Communication Principles, Techniques and Strategies used in Health and Term Paper

Communication Principles, Techniques and Strategies used in Health and Social Care Settings - Term Paper Example In the worst case scenario, miscommunication could result in the death of the patient. In the case of Anne, who suffered from a stroke, delayed communication in the period between the moment when she first felt unusual symptoms and when she reached the hospital caused her to suffer a stroke. If her husband Paul had been successful in reaching an ambulance or other medical firm and enabled her to reach the hospital in time, this could have been averted. However, Paul, Anne’s husband, was unsuccessful in reaching the ambulance. In addition, when she finally reached a hospital, Anne was left unattended for approximately four hours. During this interlude, her face sagged on one side and she lost control of her bodily functions. It does seem that the attitude of the medical professionals concerned was shockingly callous. However, it is more likely that they simply were unequipped with the right coping skills for dealing with the extreme stress that is often encountered in the medical field. The medical emergency number dialed by Paul may have been disconnected. However, it is more likely that the line was busy and there were many people trying to use it at the same time. On his arrival at the first hospital, Paul and Anne may have walked in at a time when all medical professionals were busy attending to serious cases; thus the lack of attention for the first four hours. In addition, the doctors were probably strained after a hard day’s work. This is not a suggestion that their attitude was excusable; however, it is important to point out that medical practitioners deal with extreme stress on a regular basis.  

Death Penalty Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Death Penalty - Essay Example While some arguments are about moral judgments, others are disagreements about empirical trends, such as whether the death penalty is a more effective deterrent than life imprisonment. Ethical debate of the death penalty can be split into two main philosophical contexts, a deontological (a priori) context and a consequentiality context. A priori argument can be further subcategorized into a right argument and a virtue argument. Legal debate also generally falls into prior argument based on legal text. Consequentiality argument can be largely reduced to utilitarian formula through what amount to costs or benefits of the death penalty in terms of human lives and welfare. The deontological objection to the death penalty asserts that the death penalty is totally not correct by its nature, mostly due to the fact that it amounts to the violation of the right to life, which should be universal. In philosophical debate, however, the virtue school tends to argue that the death penalty is also "wrong" on the ground that the process is cruel and inhumane. It brutalizes the society at large and desensitizes and dehumanizes participants of the judicial process. In particular, it extinguishes the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption of the perpetrator(s). Deon tic justification to the death penalty, on the other hand, argues that the death penalty is "right" by nature, mostly on the ground that retribution against the violator of another life or liberty is "just". It naturally follows that not applying death penalty to heinous murder would be unjust. In the context of virtue, they point out that without proper retribution, the judicial system further brutalizes the victim or victim's family and friends, which amounts to secondary victimization. Moreover, the judicial process which applies the death penalty reinforces the sense of justice among participants as well as the citizens as a whole, and might even provide incentive for the perpetrator to own up to their crim e. Many argue that there are advantages of looking at capital punishment from a utilitarian perspective, that is, one which looks at costs and benefits for human welfare. The deontological debate helps to clarify the respective positions of the debate, but offers no way to reach consensus because each argument stands on different a priori ground. Similarly, legal argument can clarify a priori legal or constitutional grounds of the death penalty. However, it offers no insight over whether such law or constitutional clause can be justified on its merit. A utilitarian approach is attractive because the issue is more easily resolved through the examination of empirical evidence, such as evidence about the penalty's effectiveness as a deterrent. Opponents of the utilitarian approach argue that it is flawed for the very reason that it does not take into consideration the complicating ideas which deontology considers, such as the right to life or just retribution. The death penalty is often opposed on the grounds that, because every criminal justice system is fallible, innocent people will inevitably be executed by mistake, and the death penalty is both irreversible and more severe than lesser punishments. The supporters of the death penalty point out that lesser punishments, including life imprisonment, can also be imposed in error and incarceration is also irreversible if the innocent dies in prison. Moreover, whether money is an acceptable compensation for long period of incarceration is a matter of