The hospice nurse sat with Ann’s husband, Ben. Ann was resting quietly as the increased dosage of IV pain medication gradually reached its therapeutic level. Ben turned his head and slowly turned, looking out the room’s only window. As he glanced up, a small flicker of light caught his breath. It was a shooting star. A tear fell from the corner of his eye and he turned to Ann. The nurse sensed that something significant to Ann and Ben was unfolding. Shuffling to Ann’s bedside, he took her small fragile hand in his. These hands had rocked cradles, burped babies, and groomed the horses she loved to ride. Gently holding her hand, he turned to the nurse. “She would ride like the wind was chasing her.” Looking back to Ann his voice broke; choking back tears “Ann, Ann I saw Jessieâ¦Jessie is calling.” Ben turned “Jessie was our daughter. She died having a baby that was too big. When she died it was a pitch-black night. Cold, so cold, the baby died too, a little boy, named him Abe, Jr. after Jessie’s husband. I took Ann outside so she could cry to God above and there in this dark sky we saw two falling starsâ¦togetherâ¦just falling. We knew it had to be Jessie and Abeâ¦two angels to light up the night.” Ben turned back as a deep sigh escaped from Ann’s lips. A soft smile remained as she joined Jessie and Abe.
Based on this case study how would the nurse actualize Parse’s theory of Human Becoming?
What are characteristics of a human becoming nurse? What are strengths and weaknesses to this theory of nursing?
What challenges exist for healthcare institutions to switch to this nursing approach?
How might Parse’s understanding of transcendence guide the nurse, as Ann’s death became a reality to Ben?
From the nursing theories we have discussed, what additional theory would you apply to this case study? Develop a plan of care to include both nursing theories (be specific and provide reasons)
Sample Solution
We Do Not Understand Anything At the littlest sizes of presence, our originations of existence are unessential. State on the off chance that we experienced littler and littler sizes of our bodies, we would find that in the long run we would show up at Planck length (Roper, 131). To envision the size of Planck length, think about that as a hydrogen iota is 10 trillion Planck lengths over. At this scale, reality as we probably am aware it can never again can be comprehended. So I don’t get that’s meaning as far as getting ourselves? Indeed, we can properly say that truly, we do have reality concurring certain sizes of ourselves (bigger than Planck length), yet with respect to our ultra-microscopic selves, the basic matter of what our identity is, our understanding of presence separates (Joplin, 12). Who might we be without existence? A few people may state we would be nothing, while others may state we would resemble virtual particles, flying all through presenceâwhich is somewhat more than nothing, however it can’t be said to carefully exist. It would mean we exist and don’t exist at the same time. This thought compares to my next point: that any inquiry we pose can be replied from various perspectives. The response to any question is vague when attempting to state demanding truth (Hopp, 45). Take a straightforward inquiry for a model: “What is your name?” My name is Nicholas David Klacsanzky as indicated by law, however my name could be any number of names that I have appended to my character, and others have given me. Is my legitimate name my actual and just name? That is up for translation. What’s more, indeed, any announcement of assumed “truth” can be disentangled to show that there is another approach to take a gander at it. There is a Zen maxim that comes this way, “To talk is to commit an error.” This is said with the possibility that reality can’t be spoken, as truth is comprehensive and even past beingâit would need to be spoken about in wording that don’t exist in language all together for the truth of reality to be seen through language (which is a mystery). In this way, truth is an encounter. I accept this is the reason Socrates stated, “I know just of my own obliviousness,” and made the individuals at the highest point of antiquated Greek society confounded about their essential ideas of their reality. We can’t comprehend reality through mental ideas: just through our unadulterated experience without the hindrance of mental movement. Without the interference and obfuscating of reality by mental procedures, presence is clear. We don’t have to comprehend anything so as to know presence for what it’s worth. Truth be told, the main way we can see the truth is by quitting any pretense of attempting to comprehend and quitting any pretense of “getting” itself. At that point we can observer life in the entirety of its significant effortlessness. References Roper, Jake. Troubling Truth. New York: Owl Books, 2008. Print. Joplin, Michele. Transformative Coexistence. Chicago: Bob Fugen Press, 2012. Print. Hopp, Jason. Untruthful Truths. Seattle: Reed Bender Press, 2013. Print. paper about nature, science article, innovation exposition 5/5 NEED HELP? Approach a specialist for FREE>
We Do Not Understand Anything At the littlest sizes of presence, our originations of existence are unessential. State on the off chance that we experienced littler and littler sizes of our bodies, we would find that in the long run we would show up at Planck length (Roper, 131). To envision the size of Planck length, think about that as a hydrogen iota is 10 trillion Planck lengths over. At this scale, reality as we probably am aware it can never again can be comprehended. So I don’t get that’s meaning as far as getting ourselves? Indeed, we can properly say that truly, we do have reality concurring certain sizes of ourselves (bigger than Planck length), yet with respect to our ultra-microscopic selves, the basic matter of what our identity is, our understanding of presence separates (Joplin, 12). Who might we be without existence? A few people may state we would be nothing, while others may state we would resemble virtual particles, flying all through presenceâwhich is somewhat more than nothing, however it can’t be said to carefully exist. It would mean we exist and don’t exist at the same time. This thought compares to my next point: that any inquiry we pose can be replied from various perspectives. The response to any question is vague when attempting to state demanding truth (Hopp, 45). Take a straightforward inquiry for a model: “What is your name?” My name is Nicholas David Klacsanzky as indicated by law, however my name could be any number of names that I have appended to my character, and others have given me. Is my legitimate name my actual and just name? That is up for translation. What’s more, indeed, any announcement of assumed “truth” can be disentangled to show that there is another approach to take a gander at it. There is a Zen maxim that comes this way, “To talk is to commit an error.” This is said with the possibility that reality can’t be spoken, as truth is comprehensive and even past beingâit would need to be spoken about in wording that don’t exist in language all together for the truth of reality to be seen through language (which is a mystery). In this way, truth is an encounter. I accept this is the reason Socrates stated, “I know just of my own obliviousness,” and made the individuals at the highest point of antiquated Greek society confounded about their essential ideas of their reality. We can’t comprehend reality through mental ideas: just through our unadulterated experience without the hindrance of mental movement. Without the interference and obfuscating of reality by mental procedures, presence is clear. We don’t have to comprehend anything so as to know presence for what it’s worth. Truth be told, the main way we can see the truth is by quitting any pretense of attempting to comprehend and quitting any pretense of “getting” itself. At that point we can observer life in the entirety of its significant effortlessness. References Roper, Jake. Troubling Truth. New York: Owl Books, 2008. Print. Joplin, Michele. Transformative Coexistence. Chicago: Bob Fugen Press, 2012. Print. Hopp, Jason. Untruthful Truths. Seattle: Reed Bender Press, 2013. Print. paper about nature, science article, innovation exposition 5/5 NEED HELP? Approach a specialist for FREE>
