suspected exposure and only one investigation found a clear cause.
What does the brief propose to reduce the cost of waiting?
Telling residents early and plainly that an investigation is under way, what steps it involves and when results will be shared, without releasing the preliminary count.