In the article “Personal responsibility within health policy: unethical and ineffective”, Phoebe Friesen critiques the emphasis on personal responsibility in health regulations. She argues that this approach is unjust and ineffective. Regulations often pass judgment on people's actions without considering factors beyond their control, which is unjust and ineffective. This often results in placing all the blame on individuals. Through unethical ways of blame and moral judgment, and ineffective ways of resource allocations and behavior changes. Friesen advocates for regulations that focus on societal and systemic issues instead of placing blame on individuals. Friesen advocates for health policies that focus on social determinants and structural issues rather than …show more content…
She says overseeing your own health is key to helping people take control of how they are. This idea says if people don't see it as their own job to be well, they won't do things to be healthy, and this will make their health worse. Also, saying it's your job to be well can help you be more in control and sure that you can do things on your own. Both sides make good points, but Friesen's idea talks about bigger problems by just saying it's your job to be well. Understanding Friesen’s analogy and argument, we learn that there are a lot of missing factors that can hinder or increase the abilities of one person’s actions, whether it’s the health issues obtained, or the resources needed to fix them. Friesen talks about how being responsible is important. But, just focusing on that might not be enough. What makes us healthy is not just up to us. Things like our genes, where we live, how much money we have, and if we can get healthcare also play a big part. Blaming just the person for their health oversimplifies things and isn't just. It's better to change the places and systems around us to make us
In our lifetimes, we meet many people. And, hopefully, with each of them we follow a certain protocol when we first meet them. When one is greeted sweetly, or even sourly, the receiver is expected to graciously accept it and return the favor politely. In other countries, children are taught to show their respect towards elders at all times. Young ones in the Philippines are conditioned to grab an elder’s hand and bring it up to their forehead in a bowing motion, this practice is known as “blessing”. However, no one has ever given a more in depth answer for the reason of these practices other than, “Because you should.”
My father has always reminded me that religion plays a big role in one’s morals. Of course that only applies if a person is religious and has a religious background. There are a lot of religious people in this world, and if one were to ask them where their morals came from, they would say that it is based on their religion. So what is it that makes these two things so similar and distinct? Iris Murdoch, author of “Morality and Religion,” discusses how morals and religion need each other in order to work. Morals without religion is nearly impossible because; religion influences our morals, religion allows to set better morals for one’s self, and ideally morality is essentially religious.
The primary issue that was addressed in the Journal article, “Moral Reasoning of MSW Social Workers and the Influence of Education” written by Laura Kaplan, was that social workers make critical decisions on a daily basis that effect others. They influence their clients’ lives through giving timely and appropriate funding to them and their families, through deciding should a family stay together or should they have a better life with another family, or connecting the client with appropriate resources that can enhance their lives. The article addresses data from an array of students from various universities. The researcher posed these questions; “Would social workers use moral reasoning (what is right and what is wrong) more prevalent if it was taught through an individual class during your MSW graduate studies, or if you obtain any other undergraduate degree, or if the ethic course was integrated in the curriculum?”
Without Conscience: Book Report Psychopaths all have something in common, and that's luring unexpected people in their traps. Its part of human nature to wonder and question the unknown. Psychopaths are a clear example of the unknown with their personalities and behaviors that are far from the norm on a continuum. We wonder what makes them do some of the unimaginable and horrific things to people and/or animals.
Wilson , James G. S., “Rights”, Principles of Health Care Ethics, Second Edition, eds. R.E. Ashcroft, A. Dawson, H. Draper and J.R. McMillan. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2007. pp. 239.
Morality is, in essence, subjugated by he who defines it. This being the case, morality (defined as right or wrong, good or evil) is malleable as long as it does not impede upon any “ipso facto virtue';(Didion). In the essay “On Morality';, by Joan Didion, this aspect ‘on morality’ is composed. This will be utilized to verify that William Saroyan’s (author of “Five Ripe Pears) guilt of an immoral action is conflicting given specified conditions.
The patient should have confident and trust in their doctor, but the doctor must also recognize that the patient is entitled to have an attitude to illness and his preferred way of tackling this (Turner-Warwick, 1994). Buchanan infers that paternalism eliminates an individual’s power of making their own choices and thus pressed into making decisions. To achieve public health goals, greater considerations must be directed toward promoting a mutual understanding of a just society (Buchanan, 2008). So, if people are given the choice to make certain decision over another, then they are still granted freedom of choice. Buchanan identifies 3 arguments in justifying paternalistic actions: informed consent, weak paternalism, and utilitarianism. To support his argument of informed consent, Buchanan admits there is no significant ethical concern because an individual may reach out to the professional for help, but it is problematic when an intervention is targeting the entire population (Buchanan, 2008). This point of view from Buchanan is flawed and completely limits what public health is all about. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines public health as “what we, as a society, do collectively to assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” With its use of the phrase “we, as a society,” the IOM emphasizes cooperative and mutually shared obligation and it also reinforces the notion that collective
Should people be held accountable for what they eat? Many believe that it is a matter of public health, but some think that it is the matter of personal responsibility. In the article “What You Eat Is Your Business,” Radley Balko argues that the government spending more money on anti-obesity measures is the wrong way to fix the obesity epidemic. He claims that people should be more responsible for their personal health. I am of two minds about this author’s claim that eating and lifestyle are matters of personal choice. On the one hand, I agree with his claim because of the unfair insurance policies, people should be more responsible for their own health, and people should take the time to be responsible for their kid’s health instead of blaming someone or something irrelevant. On the other hand, the government should do their best to dispose of “food deserts,” provide more opportunities to live a healthy life style, and give tax breaks to people selling healthy foods.
The question of what is the government’s role in regulating healthy and unhealthy behavior is one that would probably spark a debate every time. Originally, the role was to assist in regulating and ensure those that were unable to afford or obtain healthcare insurance for various reasons would be eligible for medical care. However, now it seems that politicians are not really concerned about what’s best for the citizens but woul...
Morality is an abstract concept that continues to confuse people worldwide, a concept that is accompanied by the image of a compass. However, people believe that morality is a generalized system, but then how are morals symbolized by a compass if most compasses are different? The answer is obvious in M. L. Stedman 's The Light Between Oceans where the author communicates that morality is not defined in black and white terms, but is rather a blurred shade of grey. Stedman gives readers this answer through the actions and reactions of Tom and Isabel, Hannah, and Lucy on the decision made to keep Lucy on Janus Rock. The decision that rocks an entire town is made by Tom and Isabel.
The four criminal law elements of self-defense are nonaggressor, necessity, proportionality, and reasonable belief. Nonaggressor is when the defender did not in any way provoke or stray an attack. When it comes to self-defense it is only available when it comes to unprovoked attacks. If one provokes someone they cannot use self-defense to defend themselves from the attack because they provoked it. However there is one exception and that is the withdrawal exception. The withdrawal exception is when the initial aggressor withdrawals completely from the attack they provoked they can defend themselves against their initial victims. An example of nonaggressor self-defense is Melody hanging out at the bar by herself and Samantha comes up to her trying
Berman, M. L. (2011). From Health Care Reform to Public Health Reform. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 39(3), 328-339. doi:10.1111/j.1748-720X.2011.00603.x
Steinbock, Bonnie, Alex J. London, and John D. Arras. "Rule-Utilitarianism versus Act-Utilitarianism." Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine. Contemporary Readings in Bioethics. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2013. 12. Print.
There is a strict distinction between acts and omissions in tort of negligence. “A person is often not bound to take positive action unless they have agreed to do so, and have been paid for doing so.” (Cane.2009; 73) The rule is a settled one and allows some exceptions only in extreme circumstances. The core idea can be summarized in “why pick on me” argument. This attitude was spectacularly demonstrated in a notoriously known psychological experiment “The Bystander effect” (Latané & Darley. 1968; 377-383). Through practical scenarios, psychologists have found that bystanders are more reluctant to intervene in emergency situations as the size of the group increases. Such acts of omission are hardly justifiable in moral sense, but find some legal support. “A man is entitled to be as negligent as he pleases towards the whole world if he owes no duty to them.” (L Esher Lievre v Gould [1893] 1 Q.B. 497) Definitely, when there is no sufficient proximity between the parties, a legal duty to take care cannot be lawfully exonerated and imposed, as illustrated in Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] All ER (D) 722). If it could, individuals would have been in the permanent state of over- responsibility for others, neglecting their own needs. Policy considerations in omission cases are not inspired by the parable of Good Samaritan ideas. Judges do favour individualism as it “permits the avoidance of vulnerability and requires self-sufficiency. “ (Hoffmaster.2006; 36)
The health of an individual and their communities is affected by several elements which combine together. Whether an individual is healthy or not, is determined by their circumstances and environment.1 To a greater extent, factors such as where an individual lives, their relationships with family and friends, the state of their environment, income, genetics and level of education all have significant impacts on health, however the more frequently considered factors such as access and use of health care facilities regularly have less of an impact.6 Determinants of health is a term which was introduced in the 1970s as part of a broader analysis of research and policy on public health. Researchers argued that there was a lot of attention and too much expenditure on health being dedicated to individuals and their illnesses, and little or no investment in populations and their health. It was decided that public health should be more concerned with social policies and social determinants than with health facilities and the outcomes of diseases.7 The determinants of health include social and economic environment, physical environment and an individual’s behaviour and characteristics. The environment of an individual determines their health, holding responsible an individual for having poor health or acknowledging them for good health is inappropriate. Individuals are not likely to be able to control several of the determinants of health. These determinants that make individuals healthy or not include the factors above, and numerous others.6