| Course | NU733 Ethics, Policy, and Advocacy for Population Health |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Position paper |
| Length | About 1,140 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU733 Unit 10
A Bed the Person Can Actually Use: A Position Paper Arguing That Camping Enforcement in Composite Port Hadley Should Wait for a Usable Shelter Offer, Defended Against the Strongest Case for Enforcing Now
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU733: Ethics, Policy, and Advocacy for Population Health
Unit 10 Position Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Port Hadley and every local figure are composite; numbers are bracketed placeholders carried from earlier units.
Thesis and Definition
Port Hadley should not cite or remove a person for camping on public property until that person has been offered a usable shelter bed and has declined it. A usable bed is one that is available that night, reachable by the person, and compatible with the person's partner, pet, work shift and disability. A bed across the city with no transport, a men's bed for a man who will not leave his wife, a bed with a nine o'clock curfew for someone who works nights, or a top bunk for someone who uses a walker is not a usable offer.
This position does not ask the city to stop enforcing. The state act requires enforcement, and since the Supreme Court ruled in 2024 that camping bans do not violate the Eighth Amendment, federal law places few limits on it (City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 2024). The position concerns the order in which the city acts.
The Evidence
The term's evidence supports the position from several directions. Deaths among people experiencing homelessness rose from [38] in [2019] to [71] in [2024], with [nine] from hypothermia. Frostbite brought [23] unhoused patients into the county hospital last winter, and amputation followed for [11]. Research on cold exposure shows the risk of hypothermic injury rising steeply as temperatures fall (Zhang et al., 2019). Outreach logs record [340] refusals of shelter in [2024], and [61] percent cited a partner, a pet or a curfew, reasons rooted in shelter rules rather than in a wish to stay outside. The riverside clearance scattered a vaccine series and cost patients their medications, and a national modeling study projected that repeated displacement of people who inject drugs would substantially increase overdose deaths and serious infections (Barocas et al., 2023). Finally, [214] citations were issued in six months, most without a documented shelter offer.
When most refusals trace back to shelter rules, enforcing before a usable offer punishes people for the design of the shelters rather than for a choice.
The Strongest Opposing Case
The opposing case deserves its strongest form. The downtown business district testified that encampments near storefronts reduce customers, create sanitation problems and leave workers feeling unsafe, and that owners have waited months for the city to act. Residents who use the riverside park made similar points. They argue that the usable-bed condition gives anyone a veto over enforcement: a person could keep refusing any bed on grounds of fit, and the city would never act.
A deeper version of the argument appeals to reciprocity. Shared public space works because everyone accepts limits on how they use it. People who sleep in parks and on sidewalks, the argument goes, are using shared space in ways others cannot, and fairness requires that the rules apply to them as well. On this view, the city owes help but also has a right to expect compliance, and delaying enforcement indefinitely is unfair to everyone else.
The Reply
The veto concern is real but answerable. The condition is not that any bed the person accepts must be offered, but that a usable bed be offered, and usability is defined by four objective criteria: availability, reach, and compatibility with partner, pet, shift and disability. A person who declines a bed that meets all four has declined a usable offer, and enforcement may proceed. The condition therefore limits enforcement only where the city has not yet provided something a reasonable person could accept.
The reciprocity argument, taken seriously, supports the position. Reciprocity binds both sides. If shared space requires everyone to accept limits, then the community owes each member a realistic alternative before insisting that they leave. A city that offers only beds people cannot use has not done its part of the exchange. Kass's framework for public health ethics points the same way: a program imposing burdens must show that it achieves its goals and that less burdensome alternatives have been considered (Kass, 2001). Enforcing before a usable offer meets neither test, since it moves people without moving them indoors.
The business district's losses are real, and the position does not ignore them. The fastest way to reduce encampments near storefronts is to make shelter usable, so that more people accept it. In a randomized trial among homeless adults with psychiatric disabilities, many also using substances, those offered housing without preconditions were housed sooner and stayed housed longer than those in treatment-first programs (Tsemberis et al., 2004). The position asks the business district to support the investment in usable beds that would reduce encampments for good.
How the Policy Would Work
The city manager would issue a directive requiring outreach workers to document, before any citation, the offer of a specific bed and whether it met the four criteria. The shelter operators would be asked to create at least [40] beds for couples, [20] spaces for people with pets and a [24]-hour intake option for night workers. Enforcement would proceed against anyone who declined a documented usable offer. On nights below zero wind chill, clearances would be suspended regardless.
Why This Is a Nursing Position
A nurse practitioner writing about enforcement may seem to be stepping outside clinical practice. The position is grounded in the clinic, however. The frostbite, the lost medications and the scattered vaccine series are all things our program treats or tries to prevent, and each followed from enforcement carried out without a usable offer. Nursing's commitment to the health of populations, and to people whose voices are least heard in policy, gives a nurse both the standing and the responsibility to say what the city's choices do to the bodies of the people it moves.
Limits
The position depends on the supply of usable beds; if the city cannot create them, enforcement will be delayed, and the business district's concerns will grow. It may draw suits from residents or businesses, which the state act allows, if a court reads the condition as non-enforcement. And it addresses only one part of a larger problem that requires housing, treatment and income support. These limits argue for pairing the policy with investment, not for abandoning it.
Conclusion
Port Hadley should enforce its camping restrictions only after offering a bed that the person can actually use. That condition responds to the evidence of the term, withstands the strongest opposing case, and asks the city to do its part of the exchange before asking residents to do theirs.
References
Barocas, J. A., Nall, S. K., Axelrath, S., Pladsen, C., Boyer, A., Kral, A. H., Meehan, A. A., Savinkina, A., Peery, D., Bien, M., Agnew-Brune, C., Goldshear, J., Chiang, J., Linas, B. P., Gonsalves, G., Bluthenthal, R. N., & Mosites, E. (2023). Population-level health effects of involuntary displacement of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness who inject drugs in US cities. JAMA, 329(17), 1478-1486. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.4800
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 520 (2024).
Kass, N. E. (2001). An ethics framework for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1776-1782. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 651-656. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.4.651
Zhang, P., Wiens, K., Wang, R., Luong, L., Ansara, D., Gower, S., Bassil, K., & Hwang, S. W. (2019). Cold weather conditions and risk of hypothermia among people experiencing homelessness: Implications for prevention strategies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(18), Article 3259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16183259
Reading the NU 733 Unit 10 instructions
The final NU733 assignment asks you to argue a single position on the policy issue you have studied all term. Most versions expect a thesis stated early, definitions of key terms, evidence drawn from earlier units, the strongest opposing case, a reply, a description of how the policy would work and its limits. Around 3,000 words in six parts is common. Faculty reward a thesis precise enough to be tested, an opposing case stated as its holders would state it, a reply that engages that case directly rather than dismissing it, and an honest account of what the position cannot achieve. Conceding part of an objection, and proposing how to reduce its cost, usually strengthens the argument rather than weakening it.
How this NU733 Unit 10 example is built
The paper states its thesis in one sentence and defines a usable bed with four criteria, noting that the position concerns the order of enforcement, not whether it happens. The evidence section gathers deaths, frostbite, refusal reasons, the effects of displacement and citation counts, and carries the highlighted sentence about punishing people for shelter design. The opposing case follows in its strongest form, from business owners' losses to the reciprocity argument. The reply answers the veto concern with objective criteria, turns reciprocity into an obligation on the city, applies Kass's framework and cites a Housing First trial. Sections describe implementation, explain why a nurse has standing to argue the position, and name its limits.
Reading the NU733 Unit 10 grading rubric
Position papers are commonly scored on thesis, evidence, treatment of the opposing view, reasoning and limits. The thesis earns credit when it is stated early and precisely enough to be tested. Evidence is judged on whether it is drawn from reliable sources and carried forward accurately from earlier work. Treatment of the opposing view rewards a strong, fair statement of the objection, often as long as the reply. Reasoning is credited when the reply engages the objection's strongest form. Limits score well when the paper admits what its position depends on and what it cannot fix. APA style, clear definitions and a conclusion that restates the thesis in light of the objections round out most rubrics.
NU733 Unit 10 help from the desk
A frequent weakness is a thesis so broad that no one could disagree with it, such as calling for compassion. Another is a straw version of the opposing case, which a grader will notice immediately. Some papers repeat the evidence from earlier units without connecting it to the thesis. Others ignore implementation, leaving the reader unsure what would actually change. Many omit limits or treat them as afterthoughts. And some writers concede nothing, which makes the argument less credible. State a narrow position, define its terms, present the objection as its supporters would, reply to that version, show how the policy would work, and say plainly what it depends on.
Get an NU733 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Send the conclusion your Unit 10 paper will defend and the objection your term kept returning to, with the prompt and rubric. A first custom sample, free and shaped by those directions, arrives within 24-48h, stating the objection at full strength and answering it with evidence drawn from your own earlier work. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More NU733 papers and DNP samples
- NU733 Unit 1: Issue Analysis, Homelessness Deaths
- NU733 Unit 2: Discussion Post, Costs of a Clearance
- NU733 Unit 3: Ethical Framework Paper, Kass
- NU733 Unit 4: Population Profile, Unsheltered Adults
- NU733 Unit 5: Statute Analysis, Public Camping Act
- NU733 Unit 6: Policy Brief to the City Manager
- NU733 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection, Involuntary Holds
- NU733 Unit 8: Stakeholder Power Map
- NU733 Unit 9: Advocacy Letter to the Health Officer
- NU713 Unit 10: Population Health Brief, Diabetes
- NU703 Unit 10: Doctoral Development Portfolio
NU733 Unit 10 questions, answered
How is a position paper different from a policy brief?
A brief asks a specific decision maker for a specific action, usually on one page. A position paper argues a conclusion at length for a wider readership, engaging evidence, ethics and opposition in depth. The brief is built for speed; the position paper is built to survive scrutiny. Many sections expect the position paper to draw together the term's earlier work.
How much space should the objection get?
Enough to be stated as strongly as its holders would state it, often a full section and sometimes more than the answer. Instructors tend to judge a position paper by the quality of the opposition it faces. A thin objection makes even a correct conclusion look untested, while a strong one makes a well-answered conclusion persuasive.
Is it acceptable to concede part of the objection?
Yes, and it usually strengthens the paper. Admitting that a position carries real costs, and proposing how to reduce them, shows the conclusion was reached with those costs in view. What weakens a paper is conceding so much that the thesis no longer follows. Say what you concede, why your thesis survives the concession, and what would change your mind.
Where can I find a free NU733 Unit 10 sample paper?
This page presents the complete NU733 Unit 10 position paper, with the thesis, a definition of a usable bed, the term's evidence, the strongest opposing case, a reply, implementation, a note on nursing's standing and limits, plus five references. A position paper on your own issue can be drafted.
How does NU733 Unit 10 answer the reciprocity argument?
By accepting that shared space requires everyone to accept limits, then arguing that reciprocity binds both sides: the community owes each person a realistic alternative before insisting they leave, and a bed no one can use does not meet that obligation.