Medical terminology DIS 5-10 discussion guide
Six stories where the stakes escalate — Randi's unrecognised heart attack, Hernani's HIV disclosure dilemma, Sylvia's asthma triggers, bariatric surgery, a sibling kidney donation, and Calle's MS diagnosis — and two of them are emergencies where the graded answer is a correct action sequence.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 11, 2026
Which DIS stories are emergencies, and why does that matter?
Two of these six stories are time-critical clinical scenarios, and they grade differently from the rest. Randi's story (DIS 5) asks what Melanie can do immediately to save her life and why fast treatment matters in myocardial infarction — questions with correct answers: call emergency services, keep the patient still, and the time-is-muscle logic of reperfusion. The asthma story's escalation topic (DIS 7) is the same shape: if the inhaler fails and the condition worsens, the answer is a prompt-action sequence, not a reflection. When you choose those topics, write them as ordered steps with the reasoning attached — vagueness in an emergency answer is the most visible failure in the set. Randi's risk-factor topic has its own discipline: the story plants specific indicators, and the answer lists them and explains the mechanism by which each leads to cardiovascular disease.
The middle stories are judgement scenarios where the trap is answering from instinct rather than knowledge. Hernani's story (DIS 6) looks like an opinion prompt about HIV disclosure and coaching, but the strong answer knows the factual floor: HIV does not transmit through casual contact, bloodborne-exposure protocols exist in sports, and employment discrimination on HIV status is legally constrained — opinions built on those facts outrank feelings either way. The bariatric story (DIS 8) pairs an emotional-eating question with a surgical-risk question; the second is factual (anaesthesia, infection, clotting, and the specific post-bariatric dietary physiology). The organ-donation story (DIS 9) and Calle's MS story (DIS 10) both mix family ethics with concrete systems questions — living-donor long-term outcomes, insurance coverage questions, workplace accommodation — where naming what is actually known or where to find it is the substance.
As with the companion assignment, the format repeats six times: one entry per story, a listed topic or a substantive classmate reply. Vary your topic types across the six so the set shows range, use each chapter's terminology, and give every entry one thing that is checkable — a step sequence, a transmission fact, a named risk, an information source Calle could actually consult.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Write emergency-topic answers as ordered action sequences with the physiological reasoning attached.
- 02Answer values-flavoured topics (HIV disclosure, donation, surgery choice) from the factual floor — transmission, outcomes, protections — before the opinion.
- 03Connect each story's planted details (Randi's risk indicators, Sylvia's triggers) to the mechanisms the topics ask about.
- 04Vary topic types across the six entries and deploy each chapter's terminology correctly.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01One entry for each of the six stories (DIS 5-10), per the repeated instruction.
- 02Each entry answering one listed topic — or substantively replying to a classmate, as permitted.
- 03Answers reflecting the assigned Critical Thinking stories on the textbook's stated pages.
How should the six entries divide by story type?
DIS 5 — Randi's heart attack
Choose among risk-indicator analysis, the denial topic, the immediate-response topic, and the time-to-treatment topic; the first and third have the most checkable content — planted indicators explained mechanistically, and the emergency steps in order.
DIS 6 — Hernani's disclosure dilemma
Whichever topic you take, lay the factual floor first — how HIV does and does not transmit, what bloodborne protocols in sports look like, what employment protections exist — then argue the position.
DIS 7 — Sylvia's asthma
The trigger topics want environmental specifics (air quality, allergens, the factors the story names); the escalation topic wants the prompt-action sequence when an inhaler fails.
DIS 8 — Gabby and bariatric surgery
The emotional-eating and appearance-motivation topics are psychology questions answered honestly; the post-surgical diet and surgical-danger topics are factual and reward the actual physiology.
DIS 9 and DIS 10 — donation and diagnosis
Both stories mix family ethics with systems questions: living-donor long-term repercussions and alternatives for Josie's brother; job accommodation, transmission risk, insurance information sources and future planning for Calle.
Which clinical facts anchor the judgement stories?
Recommended databases
- The course textbook's chapters for each story (primary)
- MedlinePlus
- HIV.gov
- organdonor.gov
Search sequence
- 1.Reread each story on its stated page and mark which topics are emergencies, which are factual, and which are values questions.
- 2.For the emergency topics, confirm the response sequences against an authoritative first-response source.
- 3.For Hernani's story, read the HIV transmission basics so the factual floor is right.
- 4.For the donation story, check living-donor outcome facts; for Calle's, identify one real insurance-information source her topic can name.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Heart Attack
MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine · 2024
Symptoms, risk factors and the urgency logic behind DIS 5 — the source for both the indicator-mechanism topic and the why-fast-treatment topic.
- 02
How Is HIV Transmitted?
HIV.gov, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 2024
The transmission facts that form DIS 6's factual floor — what casual and sports contact does and does not risk — beneath any disclosure opinion.
- 03
Living Organ Donation
organdonor.gov, Health Resources and Services Administration · 2024
The living-donor process and outcome facts DIS 9's repercussions topic needs, from the federal organ-donation authority.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing the Randi and asthma escalation answers as concerned commentary when they demand step sequences — call, position, monitor, escalate — with the why attached.
- Answering Hernani's HIV topics from gut feeling without the transmission and workplace-protection facts that make an opinion defensible in a health course.
- Listing Randi's risk indicators without the 'explain why these items lead to CVD' half, which is where the terminology and mechanism marks sit.
- Treating the bariatric surgical-risk topic as generic ('surgery is risky') when the post-bariatric diet question has a specific physiological answer.
- Answering Calle's insurance topic with sympathy instead of the information sources the topic explicitly asks for.
- Recycling one register across six entries — the set is built to show range, and sameness is visible.
Submission checklist
- Six entries submitted, one per story.
- Emergency topics answered as ordered steps with reasons.
- Judgement topics grounded in at least one stated fact before any opinion.
- Chapter terminology present and correct in each entry.
- Each entry ends with something checkable: a step, a fact, a named resource.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.