The American Hospital Association (AHA) Workforce Issues

My View of the AHA Position on Workforce Issues The American Hospital Association (AHA) offers powerful ideas in order to support many caregivers. An engaged workforce can improve the quality of healthcare in the United States. The AHA uses powerful strategies in order to address various workforce issues in the country.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on The American Hospital Association (AHA) Workforce Issues specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The agency uses the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to promote the best practices. The AHA â€Å"ensures that the country’s healthcare system supports the needs of different communities† (Bovbjerg, Ormond, Pindus, 2009, p. 4). The PPACA created a commission to address the issues affecting many healthcare institutions. The American Hospital Association focuses on different workforce issues. To begin with, the organization collaborates with various stakeholders in the health sector. This â€Å"practice makes it easier for the AHA to identify new resources, policies, and strategies† (Bovbjerg et al., 2009, p. 5). Such policies support the changing needs of many caregivers in the country. The AHA is also â€Å"the national advocate for many American hospitals† (Sultz Young, 2011, p. 39). The AHA deals with different issues such as employee-relations and shortages. The agency collaborates with different institutions and medical facilities. This approach ensures more individuals to join various medical professions. The organization also promotes various practices in order to increase the supply of caregivers. This â€Å"approach will eventually address the issue of workforce shortage† (Sultz Young, 2011, p. 47). The organization has also been undertaking new studies. Such studies examine the major obstacles affecting the country’s healthcare system. The AHA also presents powerful recommendatio ns that can improve the working conditions of many clinicians (Bovbjerg et al., 2009). The AHA has offered three recommendations in order to deal with the above problems. These proposals include â€Å"redesigning the nature of medical practice, attracting a large number of new caregivers, and retaining every existing nurse† (Bovbjerg et al., 2009, p. 9). The AHA also presents powerful leadership skills that can improve the performance of different caregivers.  The organization also promotes the best employee-patient relations. The Employee Free Choice Act will â€Å"improve the nature of employee relationships in different working environments† (Sultz Young, 2011, p. 72).Advertising Looking for case study on health medicine? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The agency encourages more institutions to â€Å"have appropriate staffing patterns† (Zywiak, 2014, p. 4). This approach will also ensure every pati ent gets the best care. The AHA also expects every medical institution to support its workers. The AHA encourages different facilities â€Å"to use appropriate procedures such as mandatory lifting† (Zywiak, 2014, p. 3). Some institutions use the concept of Unavoidable Overtime (UO) in order to achieve their goals. That being the case, the AHA encourages such institutions to embrace the best workplace procedures. The important goal is addressing the major challenges affecting different caregivers. Workforce Shortages According to the American Hospital Association, the issue of workforce shortage will continue to affect the quality of healthcare in the country. Many caregivers will be looking for greener pastures in the coming years. This fact explains why many healthcare facilities offer inadequate medical services to their patients. This problem is currently affecting the American healthcare system. The rate of â€Å"employee turnover is on the rise† (Zywiak, 2014, p. 7). The government has identified a number of measures to address the problem. According to Sultz and Young (2011), new strategies are needed in order to address this workforce issue. The reduced number of healthcare providers will definitely affect the quality of medical care. The existing employees will have to work for more hours. This practice will â€Å"result in burnout and high employee turnover† (Zywiak, 2014, p. 5). However, the AHA has been promoting new practices in order to deal with this problem. New provisions are also needed in order â€Å"to increase the supply of different caregivers† (Sultz Young, 2011, p. 82). Every organization should embrace the best strategies in order to retain its nurses. This practice will support the diverse needs of different communities. This workforce issue can make it impossible for many patients to get quality care. The shortage of medical practitioners will also affect many American societies. I strongly believe that th e ideas presented by the AHA can produce the best outcomes. The agency encourages â€Å"different employers to become more attractive† (Sultz Young, 2011, p. 65). Such employers should promote the best workplace relations. They should create cohesive teams in order to achieve the best goals.Advertising We will write a custom case study sample on The American Hospital Association (AHA) Workforce Issues specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More New studies are required in order to identify the major regions affected by this problem. This understanding will make it easier for the government to deal with the above issue. Every learning institution should encourage more people to join various medical professions (Sultz Young, 2011). I also support most of the recommendations presented by the American Hospital Association. Every employer should be ready to â€Å"redesign the nature of medical practice† (Zywiak, 2014, p. 9). Such employers should also use proper incentives in order to attract more practitioners. Every medical facility should also improve its working environment. This approach will eventually address the above workforce issue. Reference List Bovbjerg, R., Ormond, B., Pindus, N. (2009). The Nursing Workforce Challenge: Public Policy for a Dynamic and Complex Market. Web. Sultz, H., Young, K. (2011). Healthcare USA: Understanding its Organization and Delivery. Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Zywiak, W. (2014). U.S. Healthcare Workforce Shortages: Caregivers. Web. This case study on The American Hospital Association (AHA) Workforce Issues was written and submitted by user Shania S. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Chinese Mine Explosions essays

Chinese Mine Explosions essays Three coal mine explosions occurred in China this past Wednesday, October 20. The most devastating of which happened in Xinmi, located in the province of Henan. Several gas explosions in the mine have left rescuers to find sixty four dead bodies, and still searching for eighty four more. Yahoo News and Reuters UK have reported on this incident from two differing points of view, and this comes from who they believe is responsible for the incidents. Yahoo News reports on the incidents as if they are the fault of the bosses controlling the mines. In a quote taken from Li, whose nephew was trapped in the mine, and is yet to be found says that "There was a lot of talk in the mine that the mine boss was no good. A lot of the miners did not like him." The China Labor Bulletin, a Hong Kong based human rights group says that there are over twenty thousand coal mine related deaths per year in China. They believe that the reason for this comes from the coal mining bosses's lack of attention to safety needed for the workers to operate in good conditions. The group believes that there are many fatalities that go unreported by mine bosses so that they will not be subject to penalties, and also that their mine will not be shut down. Many people have gathered outside of the Xinmi mine in hopes that they will receive some news of their family members sooner. From what Yahoo News has reported, the fault of this particular mining accident, and the other ones as well lies with the mining bosses's lack of attention to safety. Reuters UK reports on the incidents that took place on Wednesday focuses on a lot of governmental related problems that seem to have caused these deaths. China's government relies heavily on their own production of coal as a cheap way to find energy. The government puts a lot of pressure on mine workers and mine bosses to maximize their production of coal. Li Dun, a sociologist at Beijing's Qinghua University, says tha...

What You Should Know About Kants Ethics in a Nutshell

What You Should Know About Kants Ethics in a Nutshell Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is, by common consent, one of the most profound and original philosophers who ever lived. He is equally well known for his metaphysics–the subject of his Critique of Pure Reason-and for his moral philosophy which is set out in his Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals and the Critique of Practical Reason. Of these last two works, the Groundwork is by far the easier to understand. A Problem for the Enlightenment To understand Kant’s moral philosophy it is crucial first of all to understand the problem that he, like other thinkers of the time, was trying to deal with. From time immemorial, people’s moral beliefs and practices had been based on religion. Scriptures like the bible or the Koran laid out moral rules that were thought to be handed down from God: Don’t kill. Don’t steal. Don’t commit adultery, and so on. The fact that the rules came from God gave them their authority. They were not just somebody’s arbitrary opinion: they gave humanity an objectively valid code of conduct. Moreover, everyone had an incentive to obey them.  If you â€Å"walked in the ways of the Lord,† you would be rewarded, either in this life or the next. If you violated His commandments, you would be punished. So any sensible person would abide by the moral rules that religion taught. With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, and the great cultural movement known as the Enlightenment which followed, a problem arose for this way of thinking. Simply put, faith in God, scripture, and organized religion began to decline among the intelligentsia–that is, the educated elite. This is the development that Nietzsche famously described as â€Å"the death of God.† And it created a problem for moral philosophy. For if religion wasn’t the foundation that gave our moral beliefs their validity, what other foundation could there be? And if there is no God, and therefore no guarantee of cosmic justice ensuring that the good guys are rewarded and the bad guys are punished, why should anyone bother trying to be good? The Scottish moral philosopher Alisdair MacIntrye called this â€Å"the Enlightenment problem.† The problem is to come up with a secular–that is, a non-religious–account of what morality is and why we should be moral. Three Responses to the Enlightenment Problem 1.  Social Contract Theory One response was pioneered by the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He argued that morality was essentially a set of rules that human beings agreed upon among themselves in order to make living together possible. If we didn’t have these rules, many of which are laws enforced by the government, life would be absolutely horrible for everyone. 2.  Utilitarianism Another attempt give morality a non-religious foundation was pioneered by thinkers like David Hume (1711-1776) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1742). This theory holds that pleasure and happiness have intrinsic value. They are what we all want and are the ultimate goals that all our actions aim at.  Something is good if it promotes happiness, and it is bad if it produces suffering. Our basic duty is to try to do things that add to the amount of happiness or reduce the amount of misery in the world.   3.  Kantian Ethics Kant had no time for utilitarianism.  He thought that in placing the emphasis on happiness it completely misunderstood the nature of morality.  In his view, the basis for our sense of what is good or bad, right or wrong, is our awareness that human beings are free, rational agents who should be given the respect appropriate to such beings.  Let’s see in closer detail what this means and what it entails. The Problem With Utilitarianism The basic problem with utilitarianism, in Kant’s view, is that it judges actions by their consequences.  If your action makes people happy, it’s good; if it does the reverse, it’s bad.  But this is actually contrary to what we might call moral common sense.  Consider this question.  Who do you think is the better person, the millionaire who gives $1,000 to charity in order to look good in front of his girlfriend, or the minimum wage worker who donates a day’s pay to charity because he thinks it is is duty to help the needy? If consequences are all that matter, then the millionaire’s action is better.  But that’s not what most people think.  Most of us judge actions more by their motives than by their consequences.  The reason is obvious: the consequences of our actions are often out of our control, just as the ball is out of the pitcher’s control once it has left his hand.  I could save a life at the risk of my own, and the person I save could turn out to be serial killer.  Or I could kill someone in the course of stealing from them, and in doing so might accidentally save the world from a terrible tyrant. The Good Will The first sentence of Kant’s Groundwork states: â€Å"the only thing that is unconditionally good is a good will.† Kant’s argument for this is quite plausible. Consider anything you think of as good: health, wealth, beauty, intelligence, etc. In every case, you can imagine a situation in which this good thing is not good after all. A person can be corrupted by their wealth. The robust health of a bully makes it easier for him to abuse his victims. A person’s beauty may lead them to become vain and fail to develop their talents. Even happiness is not good if it is the happiness of a sadist torturing his victims. A good will, by contrast, says Kant, is always good in all circumstances. But what, exactly, does he mean by a good will? The answer is fairly simple. A person acts from a good will when they do what they do because they think it is their duty: when they act from a sense of moral obligation. Duty v. Inclination Obviously, we don’t perform every little act we do out of a sense of obligation. Much of the time we are simply following our inclinations, acting out of self-interest. There is nothing wrong with this. But no-one deserves any credit for pursuing their own interests. That comes naturally to us, just as it comes naturally to every animal. What is remarkable about human beings, though, is that we can, and sometimes do, perform an action from purely moral motives. E.g. a soldier throws himself on a grenade, sacrificing his life to save the lives of others. Or less dramatically, I pay back a debt as I promised to do even though this will leave me short of money. In Kant’s eyes, when a person freely chooses to do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, their action adds value to the world; it lights it up, so to speak, with a brief glow of moral goodness. Knowing What Your Duty Is Saying that people should do their duty from a sense of duty is easy. But how are we supposed to know what our duty is? Sometimes we may find ourselves facing moral dilemmas where it isn’t obvious which course of action is right. According to Kant, however, in most situations are duty is obvious. And if we are uncertain we can work it out by reflecting on a general principle that he calls the â€Å"Categorical Imperative.† This, he claims, is the fundamental principle of morality. All other rules and precepts can be deduced from it. He offers several different versions of this categorical imperative. One runs as follows: â€Å"Act only on that maxim that you can will as a universal law.† What this means, basically, is that we should only ask ourselves: how would it be if everyone acted the way I’m acting? Could I sincerely and consistently wish for a world in which everyone behaved this way? According to Kant, if our action is morally wrong we would not b able to do this. For instance, suppose I’m thinking of breaking a promise. Could I wish for a world in which everyone broke their promises when keeping them was inconvenient? Kant argues that I could not want this, not least because in such a world no-one would make promises since everyone would know that a promise meant nothing. The Ends Principle Another version of the Categorical Imperative that Kant offers states that one should â€Å"always treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as a means to one’s own ends. This is commonly referred to as the â€Å"ends principle.† But what does it mean, exactly?   The key to it is Kant’s belief that what makes us moral beings is the fact that we are free and rational. To treat someone as a means to your own ends or purposes is to not respect this fact about them. For instance, if I get you to agree to do something by making a false promise, I am manipulating you. Your decision to help me is based on false information (the idea that I’m going to keep my promise). In this way, I have undermined your rationality. This is even more obvious if I steal from you or kidnap you in order to claim a ransom. Treating someone as an end, by contrast, involves always respecting the fact that they are capable of free rational choices which may be  different from the choices you wish them to make. So if I want you to do something, the only moral course of action is to explain the situation, explain what I want, and let you make your own decision. Kant’s Concept of Enlightenment In a famous essay entitled â€Å"What is Enlightenment?† Kant defined enlightenment as â€Å"man’s emancipation from his self-imposed immaturity.† What does this mean? And what does it have to do with his ethics? The answer goes back to the issue of religion no longer providing a satisfactory foundation for morality. What Kant calls humanity’s â€Å"immaturity† is the period when people did not truly think for themselves.  They typically accepted moral rules handed down to them by religion, by tradition, or by authorities like the Bible, the church, or the king. Many people have lamented the fact that many have lost their faith in these authorities. The result is viewed as a spiritual crisis for Western civilization. If â€Å"God is dead,† how do we know what is true and what is right? Kant’s answer is that we have to work these things out for ourselves. But this is not something to lament.  Ultimately it is something to celebrate. Morality is not a matter of subjective whim. What he calls â€Å"the moral law† –the categorical imperative and everything it implies–can be discovered by reason. But it is a law that we, as rational beings, impose on ourselves. It is not imposed on us from without. This is why one of our deepest feelings is reverence for the moral law. And when we act as we do out of respect for it–in other words, from a sense of duty–we fulfill ourselves as rational beings.

SHORT STORY QUESTIONS Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

SHORT STORY QUESTIONS - Assignment Example In the lines â€Å"and thinking nothing of it† (lines 45-46), the poem expresses how the author seems to want to have that innocence of a child, wondering how it is to be an adult, without any idea of the hardships. 2. Sexton’s life and death can make a reader view the poem as an expression of her unspoken sentiments. It seems Sexton relates to the time when she was young and carefree. Since she went through depression stages in her life, the poem could also be an expression of her thoughts on how she, like a child, tried to overcome the obstacles in her life and take giant steps to attain her goals. II. â€Å"To My Dear and Loving Husband† by Anne Bradstreet 1. In this poem, the line â€Å"If ever two were one, then surely we† is a personal favorite because it denotes the happiness and satisfaction of the wife in her married life. She considers herself one with her husband, which means her daily decisions are based on what is good for the household and th e family, and not merely for a specific individual. It also portrays how effectively the spouses are able to work on their marriage since the wife seems to know that her husband is also as happy as she is. It is a personal favorite because this bliss is a widely-coveted feeling in several unions. 2.

McDonald Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

McDonald - Essay Example Recent statistics shows that McDonald’s operates 31,000 restaurants in 119 different countries (Kroc 23). Additionally, the corporation also operates several other restaurant brands like the Piles Cafà © and Donatos Pizza. Some of the countries that have the McDonald’s food store include Singapore, Malaysia, India and most of the states in the United States and Europe (Kroc 29). McDonald has maintained its vigorous advertising campaign for several decades. They usually use the radio, social networks, billboards, newspapers, television and the internet to advertise their products. Through these advertising schemes, McDonald’s has significantly augmented its market. Until recently, McDonald’s has used up to 23 different slogans to advertise its products in different regions and countries. One of the interesting ads by McDonald’s is the ad concerning Rock and Fries. The ad portrays the McDonald emblem using a human hand. Such an advertising strategy has touched me and many others, and it proves that there is a proper marketing integration because McDonald has augmented its market (Kroc 34). The company is considered as one of the most vigorous fast food

The Department Of Social Work Social Work Essay

The Department Of Social Work Social Work Essay The needs of older people are rarely considered outside of their age-related ailments. Community services remain geared towards the younger generation more specifically children and young people, while older peoples needs tend to be looked at peripherally. A question that springs to mind is how risk is assessed in an older person with mental health issues. A starting point could be to look at a definition of risk. Risk can be defined as the possibility of beneficial and harmful outcomes and the likelihood of their occurrence in a stated timescale (Alberg et al in Titternon, 2005). Risk is also a common feature in assessment frameworks by agencies and policies in social care and health. Hence the need to attach significance to risk issues in several public inquiries. However, these seem to be primarily related to child death inquiries where risk assessment and risk management are seen as the ongoing needed requirements to improve best practice. Most available research studies of risk and older people seem to focus on falls and other everyday risks they might encounter when seeking to return home after a hospital admission. Langan Lindlaw (2004) comment that mental health service users have become increasingly defined in terms of risk and dangerousness, despite consistent research evidence that their contribution to violence in society is minimal. They further stipulate that continued focus upon risk means that there is a danger that people so defined will be excluded from decision-making about their lives. This could be related to theory and research evidence that suggests that although older people with mental health needs are at increased risk of admission to long-term care, staff tend not to be well informed about their mental health needs (Nicholls, 2006). This could be related with mental health issues coexisting with other medical conditions in later life, leading to this client group being commonly treated in mainstream settings rather than mental health related institutions. In regards to legislation and policy that incorporates risk assessment, we have the NHS and Community Care Act (1990) which spells out the duty to assess those in need of community care services. More specifically to risk related interventions, these should be the least restrictive and clients ought to be encouraged to use their own resources or develop new ones as per Mental Health Act (1983), Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Safeguarding Adults. Moreover in context of the National Service Framework for Older People (2001) person-centred care is key, where the aim is for older people to be treated as individuals and receive appropriate and timely packages of care which meets their needs as individuals, regardless of health and social services boundaries (DH, 2001). The No Secrets guidance (2000) encourages services users to have greater control of their lives by being given the opportunity to take and manage risks. There is also the Risk and Choice Framework (2007) which provides guid ance on risk assessment and tools. However, current policy and legislation seems to hold long-held ageist assumptions about capacity and capability. For instance, the NSF for Older People (2001) and Essence of Care (2003) require service providers to ensure that care for this client group is fully integrated and holistic in nature. Hence the intended use of the FACS (Fair Access to Care Services) criteria to ensure equality. Yet, these eligibility criteria can prevent an important focus on an older persons biography in terms of the strengths and abilities they gained over their transitional experiences. In this instance, policy relating to risk assessment needs to consider the impact of age and life course stage. Moreover, has concluded by McDonald (2010) legislation alone will not change the way in which professionals respond to older people and further analysis is needed in regards to the factors that influence decision making in the context of risk. Through our lifespan risk can be perceived as beneficial and part of everyday life as it enables learning and understanding. However, one cannot dismiss the negative consequences of risk and subsequently the need for it to, at times be monitored and restricted. Thus risk assessment becomes a significant element of many frameworks. Risk assessment has been defined as the process of estimating and evaluating risk, understood as the possibility of beneficial and harmful outcomes and the likelihood of their occurrence in a stated timescale (Titterton, 2005: 83). In that context, such process should look at a situation or decision, identify the risk and qualify/rate it in terms of likelihood, harmfulness or even low, medium or high risk. Thus, a risk assessment will only identify the probability of harm a risk may have to the related client and others. Subsequently, intervention strategies should aim at reducing harm. Irrespective of this a risk assessment cannot prevent risk (Hope and Sparks, 2000) and most models of risk assessment recognise that it is not possible to eliminate risk, despite the pressure on public authorities to adopt defensive risk management (Power, 2004). This defensive risk management is perhaps in response to some of the high profile cases dominated in the media over the recent years, which has directed the focus of community care policy to minimise risk. Also the government current emphasis on risk when it comes to mental health related incidents/cases conveys a highly misleading message to the public which in turns seems to contribute to the defensive nature found in the professionals that carry assessment and are meant to support this client group. As commented in the Health Select Committee (2000) the current blame culture risks driving away much needed staff from mental health services. The parallel concern becomes what are acceptable risks and how these might conflict with the agenda of person-centred assessments and user empowerment. As put in Carr (2011) defensive risk management or risk-aversive practice may result in service users not being adequately supported to make choices and take control, hence being put at risk. Risk assessment is not only about negative labelling with adverse consequences. It has the value of promoting safety and, where necessary, identify appropriate intervention and support for service users. The methods most used in assessing risk in social work are: actuarial and clinical methods. Adams, Dominelli and Payne (2009) state that the actuarial method involves statistical calculations of probability where an individuals behaviour is predicted on the basis of known behaviour of other in similar circumstances; clinical assessment employs diagnostic techniques relating to personality factors and situational factors relevant to the risk behaviour and the interaction between the two. This latter is the more familiar method in social work practice. Both methods have limitations in terms of generalising behaviour (actuarial method) and risk assessment being a subjective process (clinical methods), i.e. influenced by assessors background, values and beliefs. As such, it is central fo r professionals to be aware of the limitations of risk assessment tools. Thus far, risk and its assessment seem to vary which reinforces the need for partnership and collaborative working as a way forward in integrating health and social care to provide a person centred support to mental health service users. Alaszewski and Alaszewski (2002) found that users, families and professionals had differing views about risk and safety. Nicholls (2006) refers to the Green Paper on Independence, Well-Being and Choice, which found that service users believe that professionals are too concerned about risk, and that this gets in the way of enabling service users to do what they want to do. In relation to older people, the Single Assessment Process stipulates the need for a coordinated approach by which health and social care organisations work together to ensure person-centred, effective and coordinated care planning (Nicholls, 2006). This entails sharing information, trusting one anothers judgement, reducing duplication, and together ensuring that the range and complexity of an older persons needs are properly identified and addressed in accordance with their wishes and preferences. Such collaborative working between professionals and service users can address potential conflict, evaluate strengths, needs and risk where the effectiveness of intervention is likely to be improved and the outcomes for service users more positive (Adams, Dominelli and Payne, 2009). The implications for social work practice is that the needs for service users with mental health issues frequently cross organisational and professional boundaries. For example, professionals working with older people with mental health issues are more than likely to work alongside a range of practitioners from different health and social care disciplines and organisations. Thus, one needs to consider how organisational cultures may impact or influence on how risk is perceived as subsequently assess. As put by Neil et al (2009, p.18) risk decision making is often complicated by the fact that the person or group taking the decision in not always the person or group affected by the risk. Waterson (1999) further suggests that professionals and users tend to disagree on the levels of risk, not least because risk is subjective and can apply to environments as well as to people. Alaszewski and Manthorpe (1998) equally argue that risk is perceived differently by different professionals and allocating blame is one of the main concerns of public enquiries into failures of community care interventions. As current society develops into a culture of blame and risk-aversion, there is an emphasis on the need to minimise uncertainty about risks and attribute individual culpability. As put by Parton (1998) blaming society is now more concerned with risk avoidance and defensive practice than with professional expertise and welfare development. This defensive form of social work in risk assessment put at risk effective and open collaborative and partnership working. Todays dominance of individual accountability (or culpability) might make social work lose sight of their traditional values where service users are meant to be empowered to make informed decisions about the risks they are prepared to take and the support they feel they might need. As stated in Carr (2011) practitioners are less able to engage with individuals to identify safeguarding issues and enable positive risk tasking. As a result issues of discrimination, inequality and anti-oppressive practice start emerging with a clie nt group that is already vulnerable. Both stigma and discrimination against older people is further accentuated by a diagnosis of mental health. It is reported that older people with mental health needs are at greater risk of abuse than other groups of older people (Nicholls, 2006). In regards to risk assessment, literature stresses the need for mental health service users to be included in that process, to have choice and opportunities to take risks towards maintaining their independence and self-determination, as put by Lawson (1996: 55) risk taking is choosing whether or not to act to achieve beneficial results in an awareness of potential harms. As mentioned before risk taking is part of life, but too often for older people the presence of an element of risk results in the prescription of care solutions or admission to residential care which may not be the older peoples own wishes. For example, in placement experience when older clients were admitted to hospital the local authority primary goal was to ensure clients remained at home for as long as possible however the package of care was delivered in accordance with the local authoritys interpretation of these clients needs such as dictating bedtime routines and dismissing the need for social interaction. In this instance, the risk assessment tended to focus on the workers interpretation of perceived need. This could relate to the findings of Langan Lindlaw (2004) study where service user involvement in risk assessment was variable and depended upon individual professional initiative. The concern here is that being overpreoccupied with risk can be to the detriment of assess ing needs suggesting a primary concern with organisational procedures and resource-allocation over service users wellbeing. As put by Munro (2002) social work should be much more than minimising risk, it should be about maximising welfare. Carr (2011) further suggests that this also impacts of practitioners ability to engage with service user to enable positive risk-taking, leaving clients unsupported in taking control. Discrimination may also occur has a result of the level of risk attributed to a service user. Whereby over-estimation can lead to unwarranted labels and under-estimation lead to inappropriate service provision and/or risk to others (Langan Lindlaw, 2004). Inflexible labelling is both unhelpful and often stigmatising. As found in research, people with mental health problems are a far greater risk to themselves than they are to the general population and while there are instances where intervention is required this should not be done in a way that pigeonholes this client group as if the category of dangerousness (Tew, 2011) is solely related to mental heath issues. In an attempt to answer the initial question, of how risk is assessed in an older person with mental health issues, risk assessment of older people with mental health issues is more likely to take place in crisis situations. Hence interventions might be more reactive rather than proactive, where professionals focuses on weaknesses and inabilities rather than strengths and abilities. Professionals may play safe by minimising risk at the expense of user empowerment. To better understand how risk, strengths and difficulties are assessed in regards to risk assessment in older people with mental health needs (and other mental health service users) we need to put it in the context of current political and social perception. The latter being significant given that research into causes and effects of mental health in older people are limited, also there is limited research on how mental health service users manage risk. Therefore, it is essential that risk assessment moves from a one-size fit all approach or a sort of tick-box exercise to being an inclusive process where the individual involved brings expert knowledge that needs to be incorporated into the assessment of risk. As found in Langan and Lindlaw (2004) few service users were fully involved in risk assessment. Similarly, Stalker (2003) makes reference to the omission from research of services users who are perceived to be at risk or a risk. Littlechild Hawley (2010) suggest that little is k nown about how social workers actually assess risk and that judgements made by individual professionals can vary when using the same risk assessment tools. Petch (2001) adds that overemphasising the importance of accurate risk assessment may lead to misleading conclusions about the level of risk posed by someone and as such expose this group to unnecessary restrictions. From some of the literature review and research available risk can be viewed as a social construction, perception of risk differs between professionals (and service users) and society has its own normative views on risk and its overtly concerned with the consequences of risk behaviour in relation to mental health. Moreover, the role of the media in shaping and, one could argue, amplifying some of these concerns must also be acknowledged. Nonetheless, this does not make risk inexistent. The key seems to be for the needs and risk of mental health service users to be assessed from a holistic approach, avoiding judgements, placing the service user at the centre and valuing their perspective as a contributing expert while at the same time recognise that risk is contextual as well as its fluid, i.e. risk can change. Risk assessments need to be comprehensive and build on a bigger picture of the service user by drawing on their strengths and aspirations. Tew (2011) reiterated that the dominant discourse around risk tends to pathologise service users where social and environmental context is not considered. Also that this leads to a paternalistic practice where service users needs are provided for without considering their rights. The concept of risk is complex, making its assessment challenging. This is reflected in the different ideas and approaches to risk assessment as well as the inkling that we are moving to a risk dominated society. As a result, the attitudes and behaviours of such society are weighed in policy and practice in relation to service users with mental health issues whereby isolated incidents involving people with mental health issues become exaggerated to generate perceptions that such client group are inherently dangerous and need to be controlled and confided (Gould 2010). Undisputedly, it is a major challenge to get the right balance when making difficult risk decisions. On the other hand, risk assessments are needed to improve the validity and reliability of decision making particularly where there may be concerns about an individuals capacity to make informed judgements. However, risk can never be eliminated altogether, and occasionally decisions will be made in good faith, on the best evidence available. As proposed by Stalker (2003) more studies are needed to address the complex nature of risk as well as positive-risk taking in regards to service users with mental health needs. This in addition to the need for research to include services users perspectives as well as other variables such as race and gender. In regards to older people, if as a social group they tend to be institutionally marginalised then it might be equally easy to negate the views of people with mental health problems who equally challenge societys assumptions of capability in regards to managing risk. Risk assessment is central to social work practice; however it must not depersonalise the service user and merely identify them through a compilation of risk variables. Additionally the discourse around risk assessment needs to move from a concern about risk adversity to a probability of negative and positive risks. Equally antagonistic is the use of the term dangerousness to define vulnerable service users. Such language can impact on collaborative and partnership work between professionals and service users. Moreover, as put in Tew (2011) the ongoing rituals of risk assessment may impact further on service users sense of self and undermine their capability to manage risky situations. Also, as stated in Petch (2001) the re will always be people in the community who pose risk, whether or not they suffer from mental health, and singling out or blaming a particular group of professionals will not change this. Thus, a risk assessment is made on a balance of probabilities rather than exact conclusions. While striving for uniformity within risk assessment is a move towards equity, flexibility is also important given the subjective contexts of risk and mental health needs. Peoples lives involve many changing and interrelated variables which will always create some difficulty in balancing risk assessment. In the end, life cannot be without risk and risk-taking is part of the process that makes us who we are, complex beings.

Adapting the Law to the Online Environment Essay

Formulating unique conception of the Web in â€Å"Weaving the Web† Berners-Lee emphasized that the intention was to create a system with â€Å"one fundamental property: it had to be completely decentralized.† In the vision of Berners-Lee: â€Å"That would be the only way a new person   somewhere could start to use it [the Web] without asking for access from anyone else†[1]. In the initial years of the Web’s functioning, Berner-Lee’s ideal of a highly decentralized universal system has been shared by tens of millions of people around the world who have appreciated and marveled at an invention that makes it unexpectedly easy for anyone with a computer to connect with anyone else with a computer, anywhere in the world, and to store and send information almost at will. But the Internet and the Web have also moved to the center of attention for governments, business leaders, lawyers and judges, police forces and military establishments, and anyone else dependent on the rule of law and authority structures in modern society. This is a result of the ability and tendency of Internet users to simply skirt or leap over many of the rules and institutions designed to maintain order in the pre- Internet world. Previously designed rules and legal structures enacted for slower-paced, relatively public tangible transactions in a world rimmed everywhere with borders (local, provincial, national) suddenly were challenged as never before when the Internet made it physically conceivable to carry out transactions of almost any kind in a manner simultaneously immediate, anonymous, inexpensive, and seemingly borderless. However, the process of certain democratization, overcriminalization and simply lazier-affair went beyond predictable limits – internet identity theft, credit card fraud, controversies with gambling and online porn reveal significant need to adapt the law to online environment, to analyze the specifics of cyber crimes and to create effective regulatory norms. Traditional Crime and Cyber Crime: Defining Boundaries From the primary perspective, the Internet imitates and, in most cases, runs parallel to what is often happening in normal life, therefore, it is no wonder that the law had to take account of this new parallel of real life. Hence the frequent appeals for â€Å"cyberlaw† or â€Å"cyberspace law.† Simultaneously, the imitation of life by the Internet does not completely transcend existing forms of activities in their entirety. Thus while electronic forms of information are the hallmark of the Internet and tend to undermine tangible media, or even render them obsolete, prior forms of information may coexist alongside them, albeit uneasily and suffering permanent corrosion. In so far as it is not possible to divine the extent to which the Net will generate parallel or independent forms of activity, the development of the appropriate law cannot be predictable. One has to determine in each specific sphere of activity how far the parallels go and how big or small the change over the normal may have been before working out the legal response. Consequently, the lack of time or resources cannot be the main reasons for the non-development of Internet law, as Edwards and Waelde suggest[2], although they recognize, somewhat indirectly that the Internet is still developing and so must the Internet law. Edwards and Waelde view â€Å"Internet Law† as being a result of (the usual) adaptation process that the law undergoes to catch up with new technological phenomena. They regard Internet Law as a necessity, contrary to the â€Å"core pragmatic† perception of those they refer to as looking upon the Internet as law-free.[3] And although the regulation of Internet content, transactions and activities seems to be logical and self-evident, the problems start appearing from the very definition of cyber crime. Black’s Law Dictionary defines a â€Å"crime† as a â€Å"social harm that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject-matter of a criminal proceeding.†[4] Anglo-American crim ­inal law has for centuries possessed a set of definitions of â€Å"crimes† that encompass the varied categories of social harms humans can inflict on one another, for instance homicide, rape, robbery, arson, vandalism, fraud, child abuse, etc. According to Susan Brenner, crimi ­nal law does not typically differentiate offenses based upon the instrumentalities that are used in their com ­mission; we generally do not, for example, divide homi ­cide into â€Å"murder by gun,† â€Å"murder by poison,† â€Å"mur ­der by strangulation† and so on.[5] As Brenner points out, criminal law does treat the use of certain instrumentalities as â€Å"aggravat ­ing factors,† the use of which can result in an enhanced sentence upon conviction; this is how criminal law gen ­erally deals with using a firearm or other dangerous in ­strumentality in the commission of a crime.[6] This approach could, perhaps, have been taken with regard to cyber crime; we could simply define hacking as a type of trespass, analogous to real-world trespass. The â€Å"crime† of real-world trespass is gaining access to a physical space – a building or a parcel of land – without authorization. We could have pursued hacking in an analogous fashion, perhaps prosecuting it as tres ­pass and then characterizing the use of computer tech ­nology as an aggravating factor.[7] However, that is not the approach the law has taken and is tak ­ing to the use of computer technology to inflict social harms. What is emerging is a division between tradi ­tional crimes (trespass, burglary, theft, stalking, etc.) and cyber crimes. The latter encompass the use of com ­puter technology to commit either (a) social harms that have already been identified and outlawed generically (trespass, burglary, theft, stalking, etc.) or (b) new types of social harm that do not fall into traditional â€Å"crime† categories. It is necessary to adopt cyber crime-specific laws for the first category of conduct because, as Brennan’s hacking-trespass example illustrates, computer tech ­nology can be used to commit social harms in ways that do not fit comfortably into our existing offense categories. Another Brennan’s example of a denial of service attack[8] simply eludes conventional crimi ­nal law: it is not theft; it is not extortion; it is not black ­mail; it is not vandalism or trespassing or any other â€Å"crime† that has so far been defined. We must, therefore, define new â€Å"cyber crimes† to encompass denial of service attacks and other â€Å"new† varieties of criminal activity. In conceptualizing the varieties of cyber crime, it is helpful to divide them into three categories offered by Marc Goodman: crimes in which the computer is the target of the criminal ac ­tivity, crimes in which the computer is a tool used to commit the crime, and crimes in which the use of the computer is an incidental aspect of the commission of the crime.[9] When a computer is the target of criminal activity, the perpetrator attacks an innocent user’s computer or computer system either by gaining unlawful access to it or by bombarding it from outside. Cybercrimes that fall into this category include simple hacking (gaining access to a computer system or part of a computer system without autho ­rization) and aggravated hacking (gaining access to a computer system or part of a computer system without authorization for the purpose of committing a crime such as copying or altering information in the system). The target cybercrimes also include denial of service attacks and the dissemination of viruses, worms and other types of malware. The cyber crimes in this cate ­gory tend to be â€Å"new† crimes and therefore generally require new legislation. A computer or computer system can also be the in ­strument that is used to commit what is essentially a traditional crime. Cybercrimes in which a computer is the tool used to carry out criminal activity include online fraud, theft, embezzlement, stalking and harass ­ment, forgery, obstruction of justice and the creation or dissemination of child pornography. These are conven ­tional crimes, but it may be difficult to prosecute online versions of these crimes using existing substantive law; a jurisdiction’s theft statute may not, for example, en ­compass a â€Å"theft† of intangible property when the theft consists of copying the property, instead of appropri ­ating it entirely. In State v. Schwartz, Oregon State of Appeal held that â€Å"†¦by copying the passwords, defendant stripped them of their value.†[10] Jurisdictions may therefore find it necessary to amend their existing substantive criminal law to ensure that it can be used against these cy ber crime variants of tradi ­tional crimes. The last category consists of cyber crimes in which the use of a computer or computer system is incidental to the commission of the crime. This category includes, for example, instances in which a murderer uses a com ­puter to plan a murder or lure the victim to the murder scene; it can also include a blackmailer’s using a com ­puter to write extortion letters to his victim or a drug dealer’s using a computer to monitor his sales, inventory and profits. Here, the computer is merely a source of evidence and new substantive criminal legislation is generally not needed. The cases in this category can, however, require new law to resolve procedural issues such as the processes used in gathering evidence of cyber crimes. The basic federal cyber crime provision is 18 U.S. Code  § 1030; among other things, it criminalizes hacking, cracking, computer fraud and the dissemination of viruses, worms and other types of malware. The statute accomplishes this by directing its prohi ­bitions at conduct that targets a â€Å"protected computer† and then defining â€Å"protected computer† as a computer encompassed by federal jurisdiction.[11] Section 1030 defined a â€Å"protected computer† as either (a) a computer used exclusively by a financial institution or the federal government or used nonexclusively by a financial institution or the federal govern ­ment if the conduct constituting the crime affects its use by the financial institution or federal government; or (b) a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication.[12] The notion of basing the statute’s prohibitions on conduct directed at a â€Å"protected computer† was introduced when  § 1030 was a mended in 1996; until then, it criminalized con ­duct that was directed at â€Å"federal interest computers,† i.e., computers used by the federal government or lo ­cated in more than one state.[13] The 1996 amendment broadened  § 1030’s reach; it now encompasses conduct directed at any computer con ­nected to the Internet. In 2001, the Patriot Act amended  § 1030 to make it clear that the statute can be used to prosecute criminal conduct which occurred outside the United States, a position the Department of Justice had long taken, for instance in case United States v. Ivanov. The Patriot Act expanded the definition of a protected computer to include com ­puters used in interstate or foreign commerce that are located outside the United States if they are â€Å"used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States.†[14] Problematic Aspects: Copyright, Child Pornography, Identity Fraud in Internet In order to address the problems in regulation of online environment more effectively, this paper aims to focus on several most problematic aspects of the issue – copyright violations, child pornography and identity theft or credit card fraud. Defined by Culberg, copyright is â€Å"a legal device giving the author (or holder of the copy ­right) the exclusive right to control the reproduction of his or her intellectual creation† for a specific period of time.[15] Copyright law in the United States derives from the U.S. Constitution and is therefore exclusively federal; states do not have the authority to legislate in this area.[16] Defenses to a charge of criminal copyright infringe ­ment are, first, that the offense cannot be prosecuted be ­cause the five year statute of limitations has run.[17] Other defenses are the â€Å"first sale† doctrine and an argument that the defendant did not act â€Å"will ­fully.† The first sale doctrine lets one who purchased a copyrighted work freely distribute the copy she bought.[18] Under the doctrine, however, the purchaser can only distribute the copy she bought; she cannot copy the purchased item and distribute the copies.[19] Since most computer software is distributed through licensing agreements, the first sale doctrine typically does not apply when someone is charged with software piracy.[20] With regard to the claim that a defendant did not act â€Å"willfully,† there is some ambiguity as what is required to show â€Å"willfulness.† Courts disagree as to whether it requires an â€Å"intent to copy or intent to infringe.†[21] The newest weapon in the federal arsenal of copy ­right statutes is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which added two sections to title 17 of the U.S. Code. Section 1201 makes it unlawful to circumvent measures used to protect copyrighted works, while  § 1202 makes it unlawful to tamper with copyright management in ­formation. Another new section, 17 U.S. Code  § 1204, creates criminal penalties for violating either sections 1201 or 1202 of the DMCA. The first criminal prosecu ­tion under the DMCA was filed in 2001 against Dmitry Sklyarov, a Russian citizen, and his employer, Elcom ­soft, Ltd.[22] They were charged with violating 17 U.S. Code  § 1201(b) (l) (A), by trafficking in technology designed to circumvent the rights of a copyright owner, and with violating 17 U.S. Code  § 1201(b) (l) (C), by trafficking in technol ­ogy marketed for use in circumventing technology that protects the rights of a copyright owner. Another area that is a high priority in federal com ­puter crime prosecutions is child pornography. To un ­derstand the current state of the law outlawing child pornography, it is necessary to understand the First Amendment, which states, in part, that Congress is to make â€Å"no law †¦abridging the freedom of speech.† The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this part of the First Amendment as prohibiting the criminalization of any but a very few limited categories of speech: â€Å"[T]he First Amendment bars the government from dictating what we see or read or speak or hear. The freedom of speech has its limits; it does not embrace certain cat ­egories of speech, including defamation, incitement, obscenity, and pornography produced with real chil ­dren.†[23] From the critical as well statistical perspective, child pornography appears a relatively recent addi ­tion to the list. However, the rise of com ­puter technology raised concerns about â€Å"virtual† child pornography, i.e., pornography created using morphed or other artificial images of children, and in 1996 Congress adopted the Child Pornography Prevention Act, codified as 18 U.S. Code  § 2251. This Act extended the prohibitions on manufacturing, possess ­ing and distributing child pornography to encompass pornography that featured not only â€Å"real† children but what â€Å"appeared† to be a real child.[24] In 2001, a coalition of free speech advocates challenged these provisions of the federal child pornography statutes; they argued that because no â€Å"real† children are harmed in the creation of â€Å"virtual† child pornography, it does not fall under a category of speech that cannot constitutionally be criminalized.[25] When the case was before the Supreme Court, the Department of Justice argued that virtual child pornography can be criminalized because (a) pedophiles use it to seduce children into sexual acts and (b) it stimulates pedophiles into molesting chil ­dren.[26] The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and held that the prohibition of virtual child pornogra ­phy violated the First Amendment, so the statutory provisions at issue were unconstitutional and unenforce ­able.