Outlining an Informative Speech: Anabolic Steroids

| Outlining an Informative SpeechAnabolic Steroids in Sports| | | OUTLINE OF SPEECH ATTENTION-GETTING OPENER An athlete is a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina. Athletes train and practice year-round to prepare for the competition and challenges. Most high school, college, amateur and professional athletes participate in sports for the opportunity to pit their abilities against those of their peers, and to experience the satisfaction that comes from playing to their potential. Others do so to satisfy a desire for recognition and fame.Unfortunately all this creates some athletes who are determined to win at any cost. Have you heard or know of anyone who has used anabolic steroids? PREVIEW Today I will give you some interesting facts about the use of anabolic steroids in sports. I Description and definition II Reasons for using III Famous Athletes IV Effects V Solutions BODY TRANSITION: To better understand m y report, first we should know what anabolic steroids are. I Description and definition A. A group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth B.Are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance C. Non-medical use of anabolic steroids is illegal and banned by most major sports organizations D. In January 2005, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act was amended with the Controlled Substance Act that added anabolic steroids to the list of controlled substances and makes possession of the substances a federal crime TRANSITION: You may be asking by now, what are the reasons that make athletes use these drugs? II Reasons for using A. To gain advantage B. Lack of self esteem C.Peer, competitive, fan and media pressure TRANSITION: Now, I will mention some famous athletes that used, during their careers and competitions, anabolic steroids. I’m sure you know most of them. III Famous Athletes who used anabolic steroids A. Heidi Krieger B. Ben Johnson C. Mark McGwire D. Florence Griffith Joyner E. Brian Bosworth F. Arnold Schwarzenegger G. John Kordic H. Danny Harris I. Lyle Alzado TRANSITION: Ok, I will now proceed to mention some of the harmful effects that this drug has on the athletes that use and abuse them. IV Effects A. Damage to the kidneys and liver B.Alteration of the balance of the natural hormones C. Some male users form breasts D. Serious acne problems E. When used by teens it can cause stunted growth F. Genital changes, water retention, yellow eyes, coronary artery disease, high blood pressure, and changes in cholesterol levels G. Ligament injuries and sterility H. Women run the risk of male pattern baldness I. Coma and death J. HIV transmission K. Withdrawal symptoms L. Depression TRANSITION: After mentioning the harmful effects, I will explain some solutions that should be taken to reduce the use of this dangerous drug by all athletes.V Solutions A. Legal 1. Restrictive laws 2. Penalties B. Education: Change of athlete’s attitude 3. Thorough knowledge of the sport's physical demands and requirements 4. Maintenance of a healthy lifestyle 5. Appreciation of the satisfaction that comes from participation TRANSITION: After my presentation, you should now understand why some athletes use anabolic steroids and the effects this drug has on them. SUMMARY Now, you understand the most important facts of anabolic steroids in sports. I Description and definition II Reasons for using III Famous Athletes IV EffectsV Solutions Concluding Remarks In conclusion, any athlete of any age should be educated in light of the hazard and negative effects that the anabolic steroids has on a body. Some athletes persist in taking them, believing that these substances provide a competitive advantage. But beyond the issues of popularity or legality is the fact that anabolic steroids can cause serious physical and psycholo gical side effects. ACTUAL SPEECH INTRODUCTION I. An athlete is a person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.Athletes train and practice year-round to prepare for the competition and challenges. Most high school, college, amateur and professional athletes participate in sports for the opportunity to pit their abilities against those of their peers, and to experience the satisfaction that comes from playing to their potential. Others do so to satisfy a desire for recognition and fame. Unfortunately all this creates some athletes who are determined to win at any cost. Have you heard or know of anyone who has used anabolic steroids? II. Today I will give you some interesting facts about the use of anabolic steroids in sports.A. Description and definition B. Reasons for using C. Famous Athletes D. Effects E. Solutions TRANSITION: To better understand my report, first we should know what anabolic steroids are. BODY Ana bolic steroids are â€Å"any of a group of usually synthetic hormones that are derivatives of testosterone, are used medically especially to promote tissue growth, and are sometimes abused by athletes to increase the size and strength of their muscles and improve endurance†. Non-medical use of anabolic steroids is illegal and banned by most major sports organizations.In January 2005, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act was amended with the Controlled Substance Act that added anabolic steroids and prohormones (a precursor to a hormone) to the list of controlled substances and makes possession of the substances a federal crime. TRANSITION: You may be asking by now, what are the reasons that make athletes use these drugs? TRANSITION: Now, I will mention some famous athletes that used, during their careers and competitions, anabolic steroids. I’m sure you know most of them. Over the years many professional athletes have been focus of the media, after being caught using anabol ic steroids.To name only a few, here are some examples. Heidi Krieger proved herself one of the world's top athletes in the 1980s, winning medal after medal in the shot put for East Germany. Heidi Krieger, the 1986 European women's shot-put champion, became Andreas Krieger after a sex-change operation in 1997. He said he had been fed so many steroids by his coaches without his knowledge that physical and emotional problems began. We remember when Ben Johnson was stripped of his gold medal in the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Many athletes that were seen as heroes had their problems with anabolic use.Good examples of athletes that were made to look like heroes were Mark McGwire and Florence Griffith Joyner. Flo Jo was suspected of drug abuse when she won her gold medals in the Olympics. She was tested ten years after the Olympics and came up negative, but most steroids are out of a person's system within weeks. She was idolized by millions, so no other discussions came up on the topic of her drug use until her death. She was said to have died in a fit of epileptic seizures. Later investigations showed she died of cardiac problems, a health problem that can be brought on by steroid use.According to CBS News, other examples of professional athletes that used steroids were Brian Bosworth, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and John Kordic. American Danny Harris ranked number one in the hurdles in 1991, failed a drug test, and was suspended for four years. The best known case of steroid use was Lyle Alzado. Lyle, the former defensive end, had an inoperable brain tumor that left his once-massive body ravaged. He blames years of heavy use of steroids and human growth hormones. Alzado took steroids almost daily for nearly 20 years. This prolonged use killed him.TRANSITION: Ok, I will now proceed to mention some of the harmful effects that this drug has on the athletes that use and abuse them. The negative effects of this drug are many. Some of the negative effects of the drugs are damage to the kidneys and liver. A person can also alter the balance of the natural hormones. This can cause detrimental affects to the body. The effects of your natural hormones being out of balance can last several years after being off the drugs. Some male users form breasts due to the use of steroids. Because of the increase in testosterone, steroids can cause serious acne problems.When used by teens it can cause stunted growth. Other side effects include genital changes, water retention, yellow eyes, coronary artery disease, ligament injuries, high blood pressure, and changes in cholesterol levels, sterility and liver disease. The list goes on and on. Women that use steroids run the risk of male pattern baldness. Some effects of steroids are even worse. Some people fall into comas after injecting the drugs, some may even die from the injections. Sometimes, athletes who use anabolic steroids may share the needles, syringes or other equipment they use to inject these drugs.By sharing ne edles, syringes or other equipment, a person becomes a high risk for HIV transmission. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. Athletes who use steroids can also experience withdrawal symptoms when they quit. The symptoms include mood swings, depression, fatigue and irritability, loss of appetite, insomnia, and aggression. Depression can even lead to suicide attempts, if untreated. TRANSITION: After mentioning the harmful effects, I will explain some solutions that should be taken to reduce the use of this dangerous drug by all athletes.The attitude of winning at any cost embraced by some athletes must be redirected and replaced by personal dedication to the sport; a thorough knowledge of the sport's physical demands and requirements; maintenance of a healthy lifestyle; and, an appreciation of the satisfaction that comes from participation. Our athletes should be educated since their early age about the effects and consequences of using anabolic steroids. There should be also restrictive laws and penalties for the athletes that are caught using this drug, no matter their fame or money.TRANSITION: After my presentation, you should now understand why some athletes use anabolic steroids and the effects this drug has on them. CONLUSION I. Now, you understand the most important facts of anabolic steroids in sports. a. Description and definition b. Reasons for using c. Famous Athletes d. Effects e. Solutions II. In conclusion, any athlete of any age should be educated in light of the hazard and negative effects that the anabolic steroids has on a body. Some athletes persist in taking them, believing that these substances provide a competitive advantage.But beyond the issues of popularity or legality is the fact that anabolic steroids can cause serious physical and psychological side effects. VISUAL AIDS 1. List of ideas a. Power point presentation of pictures of anabolic steroids, famous athletes that have used the drug, and their pictures before and after using them. b. Short captions or tapes of the athletes during their performances. 2. Power point, because the captions or tapes can be inserted in the presentation. 3. The visual aid could be used as guide in each of the transitions.

Getting Away with Torture

Global Governance 11 (2005), 389–406 REVIEW ESSAY Getting Away with Torture Kenneth Roth The Bush administration’s use of torture and inhumane treatment has undermined one of the most basic global standards governing how governments can treat people under their control. Contrary to the efforts of the administration to pass this abuse off as the spontaneous misconduct of a few low-level soldiers, ample evidence demonstrates that it reflects policy decisions taken at the highest levels of the U. S. government.Repairing the damage done to global standards will require acknowledging this policy role and launching a genuinely independent investigation to identify those responsible and hold them accountable. The creation of regulated exceptions to the absolute prohibition of torture and mistreatment, as suggested by several academics, will not redeem the tarnished reputation of the United States or restore the global standards that the Bush administration has so severely dama ged. KEYWORDS: torture, Abu Ghraib, Guatanamo, interrogation, cruel treatment.B’Tselem, â€Å"Legislation Allowing the Use of Physical Force and Mental Coercion in Interrogations by the General Security Service,† B’Tselem Position Paper, January 2000, 80 pp. Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004), 592 pp. Alan M. Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 288 pp. Karen J. Greenberg and Joshua L. Dratel, eds. , The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1,284 pp. Philip B. Heymann and Juliette N.Kayyem, Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism (Cambridge: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, 2004), 195 pp. Human Rights Watch, The Road to Abu Ghraib (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2004), 37 pp. Sanford Levinson, ed. , Torture: A Collection (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 328 pp. 389 390 Getting Away with Torture ho would have thought it still necessary to debate the merits of torture? Sure, there are always some governments that torture, but they do it clandestinely. Torture is inherently shameful—something that, if practiced, is done in the shadows.In the system of international human rights law and institutions that has been constructed since World War II, there is no more basic prohibition than the ban on torture. Even the right to life admits exceptions, such as the killing of combatants allowed in wartime. But torture is forbidden unconditionally, whether in time of peace or war, whether at the local police precinct or in the face of a major security threat. Yet, suddenly, following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, torture and related mistreatment have become serious policy options for the United States.Academics are proposing ways to regulate the pain that can be inflicted on suspects in detention. Overly clever U. S. government lawyers have tried to define away laws against torture. The Bush administration claims latitude to abuse detainees that its predecessors would never have dared to contemplate. Washington’s new willingness to contemplate torture is not just theoretical. The abuse of prisoners has flourished in the gulag of offshore detention centers that the Bush administration now maintains in Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the secret dungeons where the U. S. government’s â€Å"disappeared† prisoners are held.Hidden from public scrutiny, shielded from legal accountability, the interrogators in these facilities have been allowed to flout the most basic rules for the decent and humane treatment of detainees. Yet torture remains the despicable practice it has always been. It dehumanizes people by treating them as pawns to be manipulated through their pain. It harnesses the awesome power of the state and appl ies it to human beings at their most vulnerable. Breaching any restraint of reciprocity, it subjects the victim to abuse that the perpetrator would never himself want to suffer.Before looking at why Americans are suddenly confronting the torture option, it is useful to clarify what, exactly, torture is. The word torture has entered the vernacular to describe a host of irritants, but its formal meaning in international law is quite specific: the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, for whatever reason. Torture as defined in international law is not done by private actors but by government officials or those operating with their consent or acquiescence. 1 Torture exists on a continuum of mistreatment.Abuse just short of torture is known in international law as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The lines between these different degrees of mistreatment are W Kenneth Roth 391 not crystal clear—lesser forms are often gateways to tort ure—which is one reason why international law prohibits all such forms of coercion. 2 Torture as well as cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment is flatly prohibited by such treaties as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and the Geneva Conventions.All of these treaties are widely ratified, including by the United States. None permits any exception to these prohibitions, even in time of war or a serious security threat. Indeed, these prohibitions are so fundamental that the Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the most authoritative U. S. treatise on the matter, lists them as peremptory jus cogens norms, meaning they bind governments as a matter of customary international law, even in the absence of a treaty.Breach of these prohibitions gives rise to a crime of universal jurisdiction, allowing the perpetrator to be prosecut ed in any competent tribunal anywhere. Yet it is precisely because of the fundamental character of the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment that the Bush administration’s deliberate disregard for it is so damaging. If this basic human rights protection can be cast aside, no right is secure. Moreover, the Bush administration is not just any government. When most governments breach international human rights law, they commit a violation—the breach is condemned or prosecuted, but the rule remains firm.Yet when a government as dominant and influential as the United States openly defies that law and seeks to justify its defiance, it also undermines the law itself, and invites others to do the same. That shakes the very foundations of the international system for the protection of human rights that has been carefully constructed over the past sixty years. This unlawful conduct has also damaged Washington’s credibility as a proponent of hum an rights and a leader of the campaign against terrorism. The U. S. government’s record of promoting human rights has always been mixed.For every offender it berated for human rights transgressions, there was another whose abuses it ignored, excused, or even supported. Yet despite this inconsistency, the United States historically has played a key role in defending human rights. Its embrace of coercive interrogation—part of a broader betrayal of human rights principles in the name of combating terrorism—has significantly impaired its ability to mount that defense. As a result, governments facing human rights pressure from the United States now find it increasingly easy to turn the tables, to challenge Washington’s standing to uphold principles that it violates itself. 92 Getting Away with Torture Whether it is Egypt justifying torture by reference to U. S. practice, Malaysia defending administrative detention by invoking Guantanamo, Russia citing Abu Ghra ib to blame abuses in Chechnya solely on lowlevel soldiers, Nepal explaining a coup by reference to America’s postSeptember 11 excesses, or Cuba claiming the Bush administration had â€Å"no moral authority to accuse† it of human rights violations, repressive governments find it easier to deflect U. S. pressure because of Washington’s own sorry counterterrorism record on human rights.Indeed, when Human Rights Watch asked State Department officials to protest administrative detention in Malaysia and prolonged incommunicado detention in Uganda, they demurred, explaining, in the words of one, â€Å"With what we are doing in Guantanamo, we’re on thin ice to push this. †3 Washington’s loss of credibility has not been for lack of rhetorical support for concepts that are closely related to human rights, but the embrace of explicit human rights language seems to have been calculatedly rare.In his January 2005 inauguration speech, President Bush spok e extensively of his devotion to â€Å"freedom† and â€Å"liberty,† his opposition to â€Å"tyranny† and â€Å"terrorism,† but hardly at all about his commitment to human rights. 4 The distinction has enormous significance. It is one thing to pronounce oneself on the side of the â€Å"free,† quite another to be bound by the full array of human rights standards that are the foundation of freedom. It is one thing to declare oneself opposed to terrorism, quite another to embrace the body of international human rights and humanitarian law that enshrines the values rejecting terrorism.This linguistic sleight of hand—this refusal to accept the legal obligations embraced by rights-respecting states—has both reduced Washington’s credibility and facilitated its use of coercive interrogation. Because of this hypocrisy, many human rights defenders, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, now cringe when the United States comes t o their defense. Reformers in the Middle East speak of â€Å"the hug of death†Ã¢â‚¬â€the ill effects of Washington’s hypocritical embrace.They may crave a powerful ally, but identifying too closely with a government that so brazenly ignores international law, whether in its own abuses or its alliance with other abusers, has become a sure route to disrepute. At a time when the Bush administration is extolling itself as a champion of reform in the Middle East, as the catalyst behind recent democratic developments, however modest, in Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian territories, it is a sad irony that so few reformers welcome its support.That weakening of Washington’s moral authority in the Middle East is particularly tragic, because that region is where effective counterterrorism efforts are most needed. Open and responsive political systems Kenneth Roth 393 are the best way to encourage people to pursue their grievances peacefully. But whe n the most vocal governmental advocate of democracy deliberately violates human rights, it undermines democratically inclined reformers and strengthens the appeal of those who preach more radical visions. Instead, U. S. buses have provided a new rallying cry for terrorist recruiters, and the pictures from Abu Ghraib have become the recruiting posters for Terrorism, Inc. Many militants need no additional incentive to attack civilians, but if a weakened human rights culture eases even a few fence-sitters toward the path of violence, the consequences can be dire. Why is the United States taking this approach? To vent frustration, to exact revenge—possibly—but certainly not because torture and mistreatment are required for national security or protection.Respect for the Geneva Conventions does not preclude vigorously interrogating detainees about a limitless range of topics. The U. S. Army’s field manual on intelligence interrogation makes clear that coercion underm ines the quest for reliable information. 5 The U. S. military command in Iraq says that Iraqi detainees are providing more useful intelligence when they are not subjected to abuse. In the words of Craig Murray, the United Kingdom’s former ambassador to Uzbekistan, who was speaking of the UK’s reliance on torture-extracted testimony, â€Å"We are selling our souls for dross. 6 Moreover, coercive interrogation is making us less safe by effectively precluding criminal prosecution of its victims. Once a confession is coerced, it becomes extremely difficult to prove, as due process requires, that a subsequent prosecution of the suspect is free of the fruits of that coercion. As a result, the Bush administration finds itself holding some suspects who clearly have joined terrorist conspiracies and might have been criminally convicted and subjected to long prison terms, but against whom prosecution has become impossible. In February 2005, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) began openly fretting about the problem.What happens, it worried, when continuing to detain suspects without trial becomes politically untenable, but prosecuting them is legally impossible because of taint from coercive interrogation? 7 None of this is to say that the United States is the worst human rights abuser. There are many more serious contenders for that notorious title, including governments that torture more frequently and more ruthlessly. But the United States is certainly the most influential abuser, making its contribution to the degradation of human rights standards unique and the costs to global institutions for upholding human rights incalculable.It is not enough to argue, as its defenders do, that the Bush administration is well intentioned—that they are the â€Å"good guys,† in the 394 Getting Away with Torture words of the Wall Street Journal. 8 A society ordered on intentions rather than law is a lawless society. Nor does it excuse the administrati on’s human rights record, as its defenders have tried to do, to note that it removed two tyrannical governments—the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba’ath Party in Iraq. Attacks on repressive regimes cannot justify attacks on the body of principles that makes their repression illegal.So, how did we get here? How did the United States, historically perhaps the most vigorous governmental proponent of human rights, come to undermine through its own actions one of the most basic human rights there is? Several books, both new and old, provide insight into this sorry state of affairs. Cover-Up and Self-Investigation When the photos from Abu Ghraib became public, the Bush administration reacted like many abusive governments that are caught redhanded: it went into damage control mode. It agreed that the torture and abuse featured in the photographs were wrong but sought to minimize the problem.The abusers, it claimed, were a handful of errant soldiers, a few â€Å"bad a pples† at the bottom of the barrel. The problem, it argued, was contained, both geographically (one section of Abu Ghraib prison) and structurally (only low-level soldiers, not more senior commanders). The abuse photographed at Abu Ghraib and broadcast around the world, it maintained, had nothing to do with the decisions and policies of more senior officials. President Bush vowed that â€Å"wrongdoers will be brought to justice,†9 but as of March 2005, virtually all of those facing prosecution were of the rank of sergeant or below.To some extent, the sheer outrageousness of the sexual and physical depravity featured in the Abu Ghraib photographs made it easier for the administration to disown responsibility. Few believe that President Bush or his senior officials would have ordered, for example, Lyndie England to parade about a naked detainee on a leash. Yet behind this particular mistreatment was an atmosphere of abuse to which the Bush administration, at the highest l evels, did contribute. The ingredients of that atmosphere are described in several new books.The most comprehensive compilation of the documentary record is contained in The Torture Papers, a book edited by Karen Greenberg and Joshua Dratel, which includes all of the administration’s notorious â€Å"torture memos† available by late 2004. Mark Danner’s book, Torture and Truth, includes many of these same documents, as well as his insightful analysis, drawn from his articles in the New York Review of Kenneth Roth 395 Books, of the policy decisions that lay behind them. The Human Rights Watch report, The Road to Abu Ghraib,10 details how this atmosphere played out on he ground, as American interrogators deployed â€Å"stress and duress† interrogation techniques and then covered up the cruel and occasionally deadly consequences. Torture: A Collection, a new set of essays on torture edited by Sanford Levinson, contains thoughtful essays from a range of scholar s, including a vigorous debate about how to limit torture in the post-September 11 environment. The key to the administration’s strategy of damage control was a series of carefully limited investigations—at least ten so far.The reports of several of these are reprinted in the Greenberg and Dratel compilation. Most of the investigations, such as those conducted by Maj. Gen. George Fay and Lt. Gen. Anthony Jones, involved uniformed military officials examining the conduct of their subordinates; these officers lacked the authority to scrutinize senior Pentagon officials. Typical was the most recent investigation, conducted by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III, who said he did not interview senior officials such as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or draw conclusions about their individual responsibility. 11The one investigation with the theoretical capacity to examine the conduct of Secretary Rumsfeld and his top aides—the inquiry led by former secretary of def ense James Schlesinger—was initiated by Rumsfeld himself and seemed to go out of its way to distance Rumsfeld from the problem. At the press conference releasing the investigative report, Schlesinger said that Rumsfeld’s resignation â€Å"would be a boon to all America’s enemies. † The Schlesinger investigation lacked the independence of, for example, the September 11 Commission, which was established with the active involvement of the U.S. Congress. 12 As for the CIA—the branch of the U. S. government believed to hold the most important terrorist suspects—it has apparently escaped scrutiny by anyone other than its own inspector general. Meanwhile, no one seems to be looking at the role of President Bush and other senior administration officials. As for criminal investigations, there has been none independent of the Bush administration. When an unidentified government official retaliated against a critic of the administration by revealing th at his wife was a CIA agent—a erious crime because it could endanger her—the administration agreed, under pressure, to appoint a special prosecutor who has been promised independence from administration direction. Yet the administration has refused to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether senior officials authorized torture and other coercive interrogation—a far more serious and systematic offense. So far, prosecutors 396 Getting Away with Torture under the direction of the administration have focused only on the little guy. The Policies Behind Abu Ghraib What would a genuinely independent investigation find?It would reveal that the abusive interrogation seen at Abu Ghraib did not erupt spontaneously at the lowest levels of the military chain of command. It was not merely a â€Å"management† failure, as the Schlesinger investigation suggested. As shown in the collection of official documents organized by Greenberg and Dratel and Danner, Danner ’s analysis, and the Human Rights Watch study, these abuses were the direct product of an environment of lawlessness, an atmosphere created by policy decisions taken at the highest levels of the Bush administration, long before the start of the Iraq war.They reflect a determination to fight terrorism unconstrained by fundamental principles of international human rights and humanitarian law, despite commitments by the United States and governments around the world to respect those principles even in times of war and severe security threats. These policy decisions included: †¢ The decision not to grant the detainees in U. S. custody at Guantanamo their rights under the Geneva Conventions, even though the conventions apply to all people picked up on the battlefield of Afghanistan.Senior Bush officials vowed that all detainees would be treated â€Å"humanely,† but that vow seems never to have been seriously implemented and at times was qualified (and arguably eviscera ted) by a selfcreated exception for â€Å"military necessity. † Meanwhile, the effective shredding of the Geneva Conventions—and the corresponding sidestepping of the U. S. Army’s interrogation manual—sent U. S. interrogators the signal that, in the words of one leading counterterrorist official, â€Å"the gloves come off. †13 The decision not to clarify for nearly two years that, regardless of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, all detainees in U. S. custody are protected by the parallel requirements of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture. Even when, at the urging of human rights groups, the Pentagon’s general counsel belatedly reaffirmed, in June 2003, that CAT prohibited not only torture but also other forms of ill treatment, that announcement was communicated to interrogators, if at all, in a way that had no discernible impact on their behavior.Kenneth Roth 397 †¢ The decision to interpret the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment narrowly, to permit certain forms of coercive interrogation—that is, certain efforts to ratchet up a suspect’s pain, suffering, and humiliation to make him talk. At the time of ratifying the ICCPR in 1992 and the CAT in 1994, the U. S. government said it would interpret this prohibition to mean the same thing as the requirements of the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.The clear intent was to require that if an interrogation technique would be unconstitutional if used in an American police station or jail, it would violate these treaties if used against suspects overseas. Yet U. S. interrogators under the Bush administration have routinely subjected overseas terrorist suspects to abusive techniques that would clearly have been prohibited if used in the United States. That the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment was intentional was suggested by Att orneyGeneral Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation process.In his written reply to Senate questions—after the administration had supposedly repudiated the worst aspects of its torture memos—he interpreted the U. S. reservation as permitting the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as it was done against non-Americans outside the United States. 14 That makes the United States the only government in the world to claim openly as a matter of policy the power to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.Other governments obviously subject detainees to inhumane treatment or worse as a matter of clandestine policy, but the Bush administration is the only government to proclaim this policy publicly. Reflecting that policy, the Bush administration in late 2004 successfully stopped a congressional effort to proscribe the CIA’s use of torture and inhumane treatment in interrogation. †¢ The decision to hold some suspects—eleven known15 and r eportedly some three dozen—in unacknowledged incommunicado detention, beyond the reach of even the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).Many other suspects were apparently temporarily hidden from the ICRC. Victims of such â€Å"disappearances† are at the greatest risk of torture and other mistreatment. For example, U. S. forces continue to maintain closed detention sites in Afghanistan, where beatings, threats, and sexual humiliation are still reported. At least twenty-six prisoners have died in U. S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002 in what army and navy investigators have concluded or suspect were acts of criminal homicide. 16 One of those deaths was as recently as September 2004. The refusal for over two years to prosecute U. S. soldiers implicated in the December 2002 deaths of two suspects in U. S. custody in Afghanistan—deaths ruled â€Å"homicides† by U. S. Army pathologists. 398 Getting Away with Torture Instead, the interroga tors were sent to Abu Ghraib, where some were allegedly involved in more abuse. †¢ The approval by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld of some interrogation methods for Guantanamo that violated, at the very least, the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment and possibly the ban on torture.These techniques included placing detainees in painful stress positions, hooding them, stripping them of their clothes, and scaring them with guard dogs. That approval was later rescinded, but it contributed to the environment in which the legal obligations of the United States were seen as dispensable. †¢ The reported approval by an unidentified senior Bush administration official, and use, of â€Å"water boarding†Ã¢â‚¬â€known as the â€Å"submarine† in Latin America—a torture technique in which the victim is made to believe he will drown, and in practice sometimes does.Remarkably, Porter Goss, the CIA director, defended water boarding in March 2005 testimon y before the Senate as a â€Å"professional interrogation technique. †17 †¢ The sending of suspects to governments such as Syria, Uzbekistan, and Egypt that practice systematic torture. Sometimes diplomatic assurances have been sought that the suspects would not be mistreated, but if, as in these cases, the government receiving the suspect routinely flouts its legal obligation under the CAT, it is wrong to expect better compliance with the nonbinding word of a diplomat.The administration claimed that it monitored prisoners’ treatment, but a single prisoner, lacking the anonymity afforded by a larger group, would often be unable to report abuse for fear of reprisal. One U. S. official who visited foreign detention sites disparaged this charade: â€Å"They say they are not abusing them, and that satisfies the legal requirement, but we all know they do. †18 †¢ The decision (adopted by the Bush administration from its earliest days) to oppose and undermine the International Criminal Court (ICC), in part out of fear that it might compel the United States to prosecute U.S. personnel implicated in war crimes or other comparable offenses that the administration would prefer to ignore. The administration spoke in terms of the ICC infringing U. S. sovereignty, but since the ICC could not have jurisdiction over offenses committed by Americans in the United States without Washington’s consent, the sovereignty argument actually cuts the other way: it is a violation of the sovereignty of other governments on whose territory an atrocity might be committed not to be free to determine whether to prosecute the crime themselves or to send the matter to the ICC.The administration’s position on the ICC was thus reduced to an assertion of exceptionalism—a claim that no international enforcement regime should regulate U. S. criminality overseas. Kenneth Roth 399 That signaled the administration’s determination to protect U. S. personnel from external accountability for any serious human rights offense that it might authorize. Since, in the absence of a special prosecutor, the administration itself controlled the prospects for domestic criminal accountability, its position offered an effective promise of impunity. The decision by the Justice Department, the Defense Department, and the White House counsel to concoct dubious legal theories to justify torture, despite objections from the State Department and professional military attorneys. Under the direction of politically appointed lawyers, the administration offered such absurd interpretations of the law as the claim that coercion is not torture unless the pain caused is â€Å"equivalent to the pain that would be associated with serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, or permanent damage resulting in a loss of significant body function will likely result. Similarly, the administration claimed that President Bush has â€Å"command er-in-chief authority† to order torture—a theory under which Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein may as well be given the keys to their jail cells, since they too presumably would have had â€Å"commander-in-chief authority† to authorize the atrocities that they directed. The Justice Department, in a December 2004 memorandum modifying the definition of torture, chose not to repudiate the claim about commander-in-chief authority to order torture but instead stated that repudiation was unnecessary because, it said, the president opposes torture as a matter of policy.These policy decisions, taken not by low-level soldiers but by senior officials of the Bush administration, created an â€Å"anything goes† atmosphere, an environment in which the ends were assumed to justify the means. Sometimes the mistreatment of detainees was merely tolerated, but at other times it was actively encouraged or even ordered. In that environment, when the demand came from on hi gh for â€Å"actionable intelligence†Ã¢â‚¬â€intelligence that might help stem the steady stream of U. S. asualties at the hands of Iraqi insurgents—it was hardly surprising that interrogators saw no obstacle in the legal prohibition of torture and mistreatment. Nor did these basic human rights rules limit the broader effort to protect Americans from the post-September 11 risks of terrorism. To this day, the Bush administration has failed to repudiate many of these decisions. It continues to refuse to apply the Geneva Conventions to any of the more than 500 detainees held at Guantanamo (despite a U. S. court ruling rejecting its position) and to many others detained in Iraq and Afghanistan.It continues to â€Å"disappear† detainees, despite ample proof that these â€Å"ghost detainees† are extraordinarily vulnerable 400 Getting Away with Torture to torture. It continues to defend the practice of â€Å"rendering† suspects to governments that torture on the basis of unbelievable assurances and meaningless monitoring. It refuses to accept the duty never to use cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment anywhere. It continues its vendetta against the ICC. It has only selectively repudiated the many specious arguments for torture contained in the administration lawyers’ notorious â€Å"torture memos. And long after the abuses of Abu Ghraib became public—at least as late as June 2004—the Bush administration reportedly continued to subject Guantanamo detainees to beatings, prolonged isolation, sexual humiliation, extreme temperatures, and painful stress positioning, all practices that the ICRC reportedly called â€Å"tantamount to torture. †19 In selecting his cabinet for his second presidential term, President Bush seemed to rule out even informal accountability. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the cabinet official who most forcefully opposed the administration’s disavowal of the Geneva Conventions, left his post.Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who ordered abusive interrogation techniques in violation of international law, stayed on. White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, who sought production of the memos justifying torture and who wrote that the fight against terrorism renders â€Å"obsolete† and â€Å"quaint† the Geneva Conventions’ limitations on the interrogation and treatment of prisoners, was rewarded with appointment as attorney general. 20 As for the broader Bush administration, the November 2004 electoral victory seems to have reinforced its traditional disinclination to serious self-examination.It persists in its refusal to admit any policylevel misconduct in the treatment of detainees under interrogation. The Twisted Logic of Torture The Bush administration’s policy of abusive interrogation has received important support in the United States from three Harvard professors: Alan Dershowitz and Phil Heymann of Harvard Law School and Juliette Kayy em of Harvard’s Kennedy School. Rather than reinforce the absolute prohibitions of international law, each would seek to regulate exceptions to the prohibitions on mistreating detainees.Ostensibly their aim is to curtail that mistreatment but, by legitimizing it through regulation, they would have the opposite effect. Dershowitz, in his book Why Terrorism Works and in his chapter in the Levinson compilation, typifies this regulatory approach. In his view, torture is inevitable, so prohibiting it will only drive it underground, where low-level officials use it in their discretion. Instead, he would subject torture to judicial oversight by requiring investigators who want Kenneth Roth 401 to use it to seek the approval of a judge—to procure a torture warrant, much like they would seek a search warrant or an arrest warrant.This independent scrutiny, he posits, would reduce the incidence of torture. Dershowitz’s argument is built largely on faith that forcing tortur e into the open would reduce its use. But he simply assumes that judges would have a less permissive attitude toward torture than do the senior members of the Bush administration. The available evidence is not encouraging. Since torture would presumably be sought in connection with investigations into serious criminal or national security matters, the information behind the request for a torture warrant would presumably be secret.As in the case of a search warrant or a wiretap, that would mean an ex parte application to a judge, with no notice to the would-be victim of torture and no independent counsel opposing the request. How rigorous would judicial oversight be in such cases? We can derive some sense from the record of the courts used to approve foreign intelligence wiretaps, and the picture is not impressive. According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, between 1993 and 2003, courts operating under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were asked to approve nearly 10,000 wiretaps of foreign sovereign agents.Of those, all but four were approved. When an intelligence agent claims that life-and-death matters of national security are at stake, there is no reason to believe that the scrutiny by Dershowitz’s torture courts would be any more rigorous. In the meantime, by signaling that torture is at least sometimes acceptable, Deshowitz would reduce the stigma associated with its use. Torture would no longer be a despicable practice never to be used, but merely one more tool in the law enforcement arsenal.Torture specialists eager to practice their trade would appear, international prohibitions of torture would be undermined, and America’s credibility as an opponent of torture would be deeply tarnished. Dershowitz points out that accepting clandestine torture also legitimizes it, but he seems never seriously to consider the alternative: vigorously trying to stop, and prosecute, anyone who breaches the absolute ban on torture. He ymann and Kayyem take a slightly different approach in their monograph, Preserving Security and Democratic Freedoms in the War on Terrorism. They foreswear torture but would allow a U. S. resident to order cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as he or she certified to Congress that American lives were at stake. Again, the theory is that such treatment would be rare because the president would be reluctant to invoke that power. But since the president has already claimed â€Å"commander-in-chief authority† to order even torture, and since his attorney general claimed the power as recently as January 2005 to 402 Getting Away with Torture order cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment so long as it is used against non-Americans overseas,21 Heymann and Kayyem are probably overestimating presidential inhibitions.Making the defense against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment depend on the man who has made such treatment a central part of U. S. counterterrorism strategy i s truly asking the fox to guard the chicken coop. Heymann and Kayyem take a similar regulatory approach to coercive interrogation short of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The U. S. Army’s field manual on intelligence interrogation makes clear that coercive interrogation is unnecessary, unreliable, and wrong.That’s because, as most professional interrogators explain, coercive interrogation is far less likely to produce reliable information than the time-tested methods of careful questioning, probing, cross-checking, and gaining the confidence of the detainee. A person facing severe pain is likely to say whatever he thinks will stop the torture. But a skilled interrogator can often extract accurate information from the toughest suspect without resorting to coercion. Yet Heymann and Kayyem would abandon that bright-line rule and permit coercive interrogation so long as the president notifies Congress of the techniques to be used.However, setting American interroga tors free from the firm mooring of the U. S. Army field manual can be dangerous, as we have seen so painfully in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. If mere coercion (itself a violation of the Geneva Conventions in wartime) does not work—and, given that the suspect is supposedly a hardened terrorist, often it will not—interrogators will be all too tempted to ratchet up the pain, suffering, and humiliation until the suspect cracks, regardless of the dubious reliability of information provided in such circumstances.In this way, coercion predictably gives way to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, which in turn gives rise to torture. The proposals from Dershowitz and Heymann and Kayyem suffer from the same fundamental defect: they seek to regulate the mistreatment of detainees rather than reinforce the prohibition against such abuse. In the end, any effort to regulate mistreatment ends up legitimizing it and inviting repetition. â€Å"Never† can not be redeemed if allowed to be read as â€Å"sometimes. † Regulation too easily becomes license.Behind the Dershowitz and Heymann and Kayyem proposals is some variation of the â€Å"ticking bomb† scenario, a situation in which interrogators are said to believe that a terrorist suspect in custody knows where a ticking bomb has been planted and must urgently force that information from him to save lives. Torture and inhumane treatment Kenneth Roth 403 may be wrong, those who talk of ticking bombs would concede, but the mass murder of a terrorist attack is worse, so in these supposedly rare situations, the lesser evil must be tolerated to prevent the greater one.The ticking bomb scenario makes for great philosophical discussion, but it rarely arises in real life, at least not in a way that avoids opening the door to pervasive torture. In fact, interrogators hardly ever learn that a suspect in custody knows of a particular, imminent terrorist bombing. Intelligence is rar ely if ever good enough to demonstrate a particular suspect’s knowledge of an imminent attack. Instead, interrogators tend to use circumstantial evidence to show such â€Å"knowledge,† such as someone’s association with or presumed membership in a terrorist group.Moreover, the ticking bomb scenario is a dangerously expansive metaphor capable of embracing anyone who might have knowledge not just of immediate attacks but also of attacks at unspecified future times. After all, why are the victims of only an imminent terrorist attack deserving of protection by torture and mistreatment? Why not also use such coercion to prevent a terrorist attack tomorrow or next week or next year? And once the taboo against torture and mistreatment is broken, why stop with the alleged terrorists themselves?Why not also torture and abuse their families or associates—or anyone who might provide lifesaving information? The slope is very slippery. Israel’s experience is in structive in showing how dangerously elastic the ticking bomb rationale can become, as described by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem in its report on interrogations by Israel’s intelligence agency, the General Security Services (GSS). In 1987, an official government commission, headed by former Israeli Supreme Court president Moshe Landau, recommended authorizing the use of â€Å"moderate physical pressure† in ticking bomb situations.As B’Tselem describes, a practice initially justified as rare and exceptional, taken only when necessary to save lives, gradually became standard GSS procedure. Soon, some 80 to 90 percent of Palestinian security detainees were being tortured until 1999 when the Israeli Supreme Court curtailed the practice. Dershowitz cites the court’s belated intervention as validation of his theory that regulating torture is the best way to defeat it, but he never asks whether the severe victimization of so many Palestinians c ould have been avoided with a prohibitory approach from the start.Notably, Israel’s escalation in the use of torture took place even though a ministerial committee chaired by the prime minister was supervising interrogation practices—a regulatory procedure similar to the one proposed by Heymann and Kayyem. Indeed, in September 1994, following several suicide bombings, the ministerial committee 404 Getting Away with Torture even loosened the restrictions on interrogators by permitting â€Å"increased physical pressure. † Heymann and Kayyem never explain why, especially in light of the abysmal record of the Bush administration, we should expect any better from high-level U. S. officials.The Way Forward Faced with substantial evidence showing that the abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were caused in large part by official government policies, the Bush administration must reaffirm the importance of making human rights a guiding force for U. S. conduct, even in figh ting terrorism. That requires acknowledging and reversing the policy decisions behind the administration’s torture and mistreatment of detainees, holding accountable those responsible at all levels of government for this abuse (not just a bunch of privates and sergeants), and publicly committing to ending all forms of coercive interrogation.These steps are necessary to reaffirm the prohibition of torture and ill treatment, to redeem Washington’s voice as a credible proponent of human rights, and to restore the effectiveness of a U. S. -led campaign against terrorism. Yet all that is easier said than done. How can President Bush and the Republican-controlled U. S. Congress be convinced to establish a fully independent investigative commission—similar to the one created to examine the attacks of September 11, 2001—to determine what went wrong in the administration’s interrogation practices and to prescribe remedial steps?How can Attorney-General Gonz ales, who as White House counsel played a central role in formulating the administration’s interrogation policy, be persuaded to recognize his obvious conflict of interest and appoint a special prosecutor charged with investigating criminal misconduct independently of the Justice Department’s direction? These are not steps that the administration or its congressional allies will take willingly. Pressure will be needed. And that pressure cannot and should not come from only the usual suspects.The torture and abuse of prisoners is an affront to the most basic American values. It is antithetical to the core beliefs in the integrity of the individual on which the United States was founded. And it violates one of the most basic prohibitions of international law. This is not a partisan concern, not an issue limited to one part of the political spectrum. It is a matter that all Americans—and their friends around the world—should insist be meaningfully addressed and changed.It is an issue that should preoccupy governments, whether friend or foe, as well as such international organizations and actors as Kenneth Roth 405 the UN Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Committee, High Commissioner on Human Rights, and Special Rapporteur on Torture. Taking on the world’s superpower is never easy, but it is essential if the basic architecture of international human rights law and institutions is not to be deeply compromised.As Secretary-General Kofi Annan told the March 2005 International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security: â€Å"Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with successful counter-terrorism strategy. It is an essential element. †22 There is no room for torture, even in fighting terrorism; it risks undermining the foundation on which all of our rights rest. Notes Kenneth Roth is executive director of Human Rights Watch. 1. See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art. 1. . Ibid. , Art. 16. 3. See â€Å"Malaysia: P. M’s Visit Puts Spotlight on Detainee Abuse,† Human Rights Watch News, 19 July 2004, available online at http://hrw. org/english/ docs/2004/07/19/malays9097. htm. 4. Fifty-fifth Inaugural Ceremony, 20 January 2005; see www. whitehouse. gov/inaugural. 5. Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation, Washington, D. C. , 28 September 1992, available online at http://atiam. train. army. mil/portal/atia/adlsc/view/public/302562-1/FM/3452/FM34_52. PDF. 6. ‘Torture Intelligence’ Criticized,† BBC News, 11 October 2004, available online at http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/uk/3732488. stm. 7. Douglas Jehl, â€Å"C. I. A. Is Seen as Seeking New Role on Detainees,† New York Times, 16 February 2005. 8. â€Å"Red Double-Crossed Again,† Wall Street Journal, 2 December 2004. 9. Remarks by President Bush and His Majesty King Abdullah II of the Hashemite K ingdom of Jordan in a Press Availability, 6 May 2004, available online at www. whitehouse. gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040506-9. html. 10. Available online at http://www. rw. org/reports/2004/usa0604/. 11. Josh White and Bradley Graham, â€Å"Senators Question Absence of Blame in Abuse Report,† Washington Post, 11 March 2005. 12. The 9/11 Commission Report, see http://a257. g. akamaitech. net/7/257/ 2422/05aug20041050/www. gpoaccess. gov/911/pdf/fullreport. pdf. 13. Testimony of Cofer Black, former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, before a joint session of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, 26 September 2002, available online at www. fas. org/irp/congress/ 2002_hr/092602black. tml. (â€Å"All I want to say is that there was ‘before’ 9/11 and ‘after’ 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves come off. †) 14. â€Å"A Degrading Policy,† Washington Post, 26 January 2005; â€Å"U. S. Justifying Abuse of Detainees,† H uman Rights Watch News, 25 January 2005. 406 Getting Away with Torture 15. Human Rights Watch, The United States’ â€Å"Disappeared†: The CIA’s Long-Term â€Å"Ghost Detainees† (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2004), available online at www. hrw. org/backgrounder/usa/us1004/index. htm. 16. Douglas Jehl and Eric Schmitt, â€Å"U. S.Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide,† New York Times, 16 March 2005. 17. Douglas Jehl, â€Å"Questions Are Left by C. I. A. Chief on the Use of Torture,† New York Times, 18 March 2005. 18. Dana Priest, â€Å"CIA’s Assurances on Transferred Suspects Doubted,† Washington Post, 17 March 2005. 19. Neil A. Lewis, â€Å"Red Cross Finds Detainee Abuse in Guantanamo,† New York Times, 30 November 2004. 20. Memorandum to the President from Alberto R. Gonzales, 25 January 2002, available online at www. msnbc. msn. com/id/4999148/site/newsweek. â€Å"In my judgment, this new paradigm [the war aga inst terrorism] renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy be afforded . . . [listed] privileges. †) 21. â€Å"A Degrading Policy† and â€Å"U. S. Justifying Abuse of Detainees. † 22. Keynote address to the Closing Plenary of the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, â€Å"A Global Strategy for Fighting Terrorism,† Madrid, Spain, 10 March 2005, available online at www. un. org/apps/sg/ sgstats. asp? nid=1345.

While the Budget factored in a decline in Australias terms of trade, Essay - 1

While the Budget factored in a decline in Australias terms of trade, the fall in global commodity prices over recent months has been larger than anticipated - Essay Example The recent natural disasters in Australia, Japan and New Zealand also reduce Australia’s economic growth in early 2011. Combined, these natural disasters detracted around 75%of a percentage point from Australia’s economic growth in 2010-11, the real GDP contracted in the March quarter of that year. While it take many years for the affected communities to recover from these tragic events, the negative impacts on Australia’s economic growth was great, with the resumption of activity and commencement of reconstruction that added to real GDP growth from 2011-12. There have been major changes in term of both structure and trend in Australian trade. Structural change has been going on from as far as 19th centuries and it is not new to anyone. It is one of the ongoing features of Australian economies. In the past years one of the most common changes is that of the service sector, which has accounted for a steadily increasing share of both output and employment. In the early years of 1950s more than of the Australian workforce were employed in the service sector, currently the rate stood at over 75% and the trend seems to be increasing. On the contrary the workforce working in both manufacturing and agricultural sector has steadily

Advance directives Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Advance directives - Research Paper Example In essence, nurses are considered the primary care givers. Therefore, there are actively involved in the treatment process of patients. It is important to elucidate the fact that the ever changing dynamics of the healthcare profession as well as the expanding roles of nurses in the delivery of care are some of the factors that contribute to the many challenges of maintaining confidentiality. In definition, confidentiality in healthcare denotes the fact that all information given to any medical practitioner by the patient regarding his or her health ought to be treated with utmost discretion (Dolan and Barrister, 2004). Despite the fact that nurses are allowed to only diverge a patients medical information to third parties only with the consent of the patient, there are cases where the law demands release of such information without the his or her consent. Take for instance a patient refusing to take medicine and his or her medical condition poses a risk to the health of other individ uals. In such a case, a medical fractioned is justified to release the patients medical information to the police and other relevant authorities. Information can also be released to third parties if medical practitioners are required or ordered by a court of law to do so (Dolan and Barrister, 2004). Nurses and other care providers such as physicians are obligated by their professional codes of ethics to maintain confidentiality in regard to any information pertaining to their patients. In order to effectively comprehend legal approaches to confidentiality, it is of significance to posit that the kind of care provided to a patient is dependent on the relationship he or she has with the medical practitioner. Patients divulge all their private information to their healthcare providers with an assumption that the information will not fall into the wrong hands. In a legal perspective, it is the responsibility of medical professionals to

Critique about the reading Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Critique about the reading - Essay Example All the examples are too numerous to name in this critique, but one occurs right on page two. It goes, â€Å"In communication we have a tendency to focus on the information (in media and in the environment) and the sensory systems that gather it abstractly. That is removed from time and space.† The second sentence does not make a very good independent clause. So that the reader does not have to stop and figure this statement out it can simply read, â€Å"...environment), and the sensory systems that gather it abstractly and are removed from time and space. Spell checker could fix a lot of other errors. It is bogged down by several other problems, but its biggest issue can be summed up in a few words: It does not discuss how the points it makes relate to media. This is a huge problem because the reader consumes about two dozen pages of knowledge without learning how statements, largely based in science, tie into media. For example, in the beginning on page 3 in Perceptual Systems the author claims that the reader does not need to get bogged down by overly scientific examples. However, it goes on to break this promise by page four when it delves into visual perception and talks about neurons and ventral and dorsal pathways to the brain. As this scientific jargon flows freely it becomes quite evident to the reader that all these sentences could be summed up as: Our eyes perceive the world around us and make us aware of our world by helping us identify what things are, and where they are. Once it gets whittled down to this simplistic statement the truth becomes obvious -- this is info rmation everyone already knows. Why talk about it? This is still relatively close to the beginning of chapter two, and it starts right here by never tying any of this obvious information into a media related point. Throughout chapter two the writing is also overly wordy, even to the point of seeming geeky at times; as if the writer reveled in knowing the knowledge and simply

Role of the Individual in Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, Essay

Role of the Individual in Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, and Thomas Paine's Common Sense - Essay Example A free society is hard to achieve because of the competing demands of the individual and that of the state, where individual rights and collective rights often come into conflict. This paper tries to explore two views on the role of the individual in both society and politics. Discussion Man is by nature a social animal and therefore it is but inevitable that some forms of organization exist in any society, even in primitive society. No man can live alone by himself, and when this happens, some compromise has to be found between an individual's rights and that of the society to which he belongs. The usual cause of friction or conflicts in such kind of arrangement is determining the limits of the rights of an individual and that of society. This is an implicit agreement between individuals and society, the very essence of the social contract. This is a philosophical construct wherein free individuals agree to give up their natural rights in favor of being governed by a social or polit ical system for their own common protection or overall welfare, to live harmoniously with others and pursue their goals in life in peace. Along this line, the essay by Thomas Paine entitled â€Å"Common Sense† makes a lot of sense in terms of imposing order because Man finds it easier to live together than be apart but as the population increases and society grows larger and larger, the people find it necessary to craft some regulations to govern themselves and later on pass new laws to be enforced. This is the point where a formal government structure becomes a necessity and also the point where it becomes a dangerous instrument when the powers of government fall into the wrong hands. In retrospect, all present societies have this rather curious mix of government and society but in some instances, there is a disconnect between the goals and aims between these two. Taking into account the period of history when â€Å"Common Sense† was written, it is a seminal piece of political thought because it argued forcefully for independence from Great Britain at the time when the English government was viewed as extremely oppressive by the American colonies. There were many who were yet undecided on the proper course of action to take, and some thought fighting for independence was a bit extreme to redress matters. The political essay by Thomas Paine convinced those who doubted to change their minds about it, and go for broke by severing ties with the mother country. The colonial government run by the British in America no longer served its original purpose but became instead an instrument for oppression and exploitation, a government run by men and not by laws. It was not in a true sense a representative government but rather one run by a monarchy and aristocracy. The way things were before the American Revolution was a political situation where the social contract had been a failure, either by design or by default. The people clamor for the right to be h eard and represented in government. They gave up their natural rights expecting something in return from their government but got shortchanged instead. This contradicts the theory of natural rights to life, liberty and property by philosopher John Locke (Parry 12). Thomas Paine influenced public opinion that the people should re-assert their rights, and the best course of

The Marketing Function Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

The Marketing Function - Essay Example Its marketing campaign and service excellence is acknowledged all over the world in the brand of "Singapore Girl". 2. (a) According to Philip Kotler (1980), "effective marketing is based on the right balance of marketing elements, and processes depending on the nature of the product, service or idea being marketed." (Cartwright, 2002) This marketing mix consists of the seven Ps. These are: product, price, promotion, place, people, process, and physical evidence. The marketing mix of SIA has been handled very well as we shall see now. 2. (b) The mission statement for SIA is " We are a global company dedicated to providing air transportation services of the highest quality and to earning good returns for shareholders." (Johnston and Wirtz, 2006) The core values of SIA are: Pursuit of Excellence, Safety, Customer first, Concern for staff, Integrity, Teamwork. The marketing department is responsible for providing the highest quality of service, and find ways to improve revenues of the company. 3. (a) The first step of marketing is to understand the external environment and relate it to the internal environment of the organisation. This involves identifying the core sector in which the organisation falls, e.g. in the case of SIA, it is the aviation sector, but it is involved in operations in other sectors as well such as tourism sector, and transport sector. 3(b) Marketing department next analyses the internal and external environment in which the organisation operates. There are three methods of analysis: BACK (Baggage, Aspirations, Culture, and Knowledge) analysis; PESTLE/SPECTACLES analysis; and SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis. These analyses are unique to each organisation and an important part of the role that a marketing department plays in an organisation. 3(d) BACK analysis involves analysing the internal environment of the organisation. Analysis of external environment is constituted in SPECTACLES analysis. This acronym stands for Social, Political, Economic, Customers, Technological, Aesthetic, Cultural, Legal, Environmental and Sectoral factors. (Cartwright) 3(f) A SWOT analysis for the organisation brings into focus the Strengths, and Weaknesses of the organisation, and identifies the threats to the organisation and the opportunities open to it. An example of SWOT analysis for SIA is shown below. Strengths 1. Service Innovation 2. Uniform and Branding 3. KrisFlyer programme 4. Cabins 5. Destinations 6. Large fleet Weaknesses 1. High expectations from customers 2. Dealing with 40 governments Opportunities 1. Expansion into new markets 2. Opening of more economies 3. Increase in global tourism 4. Web availability 5. Corporate sales Threats 1. Other Airlines imitating services 2. Other Airlines alliances 3. Overcapacity in Asia Pacific market 4. Understanding the Market 4(a) The next step for the marketing department is to identify the markets it caters to. This involves market segmentation. "The more segments of a market an organisation can service, the less dependent it becomes on the success or