Thursday, October 31, 2019
Assisted Suicides Paper Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words
Assisted Suicides Paper - Essay Example The debates over the right of patients to shorten their lives with the help of physicians will continue and there is probably no right or wrong side. Assisted suicide is a crime because it involves the death of the person who would live otherwise. Not a single person should be eligible to take away the life of another person, even though this other person is not willing to live. Drugs and medical devices are development to be safe and effective - the intended usage of drugs is to help patients to overcome diseases. Nevertheless, patients who physical and emotional pain caused by the diseases that cannot be cured, do not want to suffer and should be granted the right to stop their sufferings. For example, if the patient is unconscious and there is no hope that the condition will ever improve, the relatives might want to make a decision to stop his/her life. From the religious point of view, any assistance in this direction is a murder. From medical point of view, assisted suicide is wrong as well - the objective of healthcare is to make people healthier, not to kill them. However, from ethical standpoint, it is almost impossible t o label assisted suicide as murder or as a good deed because the rights and obligations of each side need to be taken into account. Moreover, the competent people should have the right to choose death - for example, through allowing to hasten death by treatment refusal. Suffering is not merely the physical pain, there are also psychological burdens and assisted suicide is the only possible way to relieve sufferings. Even though it is the human nature to have the interest in preserving life, the terminally ill individuals lack this interest and acquire the desire to die - the prohibition of assisted suicide might limit the personal liberty. From the other side, it is unethical to take the life of other people and morally wrong because of religious beliefs. It is also worth to make the distinction between two important concepts - active killing (assisted suicide) and passive (letting die). Assisted suicide is, therefore, equated to active killing. The most important point of argument is that assisted suicide has the potential to be abused - some groups of people who lack access to care might be forced to chose assisted death as the cost-saving strategy. In 1990, Dr Kevorkian has invented the Mercitron - the machine with improvements over the noose, shotgun and barbiturates which allowed the patients to choose the time and place of death and ensured the painless demise. He did not test the machine on animals or human beings until he assisted the suicide of Janet Adkins in June 1990. Afterwards, he was prohibited to assist suicides for eight months. Dr. Kevorkian's machine and assistance has caused debates in the whole country regarding the right of the physician to help people die and usage of medical devices and drugs not to cure but to kill people. The act he has done has led to the overview of existing laws. Michigan has become the first place in the world to legalize the assisted suicide. After the criminal trial of Dr. Kevorkian the Commission on Death and Dying has reached the conclusion that the practice of assisted suicide should be legalized (Walsh, 1994). The number of restrictions has been set to safeguard against the abuse. Oregon has developed the "Death with Dignity" which came into effect in 1998. Since that
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Technology in Healthcare Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words
Technology in Healthcare - Essay Example Certainly, medical technology has been useful over the years with profound breakthroughs being achieved but there needs to be an understanding of the impact of technology in healthcare- both positive and negative effects and how the latter can be mitigated. Technology is being adopted in healthcare to develop new treatments for previously untreatable diseases, major progress in clinical ability to treat acute ailments, increase access to healthcare to the patient population, making improvements in existing capabilities and promote efficient delivery of services. Medical technology has been used as a restricted substitute to a treatment, a substitute for an existing treatment or a supplement to an existing treatment. These changes are important to note as they affect the cost of treatment as they determine whether the technology raises or lowers the initial cost of treatment (Prantel). The field of medicine largely uses a number of types of medical technology or is affected by new technology and this had been evidenced for instance by the reduction in overall mortality rate from the heart attack between 1980 and 2000 as the number fell by approximately half. Another instance is with treatment of pre-term babies where in the 1950s it was almost impossible to provide this treatment but by the 1990s, there had been advances in technology; for example, it became possible to have steroids for the mother and/or baby and artificial pulmonary surfactant started being used to help infant's lungs develop. These advances in technology reduced mortality by a third of what it was in the 1950s (â€Å"Snapshots: How Changes†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ). Primarily technology use in healthcare has been opposed for its high-cost implications. However, from the graph above digitizing healthcare is forecasted to save the healthcare approximately 400 billion and 150 billion dollars inpatient and outpatient costs cumulatively by 2018 respectively. Â
Sunday, October 27, 2019
English Tort Law Imposing Liability Law Essay
English Tort Law Imposing Liability Law Essay This essay will address the question by exploring cases dealing with occupiers liability, vicarious liability and psychiatric harm. I intend to focus on narrow aspects within these three areas of law allowing a deep critical analysis. Occupiers liability, in my opinion, is an area of law that imposes too much liability in cases involving trespassers. I dont doubt that there must be liability for the homeowner who invites someone onto their land and fails to provide a safe environment which is seen in statute such as the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, duty to take such care as in all the circumstancesto see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises. [1] However, tort law insists that an occupier can be held liable for personal injury suffered by trespassers because of the state of the land and this is where I believe the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 [2] takes the principle of the 1957 Act and stretches it too far. My first critique of this aspect of to rt law is the conflict it has with criminal law. It seems incoherent that in a criminal court a home owner whose land has been trespassed on, perhaps by a burglar, will be considered the victim and duly have the sympathy of the court and yet be cast in the role of villain in a civil court. Leon Green describes how an occupier will, insist[ing] upon the intruders own wrong andinvoke[ing] his own immunity from any duty to exercise active care in behalf of a trespasser. [3] He then goes on to say, Assuming the intruder to be a wrongdoer, the landowners position would seem unassailable. [4] This journal dates back to 1917 before statute had imposed occupiers liability but the sentiment holds true. Why should the victim be held accountable for the criminals injuries in cases where there has been no active action on the part of the occupier? The negligent state of the land and arising liability should, in my opinion, be limited to lawful visitors and trespassing children, who cannot be held to the same standard as adults, if only for policy reasons. A clear message needs to be sent to unlawful visitors; crime does not pay. Why recompense them in any way from an illegal venture? Not only does it not dissuade criminal behaviour it is also wholly unfair to impose this liability on a home owner. Additionally, I would argue that when comparing occupiers liability to other areas of tort law, such as pure economic loss, it becomes clear that comparatively occupiers liability allows too much liability. The case of Weller Co. [5] established that a person cannot claim for pure financial loss if that loss is unaccompanied by physical damage. It seems reprehensible that innocent victims of negligence cannot claim damages from those whose, shoulders are broad enough to bear the loss, [6] and yet homeowners can be held liable for the injuries of trespassers. Tort law insists that innocent victims of pure economic loss must accept the financial loss as bad luck. Why is this principle not extended to trespassers? Those who trespass on land with the intent to commit a crime cannot claim to be innocent of the misfortune that may befall them. This awareness combined with the illegality of the act is enough in my opinion to put any injury that befalls a trespasser down to bad luck with, in my opinion, no liability to the homeowner. If tort law will not help the innocent it seems foolish that it is so willing to help the guilty and this yet another reason why I believe tort law imposes too much liability. Furthermore, I believe there is too much tortuous liability for occupiers in this area of the law and this can be seen in the conflict with the absolutist nature of property law. This view is seen in Semaynes case: The house of everyone is to him as his castle and fortress. [7] This principle has always come with certain restriction as English property law has never recognised total dominion over land. The 1957 and 1984 Occupiers liability acts impose a safe standard of maintenance of property. However, I put forth the argument that a landowner who has paid for the privilege of a property right should not be compelled by the law to prevent trespassers being injured. Property law does not enforce positive covenants as they are considered an erroneous duty, why then, should the occupier, who is doing nothing, bestir himself to look out for the safety of those who come upon his premises? Why should they not look out for themselves, as they would do anywhere else, except as to negl igence of those pursuing an active course of conduct. [8] I believe this burden should be alleviated and that occupiers should be allowed to spend their money, not on lawsuits, but on their property. Surely that is the prima facie benefit of owning land? Insisting that occupiers are liable for trespassers does not sit well with the absolutist history of English property law as it presupposes that money be spent in a certain way to prevent injury. I do not believe tort law should add further restrictions to property that is already subject to the laws of planning permission, restrictive covenants, nuisance etc. I believe tort law imposes too much liability and needs to strike a better balance with occupiers property rights. Another area of tort law where there is too much liability, in my opinion, is vicarious liability for employers. I am not challenging the belief that employers should be liable for their employers, to an extent, however I do believe greater limitations need to be put in place as employer liability is far too expansive. The law currently insists that employers are liable for any tortuous act committed by their employees as long as the act is within the scope of employment. Even in cases where the employer has done his utmost to prevent any negligent behaviour from his employee the law still holds him accountable such as in the case of Whatman v. Pearson. [9] Vicarious liability is an important aspect of tort law, as employer insurance means the claimant has a higher chance of being paid damages. However I struggle to accept an area of the law that so transparently undermines the crucial principle of causation. The law has had trouble establishing what employers should be liable for and I believe to make liability just and fair, vicarious liability should only apply in cases where the employer had some measure of control over the actions of the employee for example, authorising the act. Acts that involve the work environment but are actually entirely removed from the employers scope of awareness, for example the fraudulent dealings of the defendants in Lloyd v. Grace, Smith Co. [10] , would therefore fall outside the employers scope of liability. This would allow for fairness for the employer, something which I believe has been disregarded in the development of vicarious liability, because as it is the law imposes too much liability in this area. Moreover, I believe that tort law imposes too much liability in placing the burden of liability on the employer as this reduces the employees accountability for his actions. The practice of indemnity is in place but prima facie, vicarious liability effectively negates an employees legal culpability as despite sharing liability damages are most likely to come from the employers insurance. Legal theory has taught us that laws play their part in shaping social dynamics and surely what is needed to improve society are laws that ensure people are held responsible for their actions. The practice of vicarious liability, though coherent regarding policy reasons does not deal with the human reality of being legally and socially culpable for ones actions. It seems to me that vicarious liability is yet another area of the law that supports the notion of passing the buck and the way to reduce acts of negligence is to hold the actual tortfeasors, the employees, financially responsible. Take the J apanese model of employer liability as described by Joseph Sanders and Lee Hamilton, Japanese law stresses individual responsibility for corporate crime and rarely holds the organization responsible. [11] As long as employees are aware that any tort of negligence they commit during the course of employment will be recoverable from the employer they will never be inclined to be diligent to the best of their ability. It is for this reason I believe that tort law imposes too much liability on employers. I believe the area of psychiatric injury is one area of tort law where there is far too little liability. For a claim regarding psychiatric injury to be actionable the claimant must have either been a primary victim who was a foreseeable victim of psychiatric or physical injury or a secondary victim who meets various criteria. These criteria are laid down in Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [12] and are that there is a loving bond with the claimaint and the primary victim, proximity to the accident and that the psychiatric injury occurred as a result of seeing or hearing the accident with eyes and ears. Secondary victims have to jump through hoops to prove they deserve recompense for a psychiatric injury and this seems to suggest that the judicial system does not hold psychiatric injury in the same regard as physical injury. The law commission states, although psychiatric illness is often more debilitating than physical injury, the message conveyed by the prevailing rules is that mental and emotional wellbeing are of less account than physical integrity. [13] Perhaps the recalcitrance of the tort system to consider psychiatric injury as equal to physical injury, and therefore increase liability, is because of the residual stigma associated with psychiatric injury as well as the fear of floodgate liability. Whatever the reason, a system that differentiates between the two forms of injury is in my opinion a flawed system as both are forms of injury that should be dealt with uniformly. Lord Lloyd remarks that, there is no justification for regarding physical and psychiatric injury as different kinds of injury, [14] and yet the liability for both forms of injury is still imbalanced. Furthermore, why should different rules apply to primary and secondary victims? Should forseeability, causation, establishment of harm etc not be the core principles in establishing liability? As H. Teff states, in distinguishing between primary and secondary victims tort law, allows artificial criteria to displace the more natural question: should the defendant be liable to the plaintiff in all the circumstances? [15] I believe tort law offers too little liability by erecting false barriers that prevent victims from attaining damages. Cases such as Alcock [16] and White and Others v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [17] are evidence of the unfair system at work. Both cases involve innocent victims who were denied damages as liability was not imposed because crude, superficial criteria were not meant. As long as the harm to the victim was caused by the defendant and the damage to the victim was foreseeable then I do not believe there should be any differentiation between primary and secondary victims. The flaws of tort laws attempt to make a distinction between between primary and secondary victims is summed up by H. Teff who states, Instead of discriminating against foreseeable secondary victims, the law should reflect the fact that, often, the altruistic source of their reactions makes them at least as deserving as many primary victim Until the current legal system looks to a new and fairer model of liability regarding psychiatric injury the liability imposed will never be enough. Another fault with the tort system in how it deals with psychiatric injury is that the limits imposed for liability are too restrictive and the reasons behind the restrictions not particularly persuasive. The law refuses to relax the criteria for liability with no real explanation as to why bar a fear that laxer criteria will open up the floodgates of litigation. However H. Teff, referencing B.F. Hoffman [18] and the Law Commission, Consultation Paper [19] , explains why he does not think this is a real cause for concern, The enduring, if diminished, stigma associated with psychiatric illness inhibits many would-be claimants, and the risk of exposure through increasingly refined techniques of psychological assessment has reduced the risk of undeserving claimants succeeding on the strength of loose medical definition. [20] So if one accepts that the floodgate argument, for imposing such rigid criteria before there can be criteria, is unsound then one must also accept that the current law imposes too little liability as a result. Furthermore, many of the criteria regarding psychiatric injury are archaic and arbitrary. For example, Mullany noted that, The psychiatric literature does not allow the assertion that the impact of trauma is inevitably more severe if directly perceived [21] and yet tort law has stubbornly held onto the criteria that the event causing injury must be perceived with the senses, refusing to allow development and change in line with new understandings of psychiatric illness. Cane argues, how can we justify a rule which requires mentally traumatized people to go to court and prove that they have strong feelings of love and affection towards another? [22] The old attitudes to psychiatric harm are no longer justifiable and so a criterion that is insensitive to the needs of those suffering injury must be criticized and adjusted. The criterion that the event causing psychiatric harm must be sudden [23] again seems arbitrary, a rule designed for no other purpose but too limit liability. Harvey Teff argues, The laws current stance effectively penalises those whose illness involves a more prolonged reaction to an event or events closely connected with the defendants negligent conduct. [24] These are but a few of the criteria imposed before there can be liability and I believe they serve to show that as Harvey Teff states, the current rules are, At odds with psychological reality, amount(ing) to no more than unprincipled line-drawing. [25] I have attempted to give both sides of the question equal attention and in doing so this has led to me to the conclusion that one cannot say tort law as a whole imposes too much or too little liability. I believe that psychiatric injury is too restricted in its liability and vicarious and occupiers liability are too expansive. In these areas I believe reform would be welcome however one must recognise that no legal system is perfect and the tort system could be far worse.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Cold War Essay -- essays research papers fc
                                                                      Cold War                                         How did the cold war affect economic development in Europe, Asia and the U.S.? How did the â€Å"Welfare State†in Europe and the â€Å"Consumer Culture†in the U.S. relate to cold war developments? Include in your discussion the Soviet (command) and Western (market) economic models and the â€Å"commodity gap†v. â€Å"missile gap†. One country in Europe that was affected by the cold war was the economic development of Germany. The cold war made Germany an economic powerhouse. Germany’s coal and steel were assisting the French industry and lower countries as well. Western Europe was becoming very competitive with the U.S. in industry and in creating a consumer society. Unemployment was low, new technologies were being produced and the rate of investments were high. Political parties were formed as well. The right to welfare also assist...
Thursday, October 24, 2019
Brisson Company Case Study
Case 19-3: Brisson Company Approach This problem takes the student through a complete cycle of transactions in a standard cost system in a simple setting. It shows how such a system works, including the development of variances, and ties cost accounting to the accounting cycle the student learned in Part 1 of the book. (Brisson’s system is the same as the one depicted in Illustration 19-2. ) This seems to be a valuable exercise, especially in helping to minimize the omnipresent problems students have with production cost variance analysis in the next chapter.If not assigned for class, this makes a good exam case. (For ease in grading, I suggest you prepare forms with all needed T accounts preprinted on them. ) Question 1 Materials Inventory| | Work in Process Inventory| Bal. | 50,250| (4)| 118,810| | Bal. | 75,600| (9)| 267,684| (2)| 104,980| | 36,420| | (4)| 116,696| | | Bal. | 36,420| | | | (5a,8)| 79,200| | | | | | | | (8)| 99,000| | 102,812| Finished Goods Inventory| | Bal . | 102,812| | | Bal. | 155,400| (10b)| 232,602| | | | | | (9)| 267,684| | 190,482| | | | | | Bal. | 190,482| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Accounts Payable| | All Other Assets| (3a)| 102,300| Bal. | 104,700| | Bal. | 325,500| (3a)| 102,300| | | (2)| 103,535| | (3b)| 192,000| (3b)| 192,000| | 143,435| (6)| 37,500| | (10a)| 375,150| (5b)| 116,700| | | Bal. | 143,435| | | | (6)| 18,300| | | | | | | | (7)| 78,750| All Other Liabilities| | | | | 384,600| | | Bal. | 47,250| | Bal. | 384,600| | | | | | | | | | | | Overhead| | Wages Payable| (5a)| 40,500| (8)| 99,000| | (5b)| 116,700| Bal. | 6,150| (6)| 55,800| | | | | 2,250| (5a)| 112,800| (11)| 2,700| | | | | | Bal. | 2,250| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Overhead Variance| | Shareholders’ Equity| (14)| 2,700| (11)| 2,700| | | | Bal. | 448,650| | | | | | | 521,379| (19)| 72,729| | | | | | | | Bal. | 521,379| | | | | | | | | | Labor Variance| | Material Price Variance| (16)| 6,900| (5a,8)| 6,900| | (15)| 1,445| (2)| 1,445| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Sales| | Material Usage Variance| (12)| 375,150| (10a)| 375,150| | (4)| 2,114| (17)| 2,114| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Selling and Admin. Expense| | Income Summary| (7)| 78,750| (18)| 78,750| | (13)| 232,602| (12)| 375,150| | | | | | (17)| 2,114| (14)| 2,700| | | | | (18)| 78,750| (15)| 1,445| Cost of Sales| | (19)| 72,729| (16)| 6,900| (10b)| 232,602| (13)| 232,602| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Notes on entries (numbered to correspond to the case transactions): (2) 2,500 @ $29. 80 + 1,000 @ $30. 48 = $104,980 @ std. $104,980 – $103,535 = $1,445 credit (favorable) price variance. Favorable price variances often arise in the first half of the year; the standard is set to represent the annual average, and with inflation, prices will tend to be below this average for the first 6 months and above it in the latter half f the year. (3b)The debit reflects an increase in Cash; the credit represents the decrease in Accounts Receivable. (3) 3,20 0 @ $29. 80 + 700 @ $30. 48 = $116,696 for original issues; plus extra (replacement) issues as follows: 100 @ $12. 37 + 20 @ $11. 25 + 45 @ $10. 80 + 20 @ $6. 63 + 4 @ $8. 43 = $2,114 (an (4) unfavorable usage variance); giving total issues of $118,810. (Note: Some students may claim that the $2,114 in extra materials issues were to replace materials that were defective, as opposed to replacing good items that were spoiled in the production places.Such students may treat this $2,114 as an overhead cost; if so, they will have $0 material usage variance and $586 favorable overhead variance. ) (5a)This entry stumps many students, at least temporarily. Some will cleverly set up a labor clearing account analogous to the overhead clearing account, and then charge the standard labor to this account at entry (8) the balance in this labor clearing account will be $6,900 dr. , which is closed to Labor Variance. Other students will do what I’ve done hereâ€â€read ahead to entry (8), and deduce the labor variance as part of the entry. 9)3,000 @ $70. 30 + 800 @ $70. 98 = $267,684 (10b)2,400 @ $70. 30 + 900 @ $70. 98 = $232,602 cost of sales (11)This closes the overhead clearing account. (12)-(19) These entries close the temporary accounts and income summary. Question 2 BRISSON COMPANY Income Statement Month of April| Sales revenue| $375,150| Cost of sales @ standard| 232,602| Standard gross margin| 142,548| Production cost variances*| 8,931| Actual gross margin| 151,479| Selling and administrative expense| 78,750| Income| $ 72,729| *Production cost variances:| | Martial price| $1,445F| Material usage| 2,114U| Labor| 6,900F| Overhead| 2,700F| | $8,931F| Question 3 BRISSON COMPANY Balance Sheet As of April 30| Assets| | Liabilities and Shareholders’ Equity| Materials inventory| $ 36,420| | Accounts payable| $143,435| Work in process inventory| 102,812| | Wages payable| 2,250| Finished goods inventory| 190,482| | All other liabilities| 47,250| All other asses | 384,600| | Shareholders’ equity| 521,379| | $714,314| | | $714,314|
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Reflection †IOM Future of Nursing Essay
Knowledge can give nurses greater power to take action and lack of knowledge can leave nurses powerless to provide safe or effective care ( Innocent, 2011). During this difficult economic time many recruiters prefer to hire experienced nurse with knowledge. To gain knowledge one must have education. Education makes a difference in how we perceive things, provides in depth study of nursing research, leadership, management, and helps understand social, cultural, political and economic issues that affect patients and influence care. According to the IOM report in Recommendation 4: to increase the proportion of nurses with a BSN to 80% by 2020. Increasing the level of education, increases not only knowledge but gives in depth study of other fields in nursing and research. Earning a BSN degree will make one more confident to deliver safe and quality care. Research has shown the importance of baccalaureate education in relation to patient outcomes. Nurses need to educate themselves because they are the ones who provide almost all direct patient care in the hospitals and other areas. IOM report is a wakeup call to nurses who just have their diploma or associate degree to enroll into the BSN program. Having a BSN degree is preferred in much hospital as an entry level standard. Therefore completing BSN gives more opportunities for leadership and management job, helps provide quality care and improve patient safety, and helps the nurses participate in research projects. Another recommendation put forth by the IOM is Recommendation 5: Double the number of nurses with doctorate degree by 2020. Healthcare needs more nurses with doctorates to educate nurses, lead change and advance health care in America. A higher degree of clinical skill and knowledge enhances the leadership skills and keep with the pace of the growing demands in healthcare. Nurses need to get their doctorate which gives them more autonomy, money and power. Have a doctorate degree, helps build up on what you already know and use the clinical skill learned in research, create and bring about change for the better in the lives of the patients. There are more jobs open for a doctorate in nursing in the field of research, labs, universities, administrative positions in the hospitals and insurance company. Ensure lifelong learning as per IOM recommendation 6: Ensure learning to keep up with the demand of the changes in technology, and gain competencies needed to deliver care of diverse populations. Lifelong learning contributes to the development of knowledge and skill in nursing. A focus on continuous learning is necessary to remain current on trends, practices, and the newest treatments in the field of nursing(Wetters, 2011). Increasing education gives every nurse the confidence to compete in the job market. Knowledge and skills learned can be enhanced through education and lifelong learning experience to keep up with the pace of the growing needs of the healthcare industry. Every nurse should engage in a learning process to keep up with the challenges of this century. Nurses have given a wide scope of practice and one should take advantage of that to enhance oneself to better job where one can help train the new generation of nurses. Education will always be an assess in today’s job market as well as in the future. Every nurse should encourage and support one another to higher learning. Reference Innocent, K. (2011. January). Knowledge, A Power Source for Nurses. Nursing center. Retrieved on April, 13 from http://www.nursingcenter.com/Blog/post/2011/01/14/Knowledge-A-Power-Source-for-Nurses.aspx http://www.thefutureofnursing.org/recommendation/detail/recommendation-6 Wetters, K. (2011, January). Culture of Lifelong learning in Nursing. Fostering a culture of curiosity. Retrieved on April 13, 2013 from http://www.rightathome.net/foxvalley/blog/culture-of-lifelong-learning-in-nursing-joliet-illinois/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)