The strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics Essay Example for Free

The strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics Essay A. How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth? B. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics. (A) To tell the truth is morally right, but telling a lie can also be morally right. Can the contradictions both be justified if the motive is love? Can we lie if the intention is love, or by always telling the truth are we better people? Some relativists claim that as long as the intention is love, then an action is morally right. In a relationship, when the crucial moment arrives and your partner turns to you and says, Do you love me?, how best do you respond? Morally, can you justify lying to someone about love? The law of love says that you can not refrain from action. If refrain denies you from following a certain course, then can lying be accepted? Dependant upon whether you do love the person or not, the best approach to take will be a matter of your personal opinion and beliefs. Fletcher would deal with a situation relative to love. Relativism, relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative. If the absolute is such that, you should tell the truth because it is the loving thing to do, then relativism would say that, maybe saying Yes, I do love you, may be justifiable, but it may also cause the most pain in the long run. This relativist approach is held by consequentalists. The pain of turning to someone and saying, No, I dont love you, may be initially hurtful, but it is done to bring about the best long-term result. A deontological approach would differ with this, and impart a belief that your answer would come from a pre-determined set of rules that you chose to live your life by. Here, there is no intention of harming or pleasing someone, as the consequences of your response would not factor into it. When responding to a situation, who has the right to justify whether the action was morally right? Is justification dependant upon love, motive, intention or belief? Where does love factor into a situation? If love is the determining factor behind a lie, is it therefore justified? Situation ethicists would say that love decides which actions are morally right. The circumstances of which an act is executed, decides upon the moral justification. Responsibility appears to widen as the choice of outcome increases. By telling a lie, you therefore have to accept full responsibility for its consequences. Will this widening of freedoms be a problem in a society where we are all of different moral standing? The truth of the matter is that maybe there may be some people within society who do not conform to the same moral standards set down by their community. When making important moral decisions (some may classify lying as one such example), is it not important to be fully qualified? Some may argue that those who are morally uneducated are not competent of making important decisions, and therefore this widening freedom, is potentially a road to moral disaster. Lies are justifiable, as conception of morality and social ethics are distorted. Perception of truth is also an underlying factor for discussion. The ability to rationalise situations depends upon intellect and up-bringing. Most situations can be rationalised as morally right, (if youre of the belief of subjectivism everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs), as long as a person is of a high enough intellect. Lying can equally be justified by those who are of low and of high intellect, as a full understanding and comprehension of the consequences and detriment of certain actions is understood on different levels. Those who have greater understanding may therefore see the lie as morally wrong. This would be due to the fact that they have a different insight into the situation. Different people have different views upon moral attitudes, and most believe theyre more than entitled to their opinion. Cultures will rationalise situations with different theories and attitudes, and as a result of this, lying in one culture can be morally right, whereas in another it will be morally wrong. Society will nurture people into certain beliefs and understandings, and consequently the moral justification surrounding lies will always differ from society to society. (B) Living in the modern world, we are lead to believe that social tolerance is a norm. It would be nice for this to be the reality; however, we all know it is an unachievable dream. The subjectivist creates a lifestyle which everyone aspires to but society denies us of. The idea that you have the ability to think, understand and believe whatever you would like to, would be nice, the practicality of it unfortunately, is that this type of thinking would only bring about conflict within humanity. No level-ground would exist. With everyone of the opinion that they were right, would we not be on our way to creating an argumentative generation who are not capable of compromise? The theory is good, but the practise should never be tried if we want our world to stay relatively civilised. If society should be made to conform, then why are we not living in a land where our lives are shaped by rules and regulations? Absolutists would relish the day that humans are made to toe the line. Conflict and difference within the world, would not occur as everyone would be living within the same rules, and therefore there would be no room for discrepancies. The diversity between societies creates an environment in which tolerance is needed to overcome conflict. By establishing a theory which allows a plural approach to situations, it can be understood that we are encouraging a greater respect and appreciation of the differences between cultures. This conventionalist approach rejects ethnocentricity, but accepts, like subjectivism, certain ideas like Hitlers genocide. How can an approach such as this be received as acceptable within the civilised world? Other controversial questions are raised by this point of view, e.g. How can we remain neutral in response to situations which one culture accepts to be morally right, and another deems morally wrong? This question would never arise if an absolutist approach was imposed upon the world. The principle that there is one set of moral truths to be followed by everyone, independent of religion or culture, can also be believed to be the will of God. His omnipotence means that his law is the only law. The other philosophy is that of Jesus claim, that love is the greatest charge, and therefore there is leeway, as far as love is the driving factor. On the reverse, situation ethics would argue, that ethical rules are very often minor; the individual situation should be individually evaluated. Maybe love is the greatest factor, but this is highly disputed between the theorists. The love theory: Im sure many people would like to believe that if the motive, intention or even the outcome is love, then lying is morally acceptable, but for many the truth may not be so clear cut. Once again, the idea is good in theory, but the practice may not be so realistic. Telling the absolute truth to everyone you meet seems like an ideal way to live; never having to cover up lies with more lies. Minimally distorting the truth, (white lies), is an excepted custom these days. Lying is an accepted way of life for two fundamental reasons: 1. To provide gain and 2. To avoid pain. However, the problem facing people today is the fact that lies are easily exposed by our body language, and most peoples natural feeling of guilt. So, are we really gaining or avoiding anything, if the truth is bound to surface sooner or later? Truth be told, the world may be a better place if the world was to be lie less, but we may all believing in a perpetual land of unhappiness. At present however, it seems that most people are happy to live in an oblivious state; a happy state, even if they are living a lie.

The strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics Essay Example for Free

The strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics Essay A. How might a moral relativist respond to the claim that people should always tell the truth? B. Assess the strengths and weaknesses of relativist views of ethics. (A) To tell the truth is morally right, but telling a lie can also be morally right. Can the contradictions both be justified if the motive is love? Can we lie if the intention is love, or by always telling the truth are we better people? Some relativists claim that as long as the intention is love, then an action is morally right. In a relationship, when the crucial moment arrives and your partner turns to you and says, Do you love me?, how best do you respond? Morally, can you justify lying to someone about love? The law of love says that you can not refrain from action. If refrain denies you from following a certain course, then can lying be accepted? Dependant upon whether you do love the person or not, the best approach to take will be a matter of your personal opinion and beliefs. Fletcher would deal with a situation relative to love. Relativism, relativizes the absolute, it does not absolutize the relative. If the absolute is such that, you should tell the truth because it is the loving thing to do, then relativism would say that, maybe saying Yes, I do love you, may be justifiable, but it may also cause the most pain in the long run. This relativist approach is held by consequentalists. The pain of turning to someone and saying, No, I dont love you, may be initially hurtful, but it is done to bring about the best long-term result. A deontological approach would differ with this, and impart a belief that your answer would come from a pre-determined set of rules that you chose to live your life by. Here, there is no intention of harming or pleasing someone, as the consequences of your response would not factor into it. When responding to a situation, who has the right to justify whether the action was morally right? Is justification dependant upon love, motive, intention or belief? Where does love factor into a situation? If love is the determining factor behind a lie, is it therefore justified? Situation ethicists would say that love decides which actions are morally right. The circumstances of which an act is executed, decides upon the moral justification. Responsibility appears to widen as the choice of outcome increases. By telling a lie, you therefore have to accept full responsibility for its consequences. Will this widening of freedoms be a problem in a society where we are all of different moral standing? The truth of the matter is that maybe there may be some people within society who do not conform to the same moral standards set down by their community. When making important moral decisions (some may classify lying as one such example), is it not important to be fully qualified? Some may argue that those who are morally uneducated are not competent of making important decisions, and therefore this widening freedom, is potentially a road to moral disaster. Lies are justifiable, as conception of morality and social ethics are distorted. Perception of truth is also an underlying factor for discussion. The ability to rationalise situations depends upon intellect and up-bringing. Most situations can be rationalised as morally right, (if youre of the belief of subjectivism everyone has the right to their own moral beliefs), as long as a person is of a high enough intellect. Lying can equally be justified by those who are of low and of high intellect, as a full understanding and comprehension of the consequences and detriment of certain actions is understood on different levels. Those who have greater understanding may therefore see the lie as morally wrong. This would be due to the fact that they have a different insight into the situation. Different people have different views upon moral attitudes, and most believe theyre more than entitled to their opinion. Cultures will rationalise situations with different theories and attitudes, and as a result of this, lying in one culture can be morally right, whereas in another it will be morally wrong. Society will nurture people into certain beliefs and understandings, and consequently the moral justification surrounding lies will always differ from society to society. (B) Living in the modern world, we are lead to believe that social tolerance is a norm. It would be nice for this to be the reality; however, we all know it is an unachievable dream. The subjectivist creates a lifestyle which everyone aspires to but society denies us of. The idea that you have the ability to think, understand and believe whatever you would like to, would be nice, the practicality of it unfortunately, is that this type of thinking would only bring about conflict within humanity. No level-ground would exist. With everyone of the opinion that they were right, would we not be on our way to creating an argumentative generation who are not capable of compromise? The theory is good, but the practise should never be tried if we want our world to stay relatively civilised. If society should be made to conform, then why are we not living in a land where our lives are shaped by rules and regulations? Absolutists would relish the day that humans are made to toe the line. Conflict and difference within the world, would not occur as everyone would be living within the same rules, and therefore there would be no room for discrepancies. The diversity between societies creates an environment in which tolerance is needed to overcome conflict. By establishing a theory which allows a plural approach to situations, it can be understood that we are encouraging a greater respect and appreciation of the differences between cultures. This conventionalist approach rejects ethnocentricity, but accepts, like subjectivism, certain ideas like Hitlers genocide. How can an approach such as this be received as acceptable within the civilised world? Other controversial questions are raised by this point of view, e.g. How can we remain neutral in response to situations which one culture accepts to be morally right, and another deems morally wrong? This question would never arise if an absolutist approach was imposed upon the world. The principle that there is one set of moral truths to be followed by everyone, independent of religion or culture, can also be believed to be the will of God. His omnipotence means that his law is the only law. The other philosophy is that of Jesus claim, that love is the greatest charge, and therefore there is leeway, as far as love is the driving factor. On the reverse, situation ethics would argue, that ethical rules are very often minor; the individual situation should be individually evaluated. Maybe love is the greatest factor, but this is highly disputed between the theorists. The love theory: Im sure many people would like to believe that if the motive, intention or even the outcome is love, then lying is morally acceptable, but for many the truth may not be so clear cut. Once again, the idea is good in theory, but the practice may not be so realistic. Telling the absolute truth to everyone you meet seems like an ideal way to live; never having to cover up lies with more lies. Minimally distorting the truth, (white lies), is an excepted custom these days. Lying is an accepted way of life for two fundamental reasons: 1. To provide gain and 2. To avoid pain. However, the problem facing people today is the fact that lies are easily exposed by our body language, and most peoples natural feeling of guilt. So, are we really gaining or avoiding anything, if the truth is bound to surface sooner or later? Truth be told, the world may be a better place if the world was to be lie less, but we may all believing in a perpetual land of unhappiness. At present however, it seems that most people are happy to live in an oblivious state; a happy state, even if they are living a lie.

Practical Application Of Lewins Force Field Analysis Change Model Nursing Essay

Practical Application Of Lewins Force Field Analysis Change Model Nursing Essay The aim of this paper is to to describe practical application of Lewins (1951) force field analysis change model in reducing Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients length of stay (LOS) in a Tertiary Care University Hospital. Introduction: This paper reports on a change from 6.5 days to 4 days reduction in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients length of stay (LOS) in a Tertiary Care University Hospital. The change was embedded with systemic assessment, planning and implementing standardized strategies for all ICU long stay patients and finally evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of ICU bed utilization with multidisciplinary team approach. Change is inevitable for the reason that it ingrained human lives, core processes and system reforms. Day by day many changes have been observed in health care; associated with disease processes explicitly from prevention to rehabilitation, health care norms and nomenclature, infra structures modifications, policy matters, reengineering and system transformation. Different components of health care depends on one another for assembling such changes in order to produce work like from providers to payers, hospitals to suppliers, education to regulatory bodies and research to professional associations; all these are interlinked to perform function. Many of the above stated happening are planned however at times nature takes its own turn to act as a catalyst for change for example natural occurrences like tsunami, some crucial system analysis like break through reports from Institute of Medicine (IOM) on patient safety and the quality of care provided to all the health care customers. Th ese were just simple examples of revolutions in health care taken place on an ongoing basis. Traditionally it is believed that changes are always for the betterment however at times it has been observed that this phenomenon is proven to be cynical and challenging especially when it is not made in a haphazard manner, without pursuing change management principles. Addressing the challenge of change Fetherston et.al (2009) stated that: Managing changing in the health care setting is always challenging, especially when it involves transforming entrenched habits grounded in professional expectations (p.2581). Despite change involves resources like human, material and cost and therefore whatever is proposed for change need to be evaluated for its effectiveness and efficiency, applicability, and consequences. It also depends on the team we are working with and there are times when the team building is so strong and the communication between the team is such that adopting to a new concept is very easy versus if the team members are not on same wavelength and have a lot of differences of opinions failure to reach to a simple consensus. Coch and French (1948) concluded that rate of recovery when learning a new task is directly proportional to the amount of participation. To improve understanding of change dynamics Armenakis and Harris (2011) recommends that readiness for change is distinguished from resistance to change and readiness is described in terms of the organizational members beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Change agent is a very important contributor to make change happen constru ctively and productively. The personal and professional characteristics, interpersonal competency all these aspects are dependent to an outcome of change. Another factor involved in change process seems to be very crucial is the timeframe require for change. Is it a short term or a long run change which is going to measure and monitor, what about the sustainability of the proposed change etc. In order to have successful change Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) recommends and put idea in practice (Appendix) and suggested that analyze situational factors, determine the optimal speed of change, and consider methods for managing resistance (p1, 2). According to Lippincott-Raven Publishers 1986 Crucial to facilitating change is selecting a strategy that is likely to produce the desired change with minimal time and resistance. Background In todays health care setting, organizational change is essential for growth and development to keep up with the market competition Although health care continues to be enmeshed with ongoing challenges of cost, technologies, access to health care, human resources, quality inconsistent with an arena where error rates are too high there are multiple growing opportunities to improve client care management and service delivery components. Changes have been observed in clinical practice based on evidence based research resulting in application of new technology, diagnostics, drug regimes, treatment profile, care monitoring and finally the patient outcomes. All these are direct provision to a customer and perhaps if we look at the wider base it heavily involves all support functions available for patient care and employees of the organization. How all these are managed with patient flow and activities? Who is accountable? Change has both individual and institutional significance; and addre ssing its importance Watwood et al. (1997) shared that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦changes à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ bring opportunity for personal and institutional growth and development (p 162). When it comes to an institutional change; it has emphasized that it should complement the philosophy, mission and vision of the organization. Therefore Heller Arozullah (2001) identified four key factors for successful program development and achievement and those were: aligning the program with the strategic goals of the organization; obtaining active senior leadership commitment, including allocated resources; securing the appropriate infrastructure to facilitate integration of recommended actions into daily practice; and setting up systematic communications with all involved stakeholders (p551) Several challenges exists in system when it comes to a revolution however factors define by Heller Arozullah (2001) would help in embarking change in a more structured manner. ICU is a consolidated area of a hospital where patients with life-threatening illnesses or injuries receive round the clock specialized medical and nursing care. Intensive care is one of the hospitals most complex and expensive medical systems. As medical care has improved, the type of patients treated in critical care units has changed from those with acute illnesses to those suffering from complications of chronic diseases. While better technology and better ways of taking care of patients has improved longevity and general health, the patients in the intensive care units of hospitals are getting sicker and globally these beds have a high demand based on the critical needs of patients and it doubles the need in an arena where these resources are very scare and inadequate This would augment medical care required, cost of care and excess use of resources when they are not required. Long stays in the intensive care unit are associated with high costs and burdens on patients and patien ts families and in turn affect society at large. Williamss et.al (2010) states that: It has been estimated that between 2% and 11% of critically ill patients require a prolonged stay in ICU, accounting for 25-45% of total ICU days, and a significant proportion of resources(p 459) The cost of caring for patients in ICUs in the United States has been estimated to account for 1% to 2% of the gross national product shared by (Miller et al. 2000, Seeman David 2004) ) whereby Haugh (2003) stated that 15% to 20% of US hospital costs represents 38% of total US healthcare costs. According to Miller et al. (2003) the total number of hospitals, hospital beds, and inpatient days decreased during the years 1985 to 2000, the number of critical care beds and days in critical care increased dramatically during the same period Whereby Stricker et al (20037) found that only 11% of patients admitted to the ICU stayed for more than 7 days, these patients used more than 50% of ICU resources. Furthermore, in several studies (cited in Ryan et al 1997, Wong et al 1999) the mortality of patients with ICU admissions lasting 14 days or longer was estimated to be nearly 50%. Rosenberg et al. (2001) shared that Mortality rates are higher in ICU than in any other area of the hospital due to the complexity of patients medical condition. Fakhry et al (1996) found that 70% of patients with stay longer than 2 weeks reported less than 50% functional recovery. Esserman e t al (1995) found that 32% of ICU resources were spent caring for patients who survived less than 100 days after discharge from the hospital. In a tertiary care university hospital where I am presently working patients were found to be stuck in the ICU and have longer stays and in the month of January 2009 it was found to be 8.4 days and subsequently in the following quarter 1 it was 6.5 days (refer appendix 1). When explored, multiple factors aroused (refer appendix 2) and therefore to address this concern a multidisciplinary team was formed. It was proposed to undertake the work of reducing patients length of stay in ICU and therefore it the goal was to reduce patients length of stay from 6.5 days to 5.5 days in the second quarter for the year 2009. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) framework was used to appraise the various component of the proposed change in order to identify its strengths and weaknesses.  Team assessed its relative advantages to current situation and felt that it is worth spending the time and effort for the given scenario, change seems to be appropriate and compatible with existing philosophy of the clinical area, easy to be understood and applicable by all bedside staff. Moreover the project was trialable to a pilot    before going the whole way and relevant to organizational goals. Discussion Changes will continue as an adaptation and at times mandatory in order to survive. Lot of literature is available when it comes to the change management in health care setting. There are models available to address organizational change, system revolution, and human transformations which address many other aspects of successful implementation of reforms. Change process follows the same course as of nursing process and problem solving approaches. According to Christensen a Christensen b (2007) Lewins (1951) theory of transitional change is the most used form of change implementation strategies. The change we were supposed to undertake; this theory appeared to address many aspects of it and therefore the mechanism for identifying the social system within organization for selecting, developing and implementing the strategies to serve as a solution was done by application of this model. According to course notes Lewins widely cited, classic model of the change process, the three changes are: Unfreezing, where faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation the individual becomes aware of the need to change; changing where the situation is diagnosed and new models of behaviour are explored and tested and finally, refreezing where the application of new behaviour is evaluated and adopted. (p53) Huber (2006) states that: The basic concept of the change process was outlined by Lewin A successful change involves three elements: unfreezing, moving and refreezing. (p810) Fetherston et.al (2009) emphasized the importance of major change like this and endorsed that: Where a major change is implemented, models such as Lewins (1951) model of unfreezing, changing and refreezing can be a useful guide Baulcomb (2003) states that This theory places emphasis on the driving and resisting forces associated with any change, and to achieve success the importance lies with ensuring that driving forces outweigh resisting forces. Driving forces tend to initiate change or keep it going whereas restraining forces act to restrain or decrease the driving forces. The intention to reach a state of equilibrium (p277). Unfreezing Lewins change approach fall within three steps and this is the first one where the process of thawing out the system to create motivation for change. Its like getting the team warming up to play their cards; getting everybody on the same wavelength and organizing. Huber (2006) shared that the first stage is cognitive exposure to the change idea, diagnosis of the problem, and work to generate alternative solutions. (p811). Though it was a great challenge for the team however the process of systemic assessment and unfreeze stabilizing the team readiness was initiated for the said change. Different strategies were brain stormed in a multidisciplinary team.ICU patients length of stay was gathered prospectively. Potential predictors were analyzed for possible association with prolonged ICU stay. Driving and restraining forces were studied (Appendix ) Moving Then we proceeded with the second stage of Lewins theory i.e., moving and changing. It involves moving a target system to a new level maintaining equilibrium; viewing the problem from a new perspective, situation is diagnosed and new models of behaviour. This stage was determine through formation of ICU long stay committee with terms of reference, notification of long stay patients stayed in ICU for more than 7days or earlier if deemed necessary to all concerned, holding meeting with primary team everyday to discuss next course of action, identification of patients difficult to wean, patient requiring early tracheotomy to maximize discharge process, initiating daily rounds by multidisciplinary team with primary team. Furthermore, introducing expected admission discharge time (EADT) to facilitate bed identification. According to Hoda (2008) length of stay (LOS) may be influenced by the availability of appropriate high dependency units to discharge patients. Review on daily basis the n eed for bed for inpatients and emergency. Admission /discharge policy was reinforced through multidisciplinary approach. Alternate accommodation in other units like CICU and CCU which has same bed accessories and uniform care provision were identified. Early tentative beds are booked in wards before rounds in order to facilitate early bed arrangement and patient transfer. Refreezing The final stage is refreezing. In this stage new developments are incorporated and improvements are made to stabilize the selected strategies to ensure the sustainability of the project. Daily check at unit and divisional level by bed management coordinator and ICU team. Monitoring on shift bases by charge nurses and nursing supervisors. Interventions involving palliative care, ethics consultations, and early decision about patient transfer and orders writing, family willingness and readiness and other methods to increase communication between healthcare personnel, patients, and patients families were helpful in decreasing length of stay in the intensive care unit. Thus, interdisciplinary communication played a vital role in improving ICU patients LOS whereby its importance is being defined by Pronovost et al (2003) and point out that communication failures lead to increased patient harm, length of stay (LOS), and resource use (p71). Hence to a major extent the daily communication st rategy worked out very well and the team was successful to bring about this change. ICU length of stay was 6.5 days in quarter one and it was reduce to 5.6 days in the second quarter for the year 2009 and consequently to 4.8 and 4 day in third and fourth quarter of 2009. Fetherston et.al (2009) stated that: When change is managed in systematic steps with adequate evaluation and communication throughout the process, it is more likely to result in successful outcomes. (p 2582) Evaluating the Change Project s took place and was received very positively. Following are the most important attributes I have experienced for this successful change like it was logical, efficient, and planned not haphazard then it was based on explanation of reason for a change so that individuals understand it. After that it was very informative and staff supported change when they were involved in assessment and planning. Change agent interpersonal competency and expertise (knowledgeable) of the given task was outstanding and hence the monitoring feedback on timely basis -to ensure that all team members is on same wave length wa carried out in a very sposticated manner.

Julius Caesar :: essays research papers

William Shakespeare's play, Julius Caesar, is mainly based on the assassination of Julius Caesar. The various men who happened to object to his assassination had different personal desires for their actions. Depending on each of their actions, words or even tone of voice they may misrepresent them and may be misinterpreted. Brutus, Cassius, and Antony had motives for their actions. I will explain what each of them stood to gain from the death of Caesar. Brutus, servant and close friend to Caesar, has a strong relationship with Caesar but a stronger relationship with Rome and it people. Brutus was a very noble man. He tries to justify the death of Caesar but he can not get the thought of cold-blooded murder out of his mind. One of the reasons Brutus would conspire against Caesar is that he loved the Roman people more than Caesar. Brutus was the head of the conspiracy because the Romans respected his judgement and loyalty to the Roman Empire. If he would have loved Caesar more than Rome's people he never would have killed Caesar for the Roman people. Cassius is the most significant character for his ability to perceive the true motives of the characters. Cassius thinks the nobility of Rome is responsible for the government of Rome. Cassius strongly dislikes Caesar personally. He sees Brutus as the person that will unite the nobles in the conspiracy. Cassius tries to use Brutus to achieve his goal. His main goal is to remove Caesar from power by using his persuasive speaking. Antony first appears in the play as a devoted follower of Caesar. He is also one of the great triumvirs. When he gains permission to speak at Caesar's funeral he undermines the public confidence to seize the power of Rome. In his speech at the capitol he concentrates on Brutus and appeals to the emotions of the people of Rome. At the end of the play, he publicly glorifies Brutus in order to heal the public's wounds caused by the loss of Brutus, Cassius, and Caesar.

College Education is the Best Investment Essay example -- College Educ

The Value of a College Education Why is it important to achieve a college degree, certificate or diploma? Generally speaking, what is the importance of having a college education? This is a question that I have been debating and fighting with myself for the past five years. Is it because with a college education a person can get a better job, earn more money and ensure himself of a better life? Or is the whole concept of college a fraud and a scam to manipulate individuals in feeling inferior without it? In this paper, I am going to enlighten you of the pros and cons of having a valid college education and what it means to me. Senator John Kerry said in a 2004 presidential debate that â€Å"Our college students represent only 20 percent of our population, but they are 100 percent of our future. They are our greatest investment, and we must help them understand the importance of investing in their selves.† Today a college education is something to be treasured. In both earning potential and learning potential, a college education is worth every dime and penny. Just like any investment, a college education requires planning, saving, and perhaps some sacrifice. But it is an investment that will continue to pay you back for a lifetime. Individuals with a college education have better job opportunities, earn more money and develop skills and knowledge that can never be taken away. So in agreeing with Senator Kerry, making the investment of a college education is the greatest investment we will ever make. By attending college, students guarantees themselves a better job that the average Joe. Because the world is changing rapidly, and many jobs rely on new technology, more jobs require education beyond high school. With a college education, an individual will have more jobs from which to choose. In addition to obtaining a better job, people who go to college usually earn more money than those who do not. College furnishes you with proper credentials and documents to land high-level jobs. Figures from an A&E television program on ‘The Working Class’ show that in 2004 the average earnings were $23,895 for a high school graduate and $41,478 for individuals with a bachelor’s degree. Getting a college education is simply a stepping stone in ensuring yourself with a good start in life. Some may agree that college students are open minded and knows exactly how to expre... ...tion was only for the rich and powerful. Now it is available to everyone, this will have many advantages for our country, our people, and even our world. I definitely believe that it is impossible to be overeducated. The more people are educated, the better the world will be, because people will be able to discuss and exchange ideas. Another pro is that people with degrees have many more opportunities. They can take a wider variety of jobs and do what they enjoy doing, instead of being forced to take a job they dislike. Finally, although there are undoubtedly some problems with college as a business, I feel strongly that each and every individual can excel and gain from having a college education. A college education is the most valuable tool we can use; it’s a foundation that will carry anyone through a successful life. Remember Senator Kerry’s words on making a college investment your most important investment. We may only be 20 percent of the population today, bu t what we do and the choices we make are going to determine the future. And to me, a college education is a sound investment. An investment that with great dedication and determination will reap the very best rewards!

Personal Narrative- Lost Wallet :: Personal Narrative

Personal Narrative- Lost Wallet A wallet, or purse for some, is a precious item in which most people carry things more essential than money towards everyday life. If some people were to lose that portable safe, they may be offset for the rest of that day. The person without that wallet could be cranky or depressed for a while. Maybe something of great sentimental value was in that wallet. This person could stay hold these feelings for a long time, until they find their belongings by which case they are filled with joy. I, personally, keep anything I may have interest in knowing where it is, in my wallet. I am very good about always having my wallet and never losing it...until recently. In my wallet, I store dire personal items such as my lisence and some pictures. Among other things, I have my money, like everybody else, and certificates for stores. This summer, I went to the Keys with my family. I drove down there with my wallet and took it everywhere with me, like I would any other time. Well, when someone doesn't have pockets, then it is hard to keep their wallet right next to them at all times. I was carrying my wallet out from the hotel, along with my keys, and set both on top of the car. When I figured out that I needed the keys in order to get in the car and turn it on, I took them off the top of the roof, leaving my wallet behind. I sat in the car, car door open, waiting for my dad to make it to the car so we could all go to a diving area. Once he made it to the car, without thinking, I closed the door and started the car. I had been driving about half a mile before I realized that my wallet was no longer on my body. Immediately, I pulled the car over, and the next hour or so was spent looking for my wallet. All I could think about was what I would lose if I didn't find my wallet. The week before was my birthday, and I was given $60 to Best Buy and $50 to Auto Zone. Aside from that I had $3 in cash. While walking up and down the road that my wallet flew off on, my sister found my two Best Buy cards.

Conflicting Medical Reports Essay

In this paper I will give you a description of the case that was discussed, I will also discuss what you should do if conflicting medical opinions are presented by your general physician and the companies physician, and which medical expert’s advice counts more and why? I am also going to discuss if the case presented is a charge of discrimination and if it is relevant to this case and why? Lastly, if I was presented with a case similar to this what would I do? This case is about an employee named Donald Knolls who was an air traffic control supervisor for International Gateway Airport (IGA). In, 2007 Donald begun to experience depression and depression related problems due to severe stress caused by the job. In 2008, Donald was granted disability leave to undergo treatment for his illness. Eight months later and after extensive treatment and evaluations. Donald’s personal physician, and consulting licensed psychologist agreed that he could return to his former position. IGA sent Donald to their physician that they assigned to him to approve the disability, before they would sign off and approve him to go back to his supervisory job. After the evaluation of IGA’s physician concluded that Donald has made great strides to improving he should not return to his supervisory position because, the job conditions have not changed and Donald was apt to the stress too much. If Donald wants to return to work he must take a non-supervisory position for six months and be re-evaluated at that time to determine if he can return back to his supervisory potion. Donald was very angry and not happy with this arrangement and filed a grievance through IGA’s alternative dispute resolution procedure. After several meetings the employer maintained that they had the right to rely on the medical opinion of a fair and impartial physician who determined that Donald should not be returning to the position since that was the cause of the stress after all. Management pointed out the provisions of Donald’s disability leave which stated that it may require appropriate documentation if it believes an employee is not fit to return to their former position. Donald hired an attorney to represent him and stated that the disability leave provisions were clear but, biased against the employee because they disregarded what their personal physician and psychologist stated. Donald’s lawyer also stated that he was a victim of discrimination based on his formal state of depression. The medical expert that IGA assigned to the company has assigned to the case should take some precedence, but that the expert physician should take in consideration or even consult the personal physician and psychologist that was treating Donald. The company hires their own physician’s due to the high risk job that is in questioning. The company makes sure that their employee’s are fit to work and make sure that all of the planes take off and land safely. Also, some companies have their own physician’s due to insurance purposes, if they get a physician assigned to them especially in airline field, the liability insurance is probably cut. Discrimination can be part of the situation but, if you think about it it could go both ways. I Donald’s eyes yes he is being discriminated against because, he did a good job, got help for is problem, and is ready and willing to go back to his position, thinking that the company would hold his position since they are the ones that approved his disability. But, if you see it on the companies side, then no they are not being discriminating against Donald, they are making sure that the safety of everyone at the airport and all the airlines, employees, and passengers are safe, they are making sure that he is not going to be a liability to them and everyone else. If I was in this situation and presented a case like this I would study Donald’s case, speak with all three physicians and then bring this up with the Board or even the other managers and see what the best solution would be. It could be that he would be in a lower rank position for thirty days. But, I really feel that I would recommend for Donald to be put back into his position but to be watched and monitored very closely and make sure that everything is ok before he is let go on his own. If he proves to be ok, then everything is great but, if they see that the stress has gotten to him again then they can speak to him and see if there is another position or something that they can do for him. In conclusion, I have given you a description of the situation, gone over if the advice of the medical expert that the company brought forth or if you should go with the personal physician’s opinion, if the charge of discrimination presented by Donald’s lawyer relevant and if this case was presented to me what decision I would do. In job’s like an air traffic controller you must be able to put up with a lot of stress. Many people are not able to do the job, and the ones that can do it are special and that is why they make the money.