MPH522 - Public Health Law and Policy, Mod 4 Case Assignment Essay

MPH522 - Public Health Law and Policy, Mod 4 Case Assignment - Essay Example He did challenge this decision in several courts but lost and was ruled against by the Supreme Court (Barnes et al, 1993). We will attempt to show that this decision falls under the utilitarian ethics principle. Utilitarian ethics can be defined over all as a decision that is made as the best decision for the most people. The case is a utilitarian ethics case though it also has the element of paternalism which is deontoligic in nature. In this case, it could only be seen that they were making this decision for the greatest good because it was a decision that ruled against the single person and saw the law in the light of a bigger picture. The Supreme Court, in this case made a decision that did not agree with the single employee because it would have led to a loss of the ability to protect future employees from injury that they themselves may not protect themselves against. This is the way public health law works. The public, the law, as well as the courts have had some difficulty in determining what justice is when it comes to a case like this one (Kass, 2001). Does this also protect the company? The answer is of course yes. However, this again is a decision that is made for the largest nu mber, not for the individual. It does not feel right to us because we have a tendency to look for justice in the sense of the single human instead of the group. It is also so easy to see that the company is not only concerned about the employee but that this is a serious illness brewing and if allowed to continue will be a large burden on the resources of the company so in the end the decision is meant to protect the employee, the company and employees of the future. The second part of the Utilitarian principle is that the decision is extrinsic in its features and that the outcomes of the decision were extrinsic in nature. This is certainly true here. This decision will affect

Gospel of John vs Synoptics Essay Example for Free

Gospel of John vs Synoptics Essay Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the first four books of the New Testament. These are also called the â€Å"Gospels,† and they contain a detailed story of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. However, upon reading the four books, one will notice that there are significant differences between the books contents. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree on many details, the Gospel of John differs from them. The first three books are the Synoptic Gospels. They are called such because they have many things in common, such as events or details, language, and paragraph structures. However, these are not the only things which make them similar. According to researchers, the possibility exists that one or all of the Gospel writers used other Synoptics for their source material. The Gospel of John, on the other hand, is different from the three. Thus, it is not a Synoptic gospel. The reason behind the differences in Johns accounts from the Synoptics is because he he wants to provide another point of view to the events surrounding Jesus Christ (Conte). In addition, these differences lie in the fact that some materials appear in the Gospel of John but not in the Synoptics and vice versa. Noticeably, the Gospel of John contains a prologue but not in the Synoptics. It also contains a narrative of Jesus Christs childhood, whereas the Synoptics do not include infancy narrative. â€Å"Signs† have also been discussed in John 2, and these started with the wedding at Cana (Just). These â€Å"signs† encouraged the people to follow Jesus, according to John (Neyrey 117). Another material missing from Synoptics but is included in the Gospel of John is the dialogue with Nicodemus, which can be found from selected verses of Chapters 2 and 3 of John (Just). Differences can also be seen from the accounts of baptism. From the Gospel of John, it says that Jesus and his disciples baptized people. However, from the Synoptics, there are no accounts testifying that Jesus was baptized. In addition, there are events that occurred in the Gospel of John but are not recorded in the Synoptics. In the same way, there are events only found in the Synoptics. For instance, the Gospel of John contains details of the Samaritan woman that Jesus met. He also healed a sick man near the pool of Bethesda. Other events include the feeding of the 5,000 people, healing a blind man, raising Lazarus from the dead, and the washing of the feet of the disciples (Just). These events did not appear in the Synoptics. There are also other materials that do not appear in the Synoptics. For instance, they lack the childhood episodes that are present in the Gospel of John. In addition, the Synoptics do not have details about the temptation in the desert, or details about the sermon on the Mount. The Synoptics further lack the Lords prayer, or the list of the names of the disciples. Another obvious details missing from the Synoptics are the parables and the ethical teachings. The Synoptics further lack the predictions about Jesus return and the details about his ascension (Just). Furthermore, the events that John recorded took place during the Passover, or the feast of bread (Neyrey 117), and the ministry of Jesus covers three Passovers. However, the Synoptics acknowledge that Jesus ministry lasts for a year (Just). The differences can also be seen at Johns accounts of the feeding of a large crowd. His accounts tell that â€Å"Jesus asks the disciples about feeding the crowds. † In the Synoptics, it says that the disciples approach Jesus and â€Å"ask Him to send the crowds away. † In addition, the Synoptics claim that Jesus orders his disciples to give the people food to eat, which they did. On the other hand, John claims that it is Jesus who distributed the bread to the people. Also, the Synoptics do not mention names of the disciples. The Gospel of John, however, mentions Philip and Andrew (Neyrey 117). Other prominent differences are seen on other details. Whereas the Synoptics discuss the tenet â€Å"Love your neighbors/enemies,† the Gospel of John emphasizes the importance of loving one another. The Synoptics also believe that the future eschatology, or the destiny of the humanity, is the coming of Gods kingdom. On the other hand, the Gospel of John believes that the eternal life is already upon humankind. Jesus also visits Jerusalem in many occasions, as told in the Gospel of John, but the Synoptics only acknowledge one journey (Just). Aside from these, the differences are obvious from smaller details, such as the claim of the Synoptics that John is â€Å"Elijah† who preaches about repentance. The Gospel of John claims John to be the baptizer and also a witness to Jesus Christ. It is also obvious from the Synoptics that the ministry of Jesus started after John the Baptist is arrested. The Gospel of John shows that the ministry of Jesus overlaps with that of Johns. Furthermore, there is a difference in the accounts of the first disciples of Jesus. The first three books claim that the first disciples of Jesus are Simon Andrew, James and John. However, Johns accounts claim that there are five persons who became Jesus first disciples, namely Andrew, an unnamed person, Simon Peter, Philip, and Nathanael (Just). There are still other differences from details. For instance, the Synoptics tell of an anonymous woman anointing Jesus at Bethany, and this is objected by anonymous people. The Gospel of John claims that Jesus is anointed at Bethany by Mary, Lazarus siste, which was objected by Judas Iscariot. There are also differences from accounts near Jesus death. The Synoptics tell about Jesus being in Gethsemane to pray where he was betrayed by Judas with a kiss. The Gospel of John tells that Jesus is in a garden in Cedron, and He identifies himself to the men who arrived to arrest Him. It is also interesting to note that the time of the crucifixion from the Synoptics accounts is at nine in the morning during the Day of Passover. By three in the afternoon He dies. But John claims that Jesus is condemned to die before the Passover; and when He is crucified, He dies quickly (Just). Upon closer reading of the Synoptics and the Gospel of John, one will notice other differences between their accounts that are not listed in this paper. Perhaps these differences would be dependent on the understanding of each reader. But these differences are meant to provide people with other angles and point of view of all the events that took place during Jesus time. Works Cited Conte, Ronald L. 2005. â€Å"The Writing of the Gospels – Relationship between the Synoptics. † Catholic Planet. 26 June 2009 http://www. catholicplanet. com/TSM/NT-synoptics. htm. Just, Felix. 2006. â€Å"Contrasts Between John and the Synoptics. † 25 June 2009 http://catholic-resources. org/John/Synoptic-Differences. htm. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Van Den Haag Regarding Capital Punishment Philosophy Essay

Van Den Haag Regarding Capital Punishment Philosophy Essay In this paper, I will examine the debate over legalizing the death penalty, specifically by referring to the writings of Turrow in To Kill Or Not To Kill and Van den Haag in On Deterrence and the Death Penalty. I will argue that in responding to Van den Haags positions for the death penalty, Turrow would more strongly object to the argument that rests on its justice on opposed to its value as deterrent. I will then consider the merit of the arguments on both sides with regards to justice, eventually concluding that Turrows points are most convincing. Although Turrow makes space in his article to refute arguments based on both deterrence and justice, his argument against deterrence is much shorter and open to criticism. It boils down to the fact that he has not encountered sufficient evidence that the presence of the death penalty results in lower instances of crime. Van den Haag gives several arguments as to why this fails to make a convincing argument against the practice. The ones that are given the most time are the theoretical reasoning that a higher penalty for an action increases deterrence and why the lack of evidence for deterrence should not cause us to assume it does not exist. Since Turrow does not concern himself with the theoretical grounds for deterrence, this argument is unlikely to convince him. If the facts do not back up this theorizing then there is little reason to base policy on it. Luckily, Van den Haag also responds to concerns about the lack of evidence showing that the presence of the death penalty has any deterrent effect on crime. While he admits that no evidence can be found that the death penalty reduces crime, we should not conclude that this effect is not present. Because there are so many factors that influence things like homicide rates, it is impossible to derive a causal relationship or lack thereof between magnitude of punishment and frequency of offense. As Van den Haag puts it, it is wrong to believe, lack of evidence for deterrence is evidence for the lack of deterrence, (Van den Haag, 145). This is accompanied by the claim on Van den Haags part that often criminals are not even aware of laws in their state regarding capital punishment, so its presence would not factor into their cost-benefit analysis. Now, an immediate question raised by this is: How can the death penalty deter criminals if they arent aware of its existence? Even though only part of Van den Haags appeal to deterrence seems to carry any weight to Turrow, the inability to draw any solid conclusion from statistical analysis should be enough to give Turrow pause, if not necessarily convince him. I will now argue that while Turrow may still disagree with the deterrence argument, he will object more strongly to the appeal to justice that Van den Haag gives. This is not to say that Turrow rejects the idea that justice should be an end we seek in punishing criminals. In his article, he makes several statements that would be nonsensical if this were not the case. Firstly he says, Ive always thought death-penalty proponents have a point when they say that it denigrates the profound indignity of murder to punish it in the same fashion as other crimes. (Turrow, 4) Turrow is not appealing to deterrence or potential for rehabilitation here in his argument for the death penalty. His objection is based on the fact that some crimes are so heinous that we must respond in kind for the sake of the moral order. It seems to me that restoring the moral order, is as good a definition of justice as any other. Now that I have concluded that both Van den Haag and Turrow see justice as a legitimate ground on which to base arguments for and against capital punishment, I must show that appealing to justice leads the two authors to different conclusions. Van den Haags appeal to justice is a very much utilitarian argument that is dependent upon his argument from deterrence. He argues that whatever way that we were to define injustice, the correct action should be that which results in the least injustice. This leads him to conclude that if we are concerned with innocent people being mistakenly given the death penalty, we must consider the number of innocents killed this way and compare it to the number of deaths that could have been prevented by deterrence and see if we have a net gain in innocents saved. He then goes on to argue that capital punishment deters enough would-be killers to make its legality just. Turrow would object more strongly to claims of justice than to deterrence because, as Van den Haag states, the validity of his justice argument is dependent on the validity of his deterrence argument. I have already mentioned that Turrow is skeptical of claims of deterrence. I turns out that even if he were to reverse his stance on deterrence, he would also disagree with Van den Haags reasoning for why this would make a system with capital punishment a just one. The main flaw that Turrow finds with capital punishment is its inability to be properly implemented within our justice system. He relates stories of his firsthand experience with cases in which men are given, or very nearly given, the death sentence for crimes they did not commit. This deeply troubles him, and he is not so willing to accept this tragedy as Van den Haag is by simply requiring that more innocent lives are saved by the act than are wrongfully executed. He simply states that, Now and then, we will execute someone who is innocentà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (Turrow, 7) He makes no reference to the number of people saved by this practice, because that number is not significant. Turrow seems to believe that wrongfully executing someone is far worse than the crime of murder enacted by an individual. This may be that the first is a sort of betrayal of the justice system, whereas the latter is simply a failure of it. Therefore, because Turrow would disagree with both the main argument (jus tice) and that which it relies upon (deterrence), his objection to justice would be the stronger of the two. I will now evaluate both arguments from each of these in regards to the justice of having a death penalty. Here I will assume that the argument for deterrence is valid and some innocent lives are spared since Van den Haags argument for justice is contingent upon this fact. As I have described it, the crux of this debate hinges on whether or not it is acceptable to allow some innocents to be executed in order to save more from would-be murderers who do not commit crimes out of fear of the death penalty. Van den Haag is satisfied as long as the number of innocents killed is less than without the death penalty whereas Turrow is against any system in which the innocent may be wrongfully given a death sentence. Something potentially overlooked by Van den Haag is that there may be more consequences to capital punishment being accepted than the accidental killing of innocents. The very idea that ones government may wrongfully convict you for a crime you did not commit could fray the trust that should theoretically exist between a citizen and the government designed to protect him or her. While this argument could certainly be made for any sort of crime, both authors make the distinction in the death penaltys irrevocability. If one has faith that the system may eventually discover its error (by no means certain), then a jail term can be ended and the victim compensated but this is not possible with death. This fear on the part of the citizen could lead to a lack of cooperation or assistance with the police in a case for fear that they will become a suspect. However, the argument that we should not inflict the death penalty because we may sentence the wrong person to death deserves a bit more analysis. The common point made by both authors is that it may be better to give a life-in-prison sentence because then any mistakes in conviction may be found and reversed. However, if this does not actually happen then this weakness of capital punishment does not actually exist. It would be worthwhile to examine statistics of how many prisoners serving life sentences are found to be innocent and released. This would give us insight as to how many innocent lives would be lost were capital punishment allowed, and be a mark in favor of prohibiting it. In other words, if life-in-prison sentences are never overturned then prisoners given them in lieu of the death penalty have no chance of being released so the increased chance of righting the wrong does not actually exist. Granted, this theoretical wrongfully accused person does gain life-in-prison as opposed to execution, but this seems like small consolation to a man who committed no crime. This is a measurable quantity, one that I suspect will come down in favor of prohibition. Of course, as with any objection to a utilitarian viewpoint, as the numbers become more and more extreme our convictions seem less concrete. Would we allow the wrongful execution of one man in order to deter the murders of one million? Because this case is quite unlikely, it does not bear much weight in my considerations. In this paper I have outlined reasons for which Turrow would object most strongly to Van den Haags defense of capital punishment on the grounds of justice, namely that wrongfully executing someone is far worse than failing to deter a murderer from doing the same. I have then considered the justice-based arguments of both authors and decided that, despite potential lives saved and pending statistical reinforcement, the societal consequences of capital punishment outweigh its benefits.

Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation :: Chemicals Anatomy Papers

Creatine Monohydrate Supplementation Creatine is a metabolite that is produced naturally by the human body. It is found mainly in the red muscle tissue, but it is also present in the heart and brain. Normally, creatine is acquired through regular dietary intake of products such as meat and fish, which are high in protein. However, when dietary intake is low creatine can be produced from natural amino acids such as glycine, arginine, and methionine in the liver, kidneys, and pancreas. Creatine monohydrate is the synthetic form of creatine (http://creatine-info.com/ - Information on Creatine Monohydrate). How does creatine work? What is its purpose? Creatine functions to increase the availability of cellular ATP, adenosine triphosphate. Muscular contractions take place off the presence of ATP and the how quickly it can be regenerated; therefore, an increase in creatine levels is thought to increase the force of muscle contractions (http://www.creatinefacts.com/creatine_monohydrate1.htm). Creatine works by acting on mechanisms of ATP by donating a phosphate ion to increase the availability of ATP. Thus, creatine claims to enhance physical performance by increasing energy and therefore, delaying or minimizing fatigue and adding to the amount of time spent training or working out (http://angelfire.com/co/Creatine/index.html and http://creatine-info.com/ - Information on Creatine Monohydrate). How much creatine should be taken? Currently there are no set dosage levels for creatine monohydrate because each person has a maximum level of creatine that cannot be exceeded; therefore, the key to creatine is to benefit from the lowest dosage possible. The most popular dosage regiment has two phases: the loading phase consists of loading the body with creatine to get the levels up. In this phase, 1 heaping teaspoon dose of approximately 5grams is recommended four times daily for one to five days. This is followed by the maintenance phase, which sustains the desired high levels of creatine in the body. The dosage is lowered to 1 teaspoon one to three times a day. The intake of creatine causes the muscle cells to volumize. Basically becoming very hydrated. However, other methods suggest that the loading phase is unnecessary (http://nutrasense.com/nutrasense/creatmon.htm - crdosage). It is also suggested that the most efficient way to maximize low dosages of creatine is to follow the dosage regiment in a cyclical fash ion. If creatine levels are allowed to subside and then one takes the supplement, greater results will be seen. In addition, more substantial improvements are likely to be seen in those with a restricted meat diet or those who are vegetarians (http://bodytrends.

To Kill a Mockingbird-Mayellas Motives for Accusing Tom

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee there is a recurring them involving racism and incest in the town of Maycomb, Alabama during the 1930’s. Mayella Ewell is a nineteen year old girl living at home with her abusive drunk father, and 8 younger brothers and sisters. Her mother died thus leaving her to be the mother figure in the poor household. Mayella accuses twenty-five year old black man Tom Robinson of raping her. Mayella had multiple motives for falsely accusing Tom Robinson of her rape. Mayella accused Tom because she was forced to by her father, Bob Ewell and because that man is her father. It is made very clear during the trial that it was not Tom Robinson who raped Mayella Ewell, but instead her own father. She blamed Robinson because she was evidently coersed by Bob Ewell. In Tom’s testimony he spoke of Mayella’s actions before Bob Ewell came in, â€Å"She says she never kissed a man before an’ she might as well kiss a nigger. She says what her papa do to her don’t count† (page 260). When Bob saw Mayella and Tom together being the mean drunk he is he beat and raped Mayella. In anger, he knew someone would have to pay for what he saw going on between Tom and Mayella. It was not hard to convince people in a town like Maycomb that Tom was guilty. He was black, he had a criminal record known to the citizens of Maycomb since it was such a small town, and he lived in the same neighborhood as the Ewells. People had most likely seen Tom entering the Ewell home because on more than one occasion, Mayella asked Tom to come in and help do some work around the house. â€Å"She’d call me in, suh. Seemed like every time I passed yonder she’d have some little somethin’ for me to do† (page 56). Mayella was coursed by her own father to accuse Tom because Tom was such an easy target to cover up her father’s actions. Mayella falsely accused Tom Robinson for another reason too. For the most part, victims love their abusers. Mayella is the victim and Bob Ewell is the abuser. Bob Ewell does not do anything productive but regardless he is still Mayella’s provider of many things like a home. Mayella, after being coersed by her father would much rather come off as the victim of abuse my some ‘evil’ black man than her father. â€Å"That nigger yonder took advantage of me an’ if you fine fancy gentlemen don’t wanta do nothin’ about it then ou’re all yellow stinkin’ cowards, stinkin’ cowards, the lot of you† (page 251). Mayella was the one who initiated the incident too so instead of taking responsibility for it she would rather put the blame on a black man who would of course not even have a chance in court. Mayella accused Tom Robinson for rape when in reality it was Bob Ewell, her father. She did this because her father made her do it and because she would much rather blame the black man than admit that she came onto him and that it was actually her father that beat and raped her.

Poetic Devices essays

Poetic Devices essays We be getting down and you know we're crush groovin Let me get some action from the back section Let your back bone flip but don't slip a disc Let your spine unwind just take a risk I wanna do the freak until the break of dawn Tell me party people is that so wrong Spice Girls Last Time Lover Cool sexy, ever ready, someone fine, always steady, gentle hands, dirty mind, use your head and don't be blind Counting Crows, Long December The feeling that its a whole lot of oysters, but no pearls Splender I Think God Can Explain Dire Straits Romeo and Juliet Juliet when we made love you used to cry you said I love you like the stars above I'll love you till i die ...