Personal responsibility Essay Example for Free

Personal responsibility Essay If one cannot rely on himself, then others cannot rely on him. At some time in one’s life there will be someone who depends on them for something. If this person doesn’t have their self-figured out then how will they figure out how to take care of that person’s needs? You are the only one that can take control of your life and to rely on someone else to do it for you is hurting yourself and those around you. Personal responsibility is a necessity in life and also helps the community as a whole become more efficient. I was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps in 2012 and transitioning from the Military to the civilian life style with a pregnant wife was one of the most challenging periods of my life. Instead of taking a break from working and living at home with my mom and collecting unemployment benefits, I had personal responsibility to get up and find a job after getting out to do what it takes to take care of my family. After working full time for a year we were barely making it, living pay check to paycheck. During this time I was consistently looking for new job opportunities. I didn’t blame anyone for my poor situation but myself and realized if I didn’t do anything I would be stuck here for the rest of my life. I just recently moved to San Diego County, receiving better pay and benefits to support my family’s needs. While my current job is paying the bills and we are living comfortably, I start to look into the future. My son will grow up, and he will have more complex and expensive needs like School field trips, sports uniforms, and college Tuition. So I decided to go to school to advance my career in the IT industry. By the time I graduate with my bachelor’s degree, I will have 10 years of IT experience with certifications in specific fields. This goal will allow me to reach my financial goal before reaching the age of 30 and way before my son is ready for college. Getting a degree isn’t just a matter of going to school and graduating, there is work that is required to get the grades to pass and keeping a High GPA. That will take dedication to project groups, taking the time to do the reading, and write the essay. If you take the initiative to do more than just pass your class, it will reflect on your professional career. In conclusion, there are many things that come into play when it comes to personal responsibility. For me it was the fear of failure, the positive stress I instilled in myself to be motivated to excel my professional career for the sake of my family. In order to take care of others, first you must take care of yourself.

Personal Reflections On Case Discussion Group Nursing Essay

Personal Reflections On Case Discussion Group Nursing Essay It seems an almost impossible task to me to be able to encapsulate all my reflections on the past year of our CDG in this report. At this point in writing I am wondering whether this thought is a reflection of feeling overwhelmed by my memories of the past year. Therefore, I have decided to break up certain aspects of the group in order to help me make sense of my experiences and reflect on what was learnt. Diversity and difference within the group There are seven trainee members in our group (one male and six females) and we had a male facilitator. We quickly noticed the abundance of similarities between members of the group. All the trainee members of our group live in London and we all had our adult mental health placement in the same trust in London. Interestingly, we also discovered that our facilitator was based in London on his clinical days and lived in the same area as two of the trainees in the group. All the trainee members are also relatively close in age (25-32 years).Our group members come from a range of social and cultural backgrounds, which was illustrated when we completed cultural genograms in one CDG session. One could consider our group to be racially, ethnically and culturally diverse, with members coming from a variety of different social economic backgrounds, countries and cultural influences. Several of our group members had also spent a number years living in African and Asian continents and some speak a number of different languages. Structure of the group Reflecting back I realise the way in which our sessions were structured was very original and added a depth to our experience of the Case Discussion group (CDG). Each week two trainees would present a case to the rest of the group, with one presentation lasting slightly longer than the other (depending on whether it was a major or minor case). Many of the cases that our group members presented were not individual client cases, but more systemic situations which we were struggling with. Once the trainee had presented their case they left the group and sat in a different part of the room. This left the remaining group members to discuss their ideas about the case in the style of a reflecting circle. I found this experience invaluable as it as it gave me insight into how it must feel to have a reflecting team with you when working as a therapist. Reflecting teams have been used since the 1980s (Anderson, 1987) and are now to be considered a form of therapy in itself. The primary focus of the reflecting team is to generate multiple perspectives (White Epston, 1990) for the therapist and client. Without the generation of alternate knowledges, people are perhaps stuck or standing still and cannot move forward with their lives (Dawson et al, 2003; p2). Indeed, when I presented a client who was very stuck in her unusual beliefs, I realised that I too was stuck in how I was working with her. Listening to the other trainees discuss her case made me realise that I needed to be more flexible in my approach to working with her and think creatively. What was interesting was how incredibly frustrating it felt being sat away from the group and being unable to verbally defend aspects of your work. This made me reflect on how clients may feel when decisions about their care are made without them being present. For example, I was recently invited to attend an Assertive Outreach team meeting which involved sixteen other mental health professionals. The purpose was to review a young man who had complex mental health problems and was not complying with his medication routine. It was only at the end of the meeting that I asked why he had not been invited and it became clear that no-one had taken responsibility for communicating with him so he had not even been asked. Reflecting back on this had made me strongly aware of the need to work collaboratively with clients, particularly with regards to keeping them informed about decisions or changes in their care. The group process The model which I feel best encapsulates the process of our CDG is Manors phase-model of group development: Figure 1 Model of group development (Manor, 2000) Forming the group and engagement phase Authority crisis and the empowerment phase Intimacy crisis and the mutuality phase Separation crisis and the termination phase In the first few CDG sessions we were primarily concerned with defining the purpose of the group (i.e. what is the group for?), allocating roles (e.g. chair and scribe responsibilities) and defining the leadership position of the facilitator (i.e. Will he tell us what to do?). This is defined as phase 1 in the model and seems to be a perfect account of the confusing and somewhat frustrating formation period of the group. Each of the subsequent stages of the group involves a crisis period. The second crisis (authority) seems similar to the storming stage in Tuckman and Jensens model of group development (1965) which I identified as a relevant model in my PBL reflective account. In our early CDG sessions there was a power struggle between the facilitator and the trainee group members, in as much as the facilitator seemed to make suggestions in the sessions (e.g. styles of presentation for the PBL, topics we should cover) which were opposite to the ideas we had produced. I felt that he was a bit patronising towards us today, he seemed to go against every suggestion that ****** made (3rd CDG session entry) Reflecting back on this entry I wonder whether we ousted him in an attempt to make our cohesion as a trainee group stronger. I also wonder whether we subsequently attempted to create a group away from the group, by arranging social outings for our CDG trainee members and discussing the CDG sessions on the train journey home. Admittedly there were two strong characters in our group who led these discussions and some who just sat there quietly. It is only with hindsight that I realise we were experiencing an authority crisis and our way of regaining power was to reform and bond as a trainee group. The next phase in Manors model is concerned with the intimacy of the group and their ability to open up personal conversations. For our CDG I dont think this happened until about 7 months in. Until this time we were very restrained as a group in discussing personal issues and I noticed we never discussed our own feelings in the CDG sessions. Our strong use of humour may have also been a defence for protecting the group from reaching this phase. I recall one of the stronger members of the group joking that we were not a group who need to cry over things. I think it was comments like this that made us feel cohesive as a group; however it also meant at times I felt unable to disclose my true feelings about an issue for fear of going against the essence of our group. Interestingly, this recently changed when we completed personal cultural genograms in a CDG session. This was a pinnacle point in our group process as it seemed to break all the intimacy boundaries we had created and allowed certain members to express their feelings of frustration when discussing certain cases or clinical situations. Our relationship with the facilitator also changed after this point and became more mutual. A major advantage of this model is that it accounts for the group changes over time, particularly with regards to the ending of our group. Reading about the final separation crisis and termination phase reminded me of our last CDG session in July to which only three trainees were present. I recall a strong sense of fear and despair in the session, and we spent over half of the session talking about the initial problems of the group. This is referred to as re-capitulation in the model and is seen as an attempt to prolong the life of the group. Given that we knew the group was not truly ending, why did we go through the process of separation crisis? Despite knowing there would be a continuation of our group in the second year of training I think we struggled with being separated from our facilitator. This made me think about how clients must feel when they are about to finish a therapeutic group and the anxiety it must generate. Yalom eloquently describes the benefits from this crisis: Learning that I must take ultimate responsibility for the way I live my life no matter how much guidance and support I get from others (Yalom, 1995; p88) With hindsight it is clear that experiencing the termination of a group process is one of the most valuable stages as it essentially installs a sense of hope and facilitates a handover of responsibility. Understanding this model has been an important learning stage for me as I have been able to use my personal learning of the CDG process and transfer it to my clinical work with groups. At present I am just finishing with three recovery groups for clients on inpatient wards and have used Manors model to help them understand their own group dynamics. Personal and Professional Development Personally, I really valued the opportunity to learn about the different models that other group members were working with as it has helped me broaden my clinical approach. Our facilitator brought systemic thinking to our sessions, which essentially shaped the discussions we had about clinical cases. Given that most of our lectures and placements were guided by a CBT approach, it felt new and somewhat daunting to be asked questions from a systemic perspective. In my first case presentation regarding a lady who had been emotionally and physically abused as a teenager. I recall the facilitator opening up a discussion with the other trainees about her attachments and role in the family structure. It was fascinating listening to how this changed the content of the conversation. At first I noticed that the other trainees were trying to problem-solve my case, but this immediately changed and they were generating more thoughtful and curious conversation which delved into areas I had not eve n considered. It made me realise the value of thinking about and understanding systems as part of the therapeutic process. Indeed, I have since discovered the benefit of using systemic tools such as Genograms and ecomaps when helping clients talk about and make links to their past. Interestingly, I was initially quite resistant to thinking in a systemic way and realise I was clutching on to the model which was used in my placement. Writing this report has made me wonder whether the resistance I showed is a parallel to the resistance often present in multi-disciplinary teams when change is imminent. For example, the service where my placement is has recently adopted the Recovery model (Repper Perkins, 2003) as a framework for mental health care delivery. After attending many of their team meetings I realised just how defensive many of the team members felt about this, and they constructed it as just another new fad in the system. It made me realise how resistance can be important in telling us something about the underlying feelings and fears people hold. Similarly, there is evidence to suggest that the role many Psychologists and therapists hold in teams stirs resistance from other health care professionals. Hook (2001) discusses the fear which some staff have regarding the notion of psychological processes, as it can be perceived as a threat to their knowledge. Hook (2001) describes this as mind science versus brain science. True enough; the issue of Psychologists integration in teams is one which attracts much attention in current health policy literature: Stakeholders showed an overwhelming preference for the integration of psychologists within teams but only if psychologists retained their unique identity and contribution (e.g. offering an authoritative and constructive counter-balance to the medical model) (Department of Health, 2007; p2) With the fast-changing climate of the NHS I realise that the roles of health care professionals are continually adapting and I wonder how resistance and institutional defences will be part of that. These are issues which evolved for me after reflecting on the CDG process, and ones which I will continue to grapple with throughout my training. Another valuable experience for me was learning more about diversity issues and how they can affect the therapeutic relationship. This topic arose after we spent two CDG sessions completing cultural genograms individually and then presented them to the rest of the group. Not only was this an introduction to a useful clinical tool, but it enabled me to think about what culture really means and how it is different to ethnicity and race. These terms had caused great confusion in our initial group discussion about culture, and I did not even realise that they meant different things until our facilitator kindly defined them for us. Thinking about my own cultural identity also made me aware and sensitive to my clients different cultural affiliations. Indeed, Hardy Laszloffy (1995) argues that: Trainees are rarely challenged to examine how their respective cultural identities influence understanding and acceptance of those who are both culturally similar and dissimilar (Hardy Laszloffy, 1995, p227) Most of my current clients come from very different backgrounds to me and some have strong religious attachments which influence the way they understand and cope with their mental health difficulty. After completing the genogram in our CDG I reflected in my supervision sessions on how areas of difference may interplay with the therapeutic relationship. For example, one client I was seeing described herself as a contemporary Christian and her faith meant she constructed her mental health difficulty to be a punishment from God. After reflecting on this in supervision, I realised that there was a big difference in our religious affiliations (I would consider myself to be an atheist), which was affecting my acceptance of her construction. Once I understood this our sessions suddenly shifted and we were able to progress with her treatment. Furthermore, I now routinely acknowledge any areas of difference when I first see a client individually and feel this had always had a positive impact on the therapeutic alliance. On a more personal level, writing this account has enabled me to think about what role I played in the group and what this tells me about my role as a professional in training. As I am writing I am aware that it has been easier for me to write about the group process than think about my own involvement and contributions to it. Upon closer inspection I am curious as to whether my narrative of the group process reflects the position of the follower. This role has been well-documented in leadership literature, and the title encapsulates a person who can sometimes be pushed aside by others with regards to leadership decisions (Dvir Shamir, 2003). Certainly my behaviour in the CDG this year fits with this description, and has made me think about how I present myself to my professional network. Whilst this is useful for me to realise, it also feels slightly uncomfortable to acknowledge this, as acknowledgement for me means action should be taken. I refer here to the eloquent words from Bo lton (2001): Reflection is not a cosy process of quiet contemplation. It is an active, dynamic, often threatening process which demands total involvement of the self and a commitment to action. In reflective practice there is nowhere to hide. In many ways the characteristics of the follower mirrors that in Yaloms (2005) description of the silent client in group therapy. Yalom stipulates that such clients trigger feelings of frustration in other group members but can also be valuable for the group as, silence is never silent (Yalom, 2005). Yalom (2005) asserts that you can find meaning in the here-and-now of their behaviour which informs you about their way of relating with others in the outside world. Learning this made me think about a client whom I used to see who was silent for much of our sessions. I wonder now whether her silence was the most useful piece of information that was available to me, yet I did not recognise that at the time. This is something I will make a conscious effort to think about in future clinical work. Final thoughts One of my final thoughts is around the name chosen to represent the group experience. I wonder whether it would be more fitting to call the groups, Reflective Practice Groups rather than Case Discussion Groups? The latter name projects an expectation of a more formal and typical structure to the group where one would expect presentation and discussion to be the crux of it. In fact, my experience of the CDG sessions challenges this expectation as the actual time spent focusing on cases was minimal. I personally think that Reflective Practice incorporates thinking about other areas of clinical work which are important and may impact upon our work with clients. For example, thinking systemically about working with staff or critically about organisational stress and the effects this has on clinical work. Reflecting back I realise such issues are pertinent to our development as first years and the groups would be a perfect opportunity to explore and contain them. By changing the name of t he groups it would embrace such explorations and consequently add a reflective element to our practice which simply cannot be satisfied by supervision alone. Finally I feel that the group has added an expansive dimension to my thinking as a trainee psychologist. My expectations of the CDG were continually challenged by my actual experience of it. I found that it enabled me to be more open, more honest and far more curious in my clinical work, and for that I am extremely grateful.

Effects of the Nuremberg Trials on Experiments and Ethics

Effects of the Nuremberg Trials on Experiments and Ethics Laws of clinical trials-the Nuremberg phenomenon Human research and war- German and the allied German: The Second World War (1939-45) is considered as the time when human research got a great attention along with all its flaws. The experiments conducted by the German government got all the attention, though the allied were also involved in such experiments. The experiments that were done can be divided into three categories Experiments aimed at facilitating the survival of Axis military personnel.- In Dachau, physicians from the German air force and from the German Experimental Institution for Aviation conducted high-altitude experiments, using a low-pressure chamber, to determine the maximum altitude from which crews of damaged aircraft could parachute to safety. Scientists there carried out so-called freezing experiments using prisoners to find an effective treatment for hypothermia. They also used prisoners to test various methods of making seawater potable. Experimentation aimed at developing and testing pharmaceuticals and treatment methods for injuries and illnesses which German military and occupation personnel encountered in the field- At the German concentration camps of Sachsenhausen, Dachau, Natzweiler, Buchenwald, and Neuengamme, scientists tested immunization compounds and sera for the prevention and treatment of contagious diseases, including malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever, and infectious hepatitis. The Ravensbrueck camp was the site of bone-grafting experiments and experiments to test the efficacy of newly developed sulfa (sulfanilamide) drugs. At Natzweiler and Sachsenhausen, prisoners were subjected to phosgene and mustard gas in order to test possible antidotes. Experimentation sought to advance the racial and ideological tenets of the Nazi worldview- The most infamous were the experiments of Josef Mengele at Auschwitz. Mengele conducted medical experiments on twins. He also directed serological experiments on Roma (Gypsies), as did Werner Fischer at Sachsenhausen, in order to determine how different races withstood various contagious diseases. The research of August Hirt at Strasbourg University also intended to establish Jewish racial inferiority. Others- Other gruesome experiments meant to further Nazi racial goals were a series of sterilization experiments, undertaken primarily at Auschwitz and Ravensbrueck. There, scientists tested a number of methods in their effort to develop an efficient and inexpensive procedure for the mass sterilization of Jews, Roma, and other groups Nazi leaders considered to be racially or genetically undesirable. Apart from the German experiments the other axis nation Japan had formed the unit 731, which had supposedly carried out human experimentations including germ warfare, weapon testing and vivisection. However the Japanese work was never tested on an accredited legal trial. Hal Gold, Unit 731 Testimony, 2003, p. 109 claims that this was mainly because MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731, including their leader, in exchange for providing America, but not the other wartime allies, with their research on biological warfare.[1] Under leadership of Lev Smirnov, one of the top Soviet prosecutors at the Nuremberg Trials, The Japanese doctors and army commanders who had perpetrated the Unit 731 experiments received sentences from the Khabarovsk court ranging from two to 25 years in a Siberian labour camp. The Americans refused to acknowledge the trials, branding them communist propaganda. The allied experiments[2] The office of scientific research and Development (OSRD) was formed in the summer of 1941, by the executive order of the president of USA, to look over two committees –one related to weapons research and other the Committee on Medical Research (CMR)—to combat the health problems that threatened the combat efficiency of American soldiers. During the years the OSRD funded 600 research proposals valued at $25 million with 135 institutes.[3] The CMR not only provided the organisational basis but also the intellectual justification of post-world war NIH (national Institute of Health, USA). The CMR’s major concerns were dysentery, influenza, malaria, wounds, venereal diseases, and physical hardships (including sleep deprivation and exposure to frigid temperatures). The dysentery trials of CMR residents of the Ohio Soldiers and Sailors Orphanage in Xenia, Ohio; the Dixon, Illinois, institution for the retarded; and the New Jersey State Colony for the Feeble- Minded. The residents were injected with experimental vaccines or potentially therapeutic agents, some of which produced a degree of protection against the bacteria but, as evidenced by fever and soreness, were too toxic for common use. In the malaria trial researchers chose to infect residents of state mental hospitals and prisons. A sixty bed clinical unit was established at the Manteno, Illinois, State Hospital; the subjects were psychotic, backward patients who were purposefully infected with malaria through blood transfusions and then given antimalarial therapies. Similarly, residents of state facilities for the retarded (Pennhurst, Pennsylvania) and the mentally ill (Michigan’s Ypsilanti State Hospital) were used for the anti- influenza trials. Thus the wartime experiments both in the Nazi Germany and the Allied countries were promoting teleological as opposed to deontological ethics; â€Å"the greatest good for the greatest number† was the most compelling precept to justify sending some men to be killed so that others might live. Post war changes – the Nuremberg Trial- The epic shift in universal regulations of human experimentations as it is hailed by some came after the Second World War. The basis was the German Exploitation of the Jews in various camps and the subsequent war crimes trial that are combined to be known as Nuremberg trial. The trial comprised of one International Military Tribunal (IMT) and twelve trials of other accused war criminals before the United States Nuremberg Military Tribunals (NMT)[4]. The NMT case 1- U.S.A. vs. Karl Brandt, et al, or the doctors’ trial as it is popularly known in public domain formed the basis of this regulation. Four counts of charges were brought against 23 doctors and researchers.[5] The counts included common design or conspiracy war crimes crimes against humanity Membership in a criminal organisation. The specific crimes charged included more than twelve series of medical experiments concerning the effects of and treatments for high altitude conditions, freezing, malaria, poison gas, sulfanilamide, bone, muscle, and nerve regeneration, bone transplantation, saltwater consumption, epidemic jaundice, sterilization, typhus, poisons, and incendiary bombs. These experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates. Other crimes involved the killing of Jews for anatomical research, the killing of tubercular Poles, and the euthanasia of sick and disabled civilians in Germany and occupied territories. The defendants were charged with ordering, supervising, or coordinating criminal activities, as well as participating in them directly. The trial began on Dec 9, 1946 and ended on Aug 20, 1947. The trial saw 85 witnesses and 1500 documents. Out of 23 defendants, 7 were acquitted of all charges, 16 were found to be guilty and 7 of them were executed. The argument for the defendants that were placed before the tribunal were- The defendants had obeyed the laws of the Nazi regime. In fact, their experiments were the result of legally valid orders given by government authorities They were not guilty of any crime, and certainly not of a crime against humanity, because they were licensed physicians, engaged in research. And the research pattrn was not different from that in other places of the world. They had not violated any law or stature by which they were governed in place during the time of the crime. The NMT was not keen on trying the 1931 German guidelines, which was actually in force at the times of committing the crime, even after representation by defendants.[6] A document was hastily put in place on the advice of medical experts Harold Sebring, Leo Alexander, and Andrew Ivy, which later became famous as Nuremberg Code. It comprised of ten sets of guidelines as follows[7] 1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity. 2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature. 3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment. 4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury. 5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects. 6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment. 7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death. 8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment. 9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible. 10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subjects. However the Nuremberg Code was not a law into itself. It was merely a loose collection of ideas drafted hastily to provide a trial. Apart from article 4, 5, 9 10, the Nuremberg code literally draws from the 1931 German Directive, though there are no acknowledgements of such and thus makes itself guilty of Plagiarism. [8] While article 4 9 are non-controversial, the article 5 10 are poorly worded and actually provided loopholes by virtue of being poorly structured. Article 5 seems to suggest that studies that are endangering the life of subjects are permissible, if the investigator also is a subject. This runs against natural justice, just because the investigator is ready to risk his own life, he has no right to endanger another person’s life. By this token, a drunken pilot should be allowed to fly, since his own life is at jeopardy along with that of his passengers. Similarly in article 10, investigator is not required to terminate the trial, but should be merely prepared to do so, if he/she thinks there is risk of death or serious injury to the subject. The difference between being required to stop and ready to stop has been lost on the authors of the document.[9] [1] Takashi Tsuchiya, â€Å"The Imperial Japanese Experiments in China,† in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics (Oxford University Press, 2008), 35–42. [2] Enclyclopedia of Bioethics. [3] Ibid. [4] â€Å"Nuremberg Trials Project Introduction,† accessed April 12, 2014, http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1text=overview. [5] â€Å"Nuremberg Trials Project Medical Case Overview,† accessed April 12, 2014, http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php/docs_swi.php?DI=1text=medical. [6] Sass HM, â€Å"Ambiguities In Judging Cruel Human Experimentation: Arbitrary American Responses to German and Japanese Experiments† 13, no. 3 (May 2003): 102–4. [7] â€Å"The Nuremberg Code (1947).† [8] RavindraB Ghooi, â€Å"The Nuremberg Code-A Critique,† Perspectives in Clinical Research 2, no. 2 (2011): 72, doi:10.4103/2229-3485.80371. [9] Ibid.

Facebook, YouTube and Twitter: Changing the World Essay example -- Med

Introduction Media and society have always been inseparable. In his article The Mediatisation of Society Theory (Hjarvard 2008), Stig Hjarvard deduced that media simultaneously have become an integrated part of society. This integration, undoubtedly, has brought about changes in societies and media as both sides interact with and affect each other. One of prominent discussion covering this issue is that media have generated a great impact to the way people live. New social media, such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter with their â€Å"premise of increased engagement, a radical change from mass communication to interaction, from information transmission to dialogue† (Hoffmann & Kornweitz, 2011, p. 32) have made users to be more extrovert, provided them a link to other parts of the world or simply created opportunities to get in touch with someone they never expected before. Hence, the existence of media has plays a significant role in human life today. Thus, these changes do not only happen in today’s societies who are surrounded by technologies brought by vast growth of information and communication channels. In fact, media have revolutionized the human civilization since thousand years ago when people â€Å"had no idea about electricity or alphabets† (Hikmah, 2011). History has proved that the invention of communication tools such as printed media or telephone has encouraged people to extend their influence over people in other areas, spread their ideas or even inspired them to transform the governmental system (Crowley & Heyer, 2011 ). Related to that, the ideas of the very nature of media may bring major effects within the society have captivated the attention of several communication theorists. This concept then called â€Å"Medium Theo... ...na Media Research, 6(1), 86-90. Sloan, J. (1968). UNDERSTANDING McLUHAN: SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR THE SPEECH TEACHER AND CRITIC. [Article]. Speech Teacher, 17(2), 140-144. Sollis, B. (2008). PR 2.0: Putting the Public Back in Public Relations. Retrieved 29 August, 2011, from http://www.briansolis.com/2008/04/pr-20-putting-public-back-in-public/ Stutzman, F. a. H., W. . (2009). Boundary Regulation in Social Media. Paper presented at the AOIR. Retrieved from http://fredstutzman.com/research.html Wallop, H. (2011). Japan earthquake: how Twitter and Facebook helped. Retrieved 12 April, 2011, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/8379101/Japan-earthquake-how-Twitter-and-Facebook-helped.html Windah, A. (2005). Impact of Electronic Sinema of "Tangisan Anak Tiri" to Children's Perseption Toward Stepmother Image. The University of Lampung, Bandarlampung.

The Book of Enoch :: essays research papers

The Book of Enoch We first learn of Enoch in Genesis 5 but it leaves us with questions. Hebrews 11 has the answers and Jude quotes Enoch! How did Jude come to know the words of Enoch? They are not in the Bible. The answer of course, is The Book of Enoch. A book which is actually quoted not only by Jude, but also James the natural brother of Jesus. The quote in (Jude 14-15) & (1 Enoch 1:9) is as follows: "In the seventh (generation) from Adam Enoch also prophesied these things, saying: 'Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads, to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners spoke against him'." What is the Book of Enoch and where did it come from? Enoch was the grandfather of Noah. The Book of Enoch chapter 68:1 "And after that my grandfather Enoch gave me all the secrets in the book and in the parables which had been given to him, and he put them together for me in the words of the book of the parables." This makes it possible for the Book to have survived the flood as its not too hard to accept that Noah would have taken his Great Grandfathers writings with him onto the ark. The Book of Enoch was extant centuries before the birth of Christ and yet is considered by many to be more Christian in its theology than Jewish. It was considered scripture by many early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The early second century "Epistle of Barnabus" makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers" like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Church even added the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after Christ. This and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea. And being under ban of the authorities, afterwards it gradually passed out of circulation. At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there came to be a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch which had long since been lost to the modern world.

Big Love Essay

This article, â€Å"Big Love, from the set†, by Stanley Kurtz, is about an HBO domestic drama called Big Love. The reader is driven along a path of intrigue about the ever evolving change in people’s perspective on commonly accepted societal values, and the subtle way in which arguments for acceptance of these changes are delivered. The most fundamental institution, marriage, is in this drama, challenged and given, for all practical purposes, a timeline for survival. The co-creators, Will Schaffer and Mark Olsen, have used this show as a media to transform culture by portraying the polygamous Hendrickson family as your typical, good, loving neighbors. To all intents and purposes, Kurtz uses the slippery slope argument, that gay marriage can lead to polygamy. Although he does this with a captivating narrative, he however fails to offer any substantive data to back up some of his views or those portrayed in the drama. In his analysis, Kurtz offers various arguments to support the pro-polygamy view portrayed in the drama. At the very outset, he recounts a position taken by Ginnifer Bowen, one of the main characters. According to her, polygamy is a way out for many women, â€Å"and not a problem in and of itself†. Further, as an anchor to the subtle technique used to sway cultural beliefs, he mentions the effect a gay couple had on legal gay marriage after they appeared on a Dutch honeymoon show. The support polygamy enjoys from the American Civil Liberties Union, is also mentioned by Kurtz. Additionally, he cites the position taken by pro-polygamy advocates, whom he says support punishment of individual abuses, and not the institution itself. Clearly, Kurtz has gone to great lengths to convey the message portrayed in the drama. 2 He has, however, chosen to use aspects of the pro-polygamy view that are very contentious, and for which he does not offer substantive fact. Ginnifer Bowen’s view that polygamy is a solution for many women, for example, is debatable, mainly because it is not supported by any survey or research, and Kurtz should have hesitated before using it in his article, whose readership may include women. The Dutch honeymoon show is another area that Kurtz should have, at the very least, offered some facts and figures. A clearer picture of the subsequent effect the gay couple’s appearance on the show had on people’s position on gay marriage, would have been quite valuable to most readers. It is not enough to say that their appearance was a turning point for same sex marriage. Kurtz also notes the ACLU’s support of polygamy in principle. I believe that this is the kind of credible source that should not be trivialized. If indeed the ACLU supports polygamy in principle, then the author should have researched for an official quote from the ACLU, citing the date and venue such a position was taken. Similarly, the position taken by polygamy advocates on the prosecution of individual abuses and not the castigation of the institution itself, would have merited a quote from a credible source. Kurtz has, however, used the slippery slope argument quite convincingly to convey the hidden meaning behind the drama. He views the drama as an avenue to subtly alter cultural beliefs by staging a production that adulates a polygamous family. By quoting Will Scheffer and 3 Mark Olsen, the co-creators of the show, he lends credence to his article. Their belief in the value of a union, separate from its constitution, is a valuable inclusion in the article because it clearly portrays the whole premise of the drama. It is also obvious from reading the article that Kurtz clearly grasps the intentions of Scheffer and Olsen. He is able to read between the lines and acquaint his readers with the issues involved. The idea that if society can accept gay marriage then it should be able to embrace other types of union, including polygamy and polyamory, is a subject that the author presents quite well. He mentions Tom Hanks, the executive producer of the show, who believes in using â€Å"Big Love† to transform culture. This article is a great service to advocates of a basic, simple way of life, without misconstrued ideas about what is good and bad and who is responsible for telling who. The article educates the reader on the various ways being used by people facing challenging lifestyles and who seek legal acceptance. Using the media to attempt to change people’s beliefs on their culture and customs is dangerous because it works. The new laws that are pro gay all over the world are evidence of this and if not checked, new legislation may be passed to recognize polyamory relationships. Therefore, the advocates of these lifestyles do not seek to create a movement like Martin Luther King did, they intend to use the drug called media that is consumed by everyone all over the world. This then, is the intent of the drama, as portrayed by Kurtz. 4 Work Cited Kurtz, Stanley. â€Å"Big Love, From the Set†. National Review Online. 13 March, 2006. Web. 8 July, 2009.

Ukrainian Wedding

The traditional Ukrainian weddings differ in details, but all of them follow the same pattern in the order of wedding actions. The very first action of the Ukrainian wedding is a formal engagement. The groom invites two married men (they call them starosty) to visit the home of the bride and to request her parents for her hand in marriage. The wedding ceremony starts at least one week after engagement. Usually on Thursday or Friday they bake special wedding ritual bread – korovai. Before the wedding both groom and bride have separate parties with their close friends. At the girl party (divych vechir) they make a ritual tree (giltse). Together with korovai it stays on the wedding table as a symbol of youth and beauty of the bride and groom. Saturday and Sunday are the days of the church service or the main civil marriage ceremony. Before the church ceremony, the bride, the groom and their families meet at the home of the bride's parents for the blessing, the blahoslovenya. At the blessing, the parents express their approval and good wishes for the couple. The most touching and important moment to the couple, their parents, friends and relatives is the church ceremony. The priest blesses the new family for happiness, health, luck, faithfulness, understanding, love and respect for each other. God's blessing is the most important blessing for the new family. After the ceremony the groom takes the bride to her parents home and returns to his own home. Both families have meal with their friends and relatives. After meal it is time for the groom to take a wedding train (poizd) and bring his bride to his home. The most joyful, surprising and unexpected things may happen this evening. There are many fun wedding party traditions involving everybody. Little children adore weddings of their older sister or brothers, because this is the time for them to steal a bride’s shoe and then demand any ransom for it. The party takes place in a restaurant, cafe, at the home of the bridegroom or bride. All the guests come with gifts. The word â€Å"Vesillja† is derived from â€Å"fun†. The wedding (â€Å"vesillya†) was meant to be fun for the young couple too, but the newlyweds in ancient times did not have the right to drink anything bitter. They ate honey, bread and they had a little wine for the evening, but nothing more. There is usually a master of ceremonies, the â€Å"starosta†, who plans the party with toasts, endless jokes and games, making sure that every guest is involved. Dancing continues often until morning. At the end of the wedding party guests sing the song called â€Å"Mnohaya Lita†. It is a song of good wishes and means â€Å"many happy years†. Time changes, so do traditions. But even today every wedding in Ukraine has the elements of the ancient rituals preserved by people memory.