Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Overhearing and Eavesdropping
According to research, overhearing a one-sided conversation is more annoying than eavesdropping (Bianca 2011). It’s even more annoying because you cannot avoid overhearing the conversation. The loud talks about one’s private life or how they behaved in a party are annoying. While I was in a restaurant taking a quiet lunch, a woman across the table made a call that was quite inappropriate.
She seemed to have been talking to her husband about their vacation and talked to him as if she was alone in the restaurant. She was loud and as she gave details about the requirements for the vacation one couldn’t help but overhear. She talked the entire time I was in the restaurant and the fact that everyone else was quite made it impossible to overhear her.
Overhearing one side of a conversation becomes uncertain and unpredictable making one’s brain get drawn to it to fill the other parts even when someone was not eavesdropping. According to Bianca (2011), though cell phones are making people rude, it doesn’t have to be that way. Top three phone etiquettes include lowering the voice while making calls in public, not being personal when there are other people present, and not taking calls while a person is already engaged in a face to face conversation.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Cell phones can be so distracting if not used in a proper manner. With everyone now owning a cell phone, one becomes a party to unwanted conversations often. Otherwise, cell phones don’t have to be a bridging gap between people.
To avoid distractions and annoying others, it is advisable to lower one’s voice while in public, avoiding private discussions if there are other people near, and asking for permission from people close if you have to take a call when having a face to face conversation with others.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Case Study on Moral Status of the Fetus
The “Fetal Abnormality” case study case involving a couple, Marco and Jessica in which the latter is found to be pregnant with identified abnormalities in the fetus. The news regarding the fetus brings about conflicting theories concerning the moral status of the fetus. Marco employs the conflict model theory, which is often used in decision making processes. Marco uses this theory when he is reluctant about his wife discovering the news since he believes that Jessica would undergo some level of stress and make the wrong decision in the process.
Maria, on the other hand, employs the dual-concern theory, which is evidenced by the fact that she thinks that the fetus has the moral right to live because it is part of God’s creation (Grand Canyon University, 2015). However, she prays for Jessica when she gets the news because she has already lost hope in the life of the fetus. This propels her to support Jessica and convince her to keep the child.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Jessica is not sure about the best decision to make since she values life by indicating that, “all life is sacred” (Grand Canyon University, 2015). At this point, she uses the sentience theory by indicating that the child has the right to live. Nonetheless, she also has an obligation to the fetus as a mother, which highlights the use of the relationship theory. This aspect might change her decision due to their financial status.
Marco also uses the sentience theory by stating that he will support the decisions of his wife (Grand Canyon University, 2015). This means that his actions would indeed support the moral status of the fetus. Conversely, the doctor uses the virtue theory by convincing the couple to opt for an abortion since it helps in alienating the burden of raising an abnormal child and suffering from the involved costs. Based on all these theories, the virtue theory is the most effective since the couple has financial problems and an abnormal child would just add onto their challenges.
Abortion: Social, Political and Socio-cultural Factors
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Abortion: Social, Political and Socio-cultural Factors
Abortion is one of the issues that have been cited to affect women’s health. The issue of abortion has courted controversy and created a political, public as well as moral divide across the globe. Where as a section of the public are for the view that abortions should be legalized, another sect recommend that t should be restricted. The society on the other hand has often defined abortions from the perspective of when life truly begins and on what point during the gestation period that fetus acquires legal rights of a human being. A number of political, social, and socio-cultural issues surround abortions.
Social Factors
In most societies abortion is considered to be a taboo. Consequently, women have been forced to come up with alternative measures regarding their health. Incidents of women conducting abortions in hide outs are common in the society. Poverty has also played a major in promoting abortions in the society. This is because lack of funds to buy contraceptives forces some women to opt for abortions.
Cases have also been reported of women who prefer to abort due to their inability to raise children (Boyle et al., 2015). Lack of education, especially for the girl child has also led to cases of abortions. This is because a woman can prefer to do an abortion without sufficient knowledge on the consequences that are associated with the practice. Religions have also taken a strong stand against abortion arguing that no human being has the right to end the life of the other.
Political Factors
According to Githens & Stetson (2013) the abortion issue is considered to be a question of personal privacy rights. Several government laws as well as decisions to have them have been based on two questions; whether it is right for a woman have an abortion and at what point are human rights accorded to the an unborn child. Some states have legalized abortion on medical grounds, that is, if the practice is aimed at safeguarding the health of the woman. Other states have enacted strict rules against abortion pointing out that it may encourage immorality.
Health care providers hold varying beliefs on abortion. A number of physicians may not provide the service due to the fear of the associated consequences whereas however others are ready to offer the service especially when it predisposes the woman to other health risks.
Socio-cultural Factors
Different communities have varied perspectives of sexual and reproductive behavior (Shrage, 2013). In most communities, abortion is termed as a taboo, and therefore, individuals who partake in it are considered to be rebels and hence rejected from by the community members.
References
Boyle, E. H., Kim, M., & Longhofer, W. (2015). Abortion Liberalization in World Society, 1960–20091. American Journal of Sociology, 121(3), 882-913.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Gender Selection
Introduction
For decades, sex selection has been a controversial issue. Choosing the sex of a child is often viewed as a justifiable act since there is no harm done to anyone. I believe that gender selection creates balance in a family and it is culturally viewed as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill social norms. However, there are ethicists who believe that sex selection reinforces the idea of sexual discrimination within our societies (Caulfield & Brownsword, 2012).
This explains why there are renewed efforts from civil societies and government to analyze arguments presented by different authors who either support or oppose the idea of sex selection.
This essay analyzes the meaning of human dignity from two different perspectives. Furthermore, the essay examines how human dignity is defined by our expression of choices and as an inherent value of the society. Based on a case study, the essay describes the social attitudes, norms and circumstance that influence such choices, and their impact on our understanding of human dignity. The essay presents justifications of particular actions concerning sex selection and analyzes some of the features of human dignity that can be put at risk due to actions arising from these two perspectives mentioned therein above.
The concept of human dignity
Human dignity is defined based on the belief that dignity is inherent; hence, human beings posses specific capabilities that are not found in other creatures. It is these features that help to distinguish human beings from other creatures. However, choosing a child’s sex does not define the inherent dignity of human beings. Permitting gender selection is considered as discrimination against a specific gender making it less valuable (Chapman &Benn, 2013).
There are various social reasons for sex selection. Some of these reasons include having a family balance, replacing the deceased child, cultural reasons et cetera. However, these reasons do not define human dignity especially in situations where boys are preferred more than girls. (Kalfoglou et al, 2013).
Kalfoglou et al (2013) views sex selection as an idea that reinforces sexual discrimination. As a result, human dignity is viewed as a situation where a certain gender is prevented from existing and the action is perceived to be justifiable because most people have not been victims of this cruelty. Therefore, individuals created by choice have do not have a reason to complain.
In spite of the reasons that seek to justify sex selection, it is considered to undermine human dignity; thus, causing harm to the wider society. Sex selection has often led to gender disparities in many countries especially in Asian countries such as China and India. This trend has led to patriarchal societal agreements perceived to discriminate girls and women (Mudde, 2010).
The social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
Due to advanced technology, sex selection culture has become popular and this has had a negative impact on females. Parents who are able to access technology have the ability of controlling the sex of their children; hence, they are able to escape the societal stigma of failing to give birth to a son. Many parents avoid giving birth to girls since they are viewed as individuals not worth living .Parents perceive that sex selection gives them the ability to choose what type of children they want in terms of sex. However, this process equates children to products (Webb, 2014).
Sex selection can make parents not to accept some of their shortcomings; hence, lowering the child’s self esteem. Having a strong preference for a specific sex can cause harm for the unwanted sex including rejection and killings to avoid societal blames and eliminate shame. However, proponents of this idea argue that it is normal for such ideas to be rejected at the first instance especially when people are unfamiliar with the idea.
Those opposing the idea of sex selection argue that that having children is not a right that one can put conditions to as children should be viewed as gifts from God (De Melo-Martín, 2013). These arguments are based on our cultural beliefs.
According to Caulfield & Brownsword (2012), traditional patterns of giving gifts recommend that a gift should be taken without putting any condition to it. A gift is something should be accepted unconditionally and the same case applies to children. From a cultural perspective, sex selection promotes the idea of treating children as a commodity, which is more or less similar to buying and selling of children. Choosing some of the features one wants is acceptable only to products like cars or other commodities, but this concept does not apply to human beings. Therefore, sex selection is often used to discriminate a specific gender.
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
Proponents of sex selection argue that everyone has the right to live his life as he pleases so as long as the person does not cause harm or infringe upon other peoples’ rights. The harm principle implies that individuals opposing sex selection need to prove that the action is going to cause harm to others. In this case, sex selection does not cause harm to anybody. Proponents of sex selection argue that the practice is considered harmful based on sociological and psychological assumptions .They further argue that sex selection is an act that is contrary to religious or moral beliefs (Smolin, 2013).
A report by The Task Force on ethics and laws highlights the common objection arguments used to reject the idea of sex selection. The report indicates that sex selection is compared to mocking God. However, such arguments have been applied to all medical innovations. . It started by rejecting the use of chloroform to relieve pain associated with childbirth. This act was viewed as going against God’s will. Such arguments also applied to the use of inoculation (Li & Pantano, 2013).
Ironically, previous medical innovations viewed as going against God’s will have become part of acceptable medical practices; hence, such objections have not been taken seriously. In fact, such arguments are considered as religious claims .Proponents of sex selection argue that individuals should only refrain from the idea if it contravenes their religious beliefs, but laws should not be imposed on people based on other people’s religious views (Dondorp et al, 2013).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
Defining human dignity based on our expression of choices affects public opinion about such ideas. If these perspectives are not comprehensively analyzed through research, public opinion will be flawed. The main concern is that people can use limited philosophical analysis to influence policy discussions .
The definition of human dignity should not be derived from the fact that it is an individual choice, but the practice should be viewed from both public and professional bioethical discussions as recommended by Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproduction (Medicine, 2015).
Human dignity as a societal inherent value
In the second perspective, it is worth noting that the society often values children’s inherent worth. This limits some of the parents’ choices regarding gender selection. Parents who consider gender selections are said not to uphold societal norms and values which is the societal description for human dignity. According to McGowan & Sharp (2013), parents who select their children’s sex because of non-medical reasons are considered to be immoral in the eyes of the society.
From this perspective, human dignity is viewed as pride in oneself or having the sense of self worth as a human being to live a meaningful life .Therefore, any situation that compromises or humiliates this position is considered as a threat to human dignity. Choosing a particular gender over the other for non-medical reasons places expectations on a specific child, and this fails to recognize the personhood of an individual.
Therefore, sex selection fails to adhere to individual inherent characteristics .Children are often viewed as their parent’s property yet they are their own person .Putting too much expectations on the selected children does not give them the respect they deserve; hence, making them not to be autonomous as human beings are supposed to be (Claassens et al., 2013).
Parents who select the sex of their children view their children as a different person instead of the individual the child is suppose to be. Wudarczyk et al (2013) argues that choosing the sex of a child is failing to respect the human intrinsic values of the individual child. In summary, children need to be valued based on their intrinsic worth as human beings. In other words, the values of children should not be attached to specific characteristics.
Social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
In western societies, there is no preferred sex, but selection of sex is based on creating gender balance in the family by having both boys and girls. These common occurrences are observed in Australia, Sweden, and the UK. Even though sex selection does not have negative effects in these countries, Asian countries like China, Korea and India are faced with challenges associated with sex selection due to cultural beliefs. These countries prefer boys to girls and this has led to more than 10 million abortions within the last 20 years (Moskovian, 2013).
Activists in Asia are calling for the ban of sex selection. However, due to the different reasons parents in the UK and India have for choosing the sex of their children, banning sex selection which is a worldwide practice will not change the situation especially in India. So long as there are religious and economic incentives attached to boys, banning sex selection will not have any effect especially in Asian countries.
Given the fact that majority of UK population would still prefer their first children to be boys, sex selection technology will be misused to fulfill desires of these parents. In Asian countries, banning sex selection will not change the cultural norms being practiced in these regions (Dyal, 2014).
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
There are claims doing rounds that sex selection does not promote the inherent human value, and this is considered as an intuitive reaction, but not a reasonable moral response. The fact that certain human actions are unnatural does not necessary make these actions morally wrong. For example, heart transplant is unnatural but it is meant to save human life (De Melo-Martin, 2013).
The fact that those opposed to the claims that selection of sex should be applicable for medical purposes are not considerate to the fact that medical technologies helps couples with sex-linked genetic disorder to bear a healthy child. This does not translate to misuse of technology to fulfill their personal desires. Furthermore, those in support of sex selection argue that this practice eliminates girls in a humane way as compared to other methods like abortion or neglect, meaning that girls whose birth can be avoided will not be exposed to oppression or discrimination (Tregenza-Parker, 2013).
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
In the current health care systems, physicians provide services that do not have direct medical benefits, but add value to individuals who seek for such services like cosmetic surgeries and ultrasound. The same view is applicable when it comes to sex selection. Offering sex selection services is also viewed as misuse of limited medical resources, but offering other services like face-lifts is not considered as s misallocation of limited medical resources. According to WHO Press (2011), the idea of sex selection has been misrepresented in most cases.
The most common argument is that sex selection causes social imbalances of sexes in India and China. The concern whether sex ratio is a threat to the western societies is more of a intuitive reaction devoid of concrete evidence .The idea of calling sex selection a sexist sin is not justifiable because most parents who prefer choosing the sex of their children do so based on the fact that they are motivated by the idea of having children from both sexes. People who believe that raising a boy is different from a girl are those who base their thinking on cultural values of children whereby girls are considered to be different from boys (Cooley &Chesnokova,2011).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
The facts that arguments against sex selection are more about their consequences, these arguments are based on assumptions; hence, it is not easy to prevent some of the consequences from happening. It is not essay to draw legal lines to permit some forms of sex selection while limiting others. The main worry in such a situation is how parents are likely to spend their money on technology to ensure that their children are born with the specifications they want.
This can often lead to misuse of technology. The other concern is that if sex selection is acceptable, it will make one sex preferable than the other. As a result, it will make it hard to promote anti-discriminatory measures in several countries (Lee, 2016).
Conclusion
It not surprising that sex selection is controversial. , Different people justify their reasons for gender selection viewing it as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill societal norms. Others view sex selection as a practice that reinforces discrimination while at the same time it goes against the inherent nature of human value. These two perspectives can describe human dignity from different views.
The case study of sex selection helps us to understand some of the social attitudes, norms and circumstances that can influence our choices and how sex selection from these two perspectives can impact on our understanding of human dignity based on the justification presented in support of this action.
Some of the justifications presented in the essay are likely to influence the perception of individuals in understanding the meaning of human dignity; hence, influencing our actions. In conclusion, it is important to define human dignity from a multi-dimensional perspective as compared to defining it from isolated arguments to accurately establish its meaning.
References
Caulfield, T., & Brownsword, R. (2012). Human dignity: a guide to policy making in the Biotechnology era? Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(1), 72-76.
Chapman, A. R., & Benn, P. A. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing for early sex identification: A few benefits and many concerns. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 56(4), 530-547.
De Melo-Martín, I. (2013). Sex selection and the procreative liberty framework. KennedyInstitute of Ethics Journal, 23(1), 1-18.
Dondorp, W., De Wert, G., Pennings, G., Shenfield, F., Devroey, P., Tarlatzis, B., & Diedrich,
K. (2013). ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction, 28(6), 1448-1454.
Cooley, D. & Chesnokova, I. (2011). Sex Selection Abortion in Kazakhstan: Understanding a Cultural Justification, Developing World Bioethics 11, (3). 159–60.
De Melo-Martin, I. (2013). The Ethics of Sex Selection. Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 90.
Dyal, M. (2014). Whether sex-selection for non-medical reasons, using pre-implantation geneticdiagnosis, should be permitted in the UK. University of Birmingham.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2015). Use of Reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 103(6), 1418-1422.
Kalfoglou, A. L. et al (2013). Ethical arguments for and against sperm sorting for non-medical sex selection: a review. Reproductive biomedicineonline, 26(3), 231-239.
Lee, M. Y. K. (2016). From the case of sex discrimination to the ideas of equality and equal opportunities. InEthical Dilemmas in Public Policy (pp. 111-127). Springer Singapore.
Li, Q., & Pantano, J. (2013). The Demographic Consequences of Gender Selection Technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 95, (5): 1549–1561.
McGowan, M. L., & Sharp, R. R. (2013). Justice in the context of family balancing. Science,Technology & human values, 38(2), 271-293. Current opinion in psychiatry, 26(5), 474.
Tregenza-Parker, G. (2013). Sex Selection for Family Balancing? A Legal and Ethical Analysis.
Smolin, D. M. (2013). Sex Selection, the Missing Girls of China and India, and the Challenges of Technological Control of Procreation. Regent JL & Pub. Pol’y, 6, 49.
Moskovian, A. (2013). Bans on Sex-Selective Abortions: How Far is Too Far?. HastingsConstitutional Law Quarterly, 40(2).
Mudde ,A. (2010).‘Before You Formed in the Womb I Knew You’: Sex Selection and Spaces of Ambiguity, Hypatia 25 (3).563–64.
Webb, D. C. (2014). The Sex Selection Debate: A Comparative Study of Sex Selection Laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. South Carolina Journal of International Lawand Business, 10(1), 6.
WHO Press (2011). World Health Organization, Preventing Gender-based Sex Selection: An Interagency Statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO. Geneva. WHO Press
Wudarczyk, O. A.et al (2013). Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Sex Selection
Introduction
For decades, sex selection has been a controversial issue. Choosing the sex of a child is often viewed as a justifiable act since there is no harm done to anyone. I believe that gender selection creates balance in a family and it is culturally viewed as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill social norms. However, there are ethicists who believe that sex selection reinforces the idea of sexual discrimination within our societies (Caulfield & Brownsword, 2012).
This explains why there are renewed efforts from civil societies and government to analyze arguments presented by different authors who either support or oppose the idea of sex selection.
This essay analyzes the meaning of human dignity from two different perspectives. Furthermore, the essay examines how human dignity is defined by our expression of choices and as an inherent value of the society. Based on a case study, the essay describes the social attitudes, norms and circumstance that influence such choices, and their impact on our understanding of human dignity. The essay presents justifications of particular actions concerning sex selection and analyzes some of the features of human dignity that can be put at risk due to actions arising from these two perspectives mentioned therein above.
The concept of human dignity
Human dignity is defined based on the belief that dignity is inherent; hence, human beings posses specific capabilities that are not found in other creatures. It is these features that help to distinguish human beings from other creatures. However, choosing a child’s sex does not define the inherent dignity of human beings. Permitting gender selection is considered as discrimination against a specific gender making it less valuable (Chapman &Benn, 2013).
There are various social reasons for sex selection. Some of these reasons include having a family balance, replacing the deceased child, cultural reasons et cetera. However, these reasons do not define human dignity especially in situations where boys are preferred more than girls. (Kalfoglou et al, 2013).
Kalfoglou et al (2013) views sex selection as an idea that reinforces sexual discrimination. As a result, human dignity is viewed as a situation where a certain gender is prevented from existing and the action is perceived to be justifiable because most people have not been victims of this cruelty. Therefore, individuals created by choice have do not have a reason to complain.
In spite of the reasons that seek to justify sex selection, it is considered to undermine human dignity; thus, causing harm to the wider society. Sex selection has often led to gender disparities in many countries especially in Asian countries such as China and India. This trend has led to patriarchal societal agreements perceived to discriminate girls and women (Mudde, 2010).
The social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
Due to advanced technology, sex selection culture has become popular and this has had a negative impact on females. Parents who are able to access technology have the ability of controlling the sex of their children; hence, they are able to escape the societal stigma of failing to give birth to a son. Many parents avoid giving birth to girls since they are viewed as individuals not worth living .Parents perceive that sex selection gives them the ability to choose what type of children they want in terms of sex. However, this process equates children to products (Webb, 2014).
Sex selection can make parents not to accept some of their shortcomings; hence, lowering the child’s self esteem. Having a strong preference for a specific sex can cause harm for the unwanted sex including rejection and killings to avoid societal blames and eliminate shame. However, proponents of this idea argue that it is normal for such ideas to be rejected at the first instance especially when people are unfamiliar with the idea.
Those opposing the idea of sex selection argue that that having children is not a right that one can put conditions to as children should be viewed as gifts from God (De Melo-Martín, 2013). These arguments are based on our cultural beliefs.
According to Caulfield & Brownsword (2012), traditional patterns of giving gifts recommend that a gift should be taken without putting any condition to it. A gift is something should be accepted unconditionally and the same case applies to children. From a cultural perspective, sex selection promotes the idea of treating children as a commodity, which is more or less similar to buying and selling of children. Choosing some of the features one wants is acceptable only to products like cars or other commodities, but this concept does not apply to human beings. Therefore, sex selection is often used to discriminate a specific gender.
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
Proponents of sex selection argue that everyone has the right to live his life as he pleases so as long as the person does not cause harm or infringe upon other peoples’ rights. The harm principle implies that individuals opposing sex selection need to prove that the action is going to cause harm to others. In this case, sex selection does not cause harm to anybody. Proponents of sex selection argue that the practice is considered harmful based on sociological and psychological assumptions .They further argue that sex selection is an act that is contrary to religious or moral beliefs (Smolin, 2013).
A report by The Task Force on ethics and laws highlights the common objection arguments used to reject the idea of sex selection. The report indicates that sex selection is compared to mocking God. However, such arguments have been applied to all medical innovations. . It started by rejecting the use of chloroform to relieve pain associated with childbirth. This act was viewed as going against God’s will. Such arguments also applied to the use of inoculation (Li & Pantano, 2013).
Ironically, previous medical innovations viewed as going against God’s will have become part of acceptable medical practices; hence, such objections have not been taken seriously. In fact, such arguments are considered as religious claims .Proponents of sex selection argue that individuals should only refrain from the idea if it contravenes their religious beliefs, but laws should not be imposed on people based on other people’s religious views (Dondorp et al, 2013).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
Defining human dignity based on our expression of choices affects public opinion about such ideas. If these perspectives are not comprehensively analyzed through research, public opinion will be flawed. The main concern is that people can use limited philosophical analysis to influence policy discussions .
The definition of human dignity should not be derived from the fact that it is an individual choice, but the practice should be viewed from both public and professional bioethical discussions as recommended by Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproduction (Medicine, 2015).
Human dignity as a societal inherent value
In the second perspective, it is worth noting that the society often values children’s inherent worth. This limits some of the parents’ choices regarding gender selection. Parents who consider gender selections are said not to uphold societal norms and values which is the societal description for human dignity. According to McGowan & Sharp (2013), parents who select their children’s sex because of non-medical reasons are considered to be immoral in the eyes of the society.
From this perspective, human dignity is viewed as pride in oneself or having the sense of self worth as a human being to live a meaningful life .Therefore, any situation that compromises or humiliates this position is considered as a threat to human dignity. Choosing a particular gender over the other for non-medical reasons places expectations on a specific child, and this fails to recognize the personhood of an individual.
Therefore, sex selection fails to adhere to individual inherent characteristics .Children are often viewed as their parent’s property yet they are their own person .Putting too much expectations on the selected children does not give them the respect they deserve; hence, making them not to be autonomous as human beings are supposed to be (Claassens et al., 2013).
Parents who select the sex of their children view their children as a different person instead of the individual the child is suppose to be. Wudarczyk et al (2013) argues that choosing the sex of a child is failing to respect the human intrinsic values of the individual child. In summary, children need to be valued based on their intrinsic worth as human beings. In other words, the values of children should not be attached to specific characteristics.
Social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
In western societies, there is no preferred sex, but selection of sex is based on creating gender balance in the family by having both boys and girls. These common occurrences are observed in Australia, Sweden, and the UK. Even though sex selection does not have negative effects in these countries, Asian countries like China, Korea and India are faced with challenges associated with sex selection due to cultural beliefs. These countries prefer boys to girls and this has led to more than 10 million abortions within the last 20 years (Moskovian, 2013).
Activists in Asia are calling for the ban of sex selection. However, due to the different reasons parents in the UK and India have for choosing the sex of their children, banning sex selection which is a worldwide practice will not change the situation especially in India. So long as there are religious and economic incentives attached to boys, banning sex selection will not have any effect especially in Asian countries.
Given the fact that majority of UK population would still prefer their first children to be boys, sex selection technology will be misused to fulfill desires of these parents. In Asian countries, banning sex selection will not change the cultural norms being practiced in these regions (Dyal, 2014).
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
There are claims doing rounds that sex selection does not promote the inherent human value, and this is considered as an intuitive reaction, but not a reasonable moral response. The fact that certain human actions are unnatural does not necessary make these actions morally wrong. For example, heart transplant is unnatural but it is meant to save human life (De Melo-Martin, 2013).
The fact that those opposed to the claims that selection of sex should be applicable for medical purposes are not considerate to the fact that medical technologies helps couples with sex-linked genetic disorder to bear a healthy child. This does not translate to misuse of technology to fulfill their personal desires. Furthermore, those in support of sex selection argue that this practice eliminates girls in a humane way as compared to other methods like abortion or neglect, meaning that girls whose birth can be avoided will not be exposed to oppression or discrimination (Tregenza-Parker, 2013).
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
In the current health care systems, physicians provide services that do not have direct medical benefits, but add value to individuals who seek for such services like cosmetic surgeries and ultrasound. The same view is applicable when it comes to sex selection. Offering sex selection services is also viewed as misuse of limited medical resources, but offering other services like face-lifts is not considered as s misallocation of limited medical resources. According to WHO Press (2011), the idea of sex selection has been misrepresented in most cases.
The most common argument is that sex selection causes social imbalances of sexes in India and China. The concern whether sex ratio is a threat to the western societies is more of a intuitive reaction devoid of concrete evidence .The idea of calling sex selection a sexist sin is not justifiable because most parents who prefer choosing the sex of their children do so based on the fact that they are motivated by the idea of having children from both sexes. People who believe that raising a boy is different from a girl are those who base their thinking on cultural values of children whereby girls are considered to be different from boys (Cooley &Chesnokova,2011).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
The facts that arguments against sex selection are more about their consequences, these arguments are based on assumptions; hence, it is not easy to prevent some of the consequences from happening. It is not essay to draw legal lines to permit some forms of sex selection while limiting others. The main worry in such a situation is how parents are likely to spend their money on technology to ensure that their children are born with the specifications they want.
This can often lead to misuse of technology. The other concern is that if sex selection is acceptable, it will make one sex preferable than the other. As a result, it will make it hard to promote anti-discriminatory measures in several countries (Lee, 2016).
Conclusion
It not surprising that sex selection is controversial. , Different people justify their reasons for gender selection viewing it as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill societal norms. Others view sex selection as a practice that reinforces discrimination while at the same time it goes against the inherent nature of human value. These two perspectives can describe human dignity from different views.
The case study of sex selection helps us to understand some of the social attitudes, norms and circumstances that can influence our choices and how sex selection from these two perspectives can impact on our understanding of human dignity based on the justification presented in support of this action.
Some of the justifications presented in the essay are likely to influence the perception of individuals in understanding the meaning of human dignity; hence, influencing our actions. In conclusion, it is important to define human dignity from a multi-dimensional perspective as compared to defining it from isolated arguments to accurately establish its meaning.
References
Caulfield, T., & Brownsword, R. (2012). Human dignity: a guide to policy making in the Biotechnology era? Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(1), 72-76.
Chapman, A. R., & Benn, P. A. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing for early sex identification: A few benefits and many concerns. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 56(4), 530-547.
De Melo-Martín, I. (2013). Sex selection and the procreative liberty framework. KennedyInstitute of Ethics Journal, 23(1), 1-18.
Dondorp, W., De Wert, G., Pennings, G., Shenfield, F., Devroey, P., Tarlatzis, B., & Diedrich,
K. (2013). ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction, 28(6), 1448-1454.
Cooley, D. & Chesnokova, I. (2011). Sex Selection Abortion in Kazakhstan: Understanding a Cultural Justification, Developing World Bioethics 11, (3). 159–60.
De Melo-Martin, I. (2013). The Ethics of Sex Selection. Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 90.
Dyal, M. (2014). Whether sex-selection for non-medical reasons, using pre-implantation geneticdiagnosis, should be permitted in the UK. University of Birmingham.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2015). Use of Reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 103(6), 1418-1422.
Kalfoglou, A. L. et al (2013). Ethical arguments for and against sperm sorting for non-medical sex selection: a review. Reproductive biomedicineonline, 26(3), 231-239.
Lee, M. Y. K. (2016). From the case of sex discrimination to the ideas of equality and equal opportunities. InEthical Dilemmas in Public Policy (pp. 111-127). Springer Singapore.
Li, Q., & Pantano, J. (2013). The Demographic Consequences of Gender Selection Technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 95, (5): 1549–1561.
McGowan, M. L., & Sharp, R. R. (2013). Justice in the context of family balancing. Science,Technology & human values, 38(2), 271-293. Current opinion in psychiatry, 26(5), 474.
Tregenza-Parker, G. (2013). Sex Selection for Family Balancing? A Legal and Ethical Analysis.
Smolin, D. M. (2013). Sex Selection, the Missing Girls of China and India, and the Challenges of Technological Control of Procreation. Regent JL & Pub. Pol’y, 6, 49.
Moskovian, A. (2013). Bans on Sex-Selective Abortions: How Far is Too Far?. HastingsConstitutional Law Quarterly, 40(2).
Mudde ,A. (2010).‘Before You Formed in the Womb I Knew You’: Sex Selection and Spaces of Ambiguity, Hypatia 25 (3).563–64.
Webb, D. C. (2014). The Sex Selection Debate: A Comparative Study of Sex Selection Laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. South Carolina Journal of International Lawand Business, 10(1), 6.
WHO Press (2011). World Health Organization, Preventing Gender-based Sex Selection: An Interagency Statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO. Geneva. WHO Press
Wudarczyk, O. A.et al (2013). Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Human Dignity
Introduction
For decades, sex selection has been a controversial issue. Choosing the sex of a child is often viewed as a justifiable act since there is no harm done to anyone. I believe that gender selection creates balance in a family and it is culturally viewed as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill social norms. However, there are ethicists who believe that sex selection reinforces the idea of sexual discrimination within our societies (Caulfield & Brownsword, 2012).
This explains why there are renewed efforts from civil societies and government to analyze arguments presented by different authors who either support or oppose the idea of sex selection.
This essay analyzes the meaning of human dignity from two different perspectives. Furthermore, the essay examines how human dignity is defined by our expression of choices and as an inherent value of the society. Based on a case study, the essay describes the social attitudes, norms and circumstance that influence such choices, and their impact on our understanding of human dignity. The essay presents justifications of particular actions concerning sex selection and analyzes some of the features of human dignity that can be put at risk due to actions arising from these two perspectives mentioned therein above.
The concept of human dignity
Human dignity is defined based on the belief that dignity is inherent; hence, human beings posses specific capabilities that are not found in other creatures. It is these features that help to distinguish human beings from other creatures. However, choosing a child’s sex does not define the inherent dignity of human beings. Permitting gender selection is considered as discrimination against a specific gender making it less valuable (Chapman &Benn, 2013).
There are various social reasons for sex selection. Some of these reasons include having a family balance, replacing the deceased child, cultural reasons et cetera. However, these reasons do not define human dignity especially in situations where boys are preferred more than girls. (Kalfoglou et al, 2013).
Kalfoglou et al (2013) views sex selection as an idea that reinforces sexual discrimination. As a result, human dignity is viewed as a situation where a certain gender is prevented from existing and the action is perceived to be justifiable because most people have not been victims of this cruelty. Therefore, individuals created by choice have do not have a reason to complain.
In spite of the reasons that seek to justify sex selection, it is considered to undermine human dignity; thus, causing harm to the wider society. Sex selection has often led to gender disparities in many countries especially in Asian countries such as China and India. This trend has led to patriarchal societal agreements perceived to discriminate girls and women (Mudde, 2010).
The social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
Due to advanced technology, sex selection culture has become popular and this has had a negative impact on females. Parents who are able to access technology have the ability of controlling the sex of their children; hence, they are able to escape the societal stigma of failing to give birth to a son. Many parents avoid giving birth to girls since they are viewed as individuals not worth living .Parents perceive that sex selection gives them the ability to choose what type of children they want in terms of sex. However, this process equates children to products (Webb, 2014).
Sex selection can make parents not to accept some of their shortcomings; hence, lowering the child’s self esteem. Having a strong preference for a specific sex can cause harm for the unwanted sex including rejection and killings to avoid societal blames and eliminate shame. However, proponents of this idea argue that it is normal for such ideas to be rejected at the first instance especially when people are unfamiliar with the idea.
Those opposing the idea of sex selection argue that that having children is not a right that one can put conditions to as children should be viewed as gifts from God (De Melo-Martín, 2013). These arguments are based on our cultural beliefs.
According to Caulfield & Brownsword (2012), traditional patterns of giving gifts recommend that a gift should be taken without putting any condition to it. A gift is something should be accepted unconditionally and the same case applies to children. From a cultural perspective, sex selection promotes the idea of treating children as a commodity, which is more or less similar to buying and selling of children. Choosing some of the features one wants is acceptable only to products like cars or other commodities, but this concept does not apply to human beings. Therefore, sex selection is often used to discriminate a specific gender.
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
Proponents of sex selection argue that everyone has the right to live his life as he pleases so as long as the person does not cause harm or infringe upon other peoples’ rights. The harm principle implies that individuals opposing sex selection need to prove that the action is going to cause harm to others. In this case, sex selection does not cause harm to anybody. Proponents of sex selection argue that the practice is considered harmful based on sociological and psychological assumptions .They further argue that sex selection is an act that is contrary to religious or moral beliefs (Smolin, 2013).
A report by The Task Force on ethics and laws highlights the common objection arguments used to reject the idea of sex selection. The report indicates that sex selection is compared to mocking God. However, such arguments have been applied to all medical innovations. . It started by rejecting the use of chloroform to relieve pain associated with childbirth. This act was viewed as going against God’s will. Such arguments also applied to the use of inoculation (Li & Pantano, 2013).
Ironically, previous medical innovations viewed as going against God’s will have become part of acceptable medical practices; hence, such objections have not been taken seriously. In fact, such arguments are considered as religious claims .Proponents of sex selection argue that individuals should only refrain from the idea if it contravenes their religious beliefs, but laws should not be imposed on people based on other people’s religious views (Dondorp et al, 2013).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
Defining human dignity based on our expression of choices affects public opinion about such ideas. If these perspectives are not comprehensively analyzed through research, public opinion will be flawed. The main concern is that people can use limited philosophical analysis to influence policy discussions .
The definition of human dignity should not be derived from the fact that it is an individual choice, but the practice should be viewed from both public and professional bioethical discussions as recommended by Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproduction (Medicine, 2015).
Human dignity as a societal inherent value
In the second perspective, it is worth noting that the society often values children’s inherent worth. This limits some of the parents’ choices regarding gender selection. Parents who consider gender selections are said not to uphold societal norms and values which is the societal description for human dignity. According to McGowan & Sharp (2013), parents who select their children’s sex because of non-medical reasons are considered to be immoral in the eyes of the society.
From this perspective, human dignity is viewed as pride in oneself or having the sense of self worth as a human being to live a meaningful life .Therefore, any situation that compromises or humiliates this position is considered as a threat to human dignity. Choosing a particular gender over the other for non-medical reasons places expectations on a specific child, and this fails to recognize the personhood of an individual.
Therefore, sex selection fails to adhere to individual inherent characteristics .Children are often viewed as their parent’s property yet they are their own person .Putting too much expectations on the selected children does not give them the respect they deserve; hence, making them not to be autonomous as human beings are supposed to be (Claassens et al., 2013).
Parents who select the sex of their children view their children as a different person instead of the individual the child is suppose to be. Wudarczyk et al (2013) argues that choosing the sex of a child is failing to respect the human intrinsic values of the individual child. In summary, children need to be valued based on their intrinsic worth as human beings. In other words, the values of children should not be attached to specific characteristics.
Social attitudes, norms and circumstances that influence such perspective
In western societies, there is no preferred sex, but selection of sex is based on creating gender balance in the family by having both boys and girls. These common occurrences are observed in Australia, Sweden, and the UK. Even though sex selection does not have negative effects in these countries, Asian countries like China, Korea and India are faced with challenges associated with sex selection due to cultural beliefs. These countries prefer boys to girls and this has led to more than 10 million abortions within the last 20 years (Moskovian, 2013).
Activists in Asia are calling for the ban of sex selection. However, due to the different reasons parents in the UK and India have for choosing the sex of their children, banning sex selection which is a worldwide practice will not change the situation especially in India. So long as there are religious and economic incentives attached to boys, banning sex selection will not have any effect especially in Asian countries.
Given the fact that majority of UK population would still prefer their first children to be boys, sex selection technology will be misused to fulfill desires of these parents. In Asian countries, banning sex selection will not change the cultural norms being practiced in these regions (Dyal, 2014).
Justification of specific actions in relation to human dignity
There are claims doing rounds that sex selection does not promote the inherent human value, and this is considered as an intuitive reaction, but not a reasonable moral response. The fact that certain human actions are unnatural does not necessary make these actions morally wrong. For example, heart transplant is unnatural but it is meant to save human life (De Melo-Martin, 2013).
The fact that those opposed to the claims that selection of sex should be applicable for medical purposes are not considerate to the fact that medical technologies helps couples with sex-linked genetic disorder to bear a healthy child. This does not translate to misuse of technology to fulfill their personal desires. Furthermore, those in support of sex selection argue that this practice eliminates girls in a humane way as compared to other methods like abortion or neglect, meaning that girls whose birth can be avoided will not be exposed to oppression or discrimination (Tregenza-Parker, 2013).
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
In the current health care systems, physicians provide services that do not have direct medical benefits, but add value to individuals who seek for such services like cosmetic surgeries and ultrasound. The same view is applicable when it comes to sex selection. Offering sex selection services is also viewed as misuse of limited medical resources, but offering other services like face-lifts is not considered as s misallocation of limited medical resources. According to WHO Press (2011), the idea of sex selection has been misrepresented in most cases.
The most common argument is that sex selection causes social imbalances of sexes in India and China. The concern whether sex ratio is a threat to the western societies is more of a intuitive reaction devoid of concrete evidence .The idea of calling sex selection a sexist sin is not justifiable because most parents who prefer choosing the sex of their children do so based on the fact that they are motivated by the idea of having children from both sexes. People who believe that raising a boy is different from a girl are those who base their thinking on cultural values of children whereby girls are considered to be different from boys (Cooley &Chesnokova,2011).
Human dignity that can be jeopardized by actions arising from this perspective
The facts that arguments against sex selection are more about their consequences, these arguments are based on assumptions; hence, it is not easy to prevent some of the consequences from happening. It is not essay to draw legal lines to permit some forms of sex selection while limiting others. The main worry in such a situation is how parents are likely to spend their money on technology to ensure that their children are born with the specifications they want.
This can often lead to misuse of technology. The other concern is that if sex selection is acceptable, it will make one sex preferable than the other. As a result, it will make it hard to promote anti-discriminatory measures in several countries (Lee, 2016).
Conclusion
It not surprising that sex selection is controversial. , Different people justify their reasons for gender selection viewing it as a desirable practice that seeks to fulfill societal norms. Others view sex selection as a practice that reinforces discrimination while at the same time it goes against the inherent nature of human value. These two perspectives can describe human dignity from different views.
The case study of sex selection helps us to understand some of the social attitudes, norms and circumstances that can influence our choices and how sex selection from these two perspectives can impact on our understanding of human dignity based on the justification presented in support of this action.
Some of the justifications presented in the essay are likely to influence the perception of individuals in understanding the meaning of human dignity; hence, influencing our actions. In conclusion, it is important to define human dignity from a multi-dimensional perspective as compared to defining it from isolated arguments to accurately establish its meaning.
References
Caulfield, T., & Brownsword, R. (2012). Human dignity: a guide to policy making in the Biotechnology era? Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(1), 72-76.
Chapman, A. R., & Benn, P. A. (2013). Noninvasive prenatal testing for early sex identification: A few benefits and many concerns. Perspectives in biology and medicine, 56(4), 530-547.
De Melo-Martín, I. (2013). Sex selection and the procreative liberty framework. KennedyInstitute of Ethics Journal, 23(1), 1-18.
Dondorp, W., De Wert, G., Pennings, G., Shenfield, F., Devroey, P., Tarlatzis, B., & Diedrich,
K. (2013). ESHRE Task Force on ethics and Law 20: sex selection for non-medical reasons. Human Reproduction, 28(6), 1448-1454.
Cooley, D. & Chesnokova, I. (2011). Sex Selection Abortion in Kazakhstan: Understanding a Cultural Justification, Developing World Bioethics 11, (3). 159–60.
De Melo-Martin, I. (2013). The Ethics of Sex Selection. Ethics and Emerging Technologies, 90.
Dyal, M. (2014). Whether sex-selection for non-medical reasons, using pre-implantation geneticdiagnosis, should be permitted in the UK. University of Birmingham.
Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. (2015). Use of Reproductive technology for sex selection for nonmedical reasons. Fertility and Sterility, 103(6), 1418-1422.
Kalfoglou, A. L. et al (2013). Ethical arguments for and against sperm sorting for non-medical sex selection: a review. Reproductive biomedicineonline, 26(3), 231-239.
Lee, M. Y. K. (2016). From the case of sex discrimination to the ideas of equality and equal opportunities. InEthical Dilemmas in Public Policy (pp. 111-127). Springer Singapore.
Li, Q., & Pantano, J. (2013). The Demographic Consequences of Gender Selection Technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 95, (5): 1549–1561.
McGowan, M. L., & Sharp, R. R. (2013). Justice in the context of family balancing. Science,Technology & human values, 38(2), 271-293. Current opinion in psychiatry, 26(5), 474.
Tregenza-Parker, G. (2013). Sex Selection for Family Balancing? A Legal and Ethical Analysis.
Smolin, D. M. (2013). Sex Selection, the Missing Girls of China and India, and the Challenges of Technological Control of Procreation. Regent JL & Pub. Pol’y, 6, 49.
Moskovian, A. (2013). Bans on Sex-Selective Abortions: How Far is Too Far?. HastingsConstitutional Law Quarterly, 40(2).
Mudde ,A. (2010).‘Before You Formed in the Womb I Knew You’: Sex Selection and Spaces of Ambiguity, Hypatia 25 (3).563–64.
Webb, D. C. (2014). The Sex Selection Debate: A Comparative Study of Sex Selection Laws in the United States and the United Kingdom. South Carolina Journal of International Lawand Business, 10(1), 6.
WHO Press (2011). World Health Organization, Preventing Gender-based Sex Selection: An Interagency Statement OHCHR, UNFPA, UNICEF, UN Women and WHO. Geneva. WHO Press
Wudarczyk, O. A.et al (2013). Could intranasal oxytocin be used to enhance relationships? Research imperatives, clinical policy, and ethical considerations.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Unethical Practice by Computer Sciences Corporation
Ethics & Finance Paper
Introduction
This paper discusses one of the most significant illegal and unethical practice which had been caused by Computer Sciences Corporation for which the company and its management was also charged by the US government. This is known as the Medicaid fraud under which the company had been involved in two fraudulent schemes. Both of these schemes had used the computer programs for circumventing the requirement that once the private insurance coverage becomes exhausted then only the billing of the Medicaid should be performed (Office, 2014).
Along with these two schemes, the third fraud scheme focused on the use of the defaulting. Under this scheme the company had falsified all the diagnosis codes which had been submitted systematically to Medicaid. This paper analysis this issues with specific emphasis on Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002.
Mistakes made by Computer Sciences Corporation
The main problem of Computer Sciences Corporation is that the company has good people but they all are poorly managed. The employees of the company are rated by those people who do not work with the employees on a regular basis. The appraisers at Computer Sciences Corporation are not the day to day supervisors but they are outside managers who have just a single role which is to rate all the employees in specific jobs.
Apart from this, the mid-level managers at Computer Sciences Corporation who have never interacted with the employees of the company had to forcefully downgrade the performance ratings of their employees in order to meet the required 40% quota level (Anna, 2013). This is highly unethical practice and these are the mistakes which resulted in the above fraudulent schemes.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Steps which could have been taken
Some of the steps which could have been taken to avoid such unethical practice are:
The day to day supervisors should have been tasked with appraising the employees.
Managers need to interact and know their employees and learn about their traits. There are certain traits which can indicate a manipulative behavior.
Supervisors need to listen and observe the employees to identify the risks of the potential fraud.
All the people working within the organization should be clearly made aware of the fraud, its different types and the reporting system.
The internal control should be made stronger by the leaders of the company. Examples of such internal controls which could have avoided the unethical practice to occur at Computer Sciences Corporation are segregation of the duties, supervision and documentation. The documentation seems to be weak at Computer Sciences Corporation.
Finally, a positive corporate culture needs to be created at Computer Sciences Corporation where the employees should be satisfied and work in a positive work environment to prevent theft and fraud.
Role of Market Pressures on Unethical Practice
There are many arguments that the role of the market pressures and the competition in the market can cause the firms to engage in unethical practice. This is because unethical practice can lower the costs of the firm. For example, when companies make use of child labor then they can hire such labor at cheap rates and lower its costs but this is highly unethical and even illegal in many countries.
Competition could only raise the ethical standards in a long run however, companies engage in unethical behavior to make their firm more competitive in the short run (Miller, 2015). Therefore, when competition starts to increase in the market based on any factor such as market share, stock prices, cost structures etc, then firms indulge in unethical behavior to remain competitive in the market.
Influence of Finance
Finance also plays an important role in pressurizing the firms to conduct unethical behavior. When companies compete with one another then they compare their performance on the basis of their profitability, shareholder wealth, stock prices, and growth in EPS etc. However, when the financial performance of firms is deteriorating due to any external factor, then indulge in unethical and fraudulent practices such as creative accounting. The case of Computer Sciences Corporation for devising its three fraud schemes is also an example of creative accounting. For example, when the company had falsified all the diagnosis codes which had been submitted systematically to Medicaid is a true example of creative accounting.
Influence of Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002
The Sarbanes Oxley Act had been enacted in 2002 after a series of the corporate scandals and financial abuses to make the corporate governance systems strong and enhance the compliance and ethics programs. The major influence of this act has been in the role of the leadership in an organization to avoid fraudulent and unethical behaviors. This act had defined the responsibilities for CFO and the CEOs and also enhanced the engagement and professionalism of the audit committees.
This act had guided the best law to guide he best practices within the board room. It has also enhanced the focus of the regulators and state courts and most importantly increased the consciousness of the public in raising the standard of corporate governance in firms.
Recommended Changes for Companies
Some of the recommendations for the companies to avoid financial statement fraud and present the financial statements to the public are as follows:
Internal controls need to be made strong to detect any action or unusual behavior by those who prepare the financial statements of the company.
All the main accounting functions should be segregated and measures should be taken to reduce the incentives for the fraud.
A strong control environment should be created which should be controlled by the top management to ensure best corporate governance practices.
Finally, management should also conduct the examination of its financial statements by an outside consultant. This will help the company to avoid behaving aggressively for committing unethical practices.
Conclusion
Overall, the Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002 is the best guide for Computer Sciences Corporation in order to avoid the unethical treatment of its employees and prevent the fraudulent activities which have taken place in the past. Sarbanes Oxley Act 2002 has reshaped the corporate America today. Computer Sciences Corporation needs to pay close attention on its internal controls, segregation of the duties, supervising its employees, appraising the employees through their day to day supervisors and promoting the best practices of corporate governance.
The main issue currently faced by Computer Sciences Corporation is that the company is the unethical treatment of its employees. Human Resource Management is the key aspect of any organization and all the employees should be given more independence and freedom in decision making. Finally, whistle blowing should be encouraged within the organization as this would overcome the problem of fraud. Whenever there would be any sort of unusual activity or unethical behavior, the employees would have a route to report that and save the company from severe allegations.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Agency Ethical Policies
Creating and Implementing and Agency Policy on Ethics
Any type of criminal justice agency needs to possess an elaborate set of ethical framework, policy and procedural standards that give a detailed description about how its ethical values are supposed to be formulated and implemented in the agency (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). It is through the policy framework and procedural standards that the agency is able to; effectively communicate to its employees and staff what it requires and expects from each and every one among them (Kaptein, 2015).
After the agency has put in place its ethical policies and procedures, it should further develop elaborate measures that are to be used to assess and evaluate whether its ethical policies and standards are being maintained, and also if those policies and standards are meeting its initial objectives or yielding the desired results in its functioning and operation (Hess, 2015). Below is a detailed description about how an agency should go about planning and implementing ethical policies.
Identify the Desired Values for the Agency
The agency would find it wise and advantageous to adopt a collective or inclusive approach, which should be used to identify a set of values that is clear and elaborate before it embarks on the development and implementation process of the ethical program (Kaptein, 2015). This is so because it would help the employees develop the perception that; the ethical program is based on values rather than the achievement of mere compliance (Hess, 2015).
Furthermore, the inclusive approach would enhance the employee’s commitment in observing the ethical policies, and also in strengthening their will to achieve the agency’s objectives, which is simply because their input had been put to consideration in the planning and implementation process (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). In addition, the inclusive approach would make the employees feel more responsible, and as such, it should be done on a regular basis to renew and enhance the effectiveness of the policies and procedural standards, and to also make it flexible and adaptive to changes in the working environment.
Consult Senior Managers and Secure Their Commitment
In order to develop and implement a successful ethics program, it is imperative to secure the commitment and support of senior managers in the process (Hess, 2015). For example, the senior managers could be encouraged to include aspects of ethical importance in the content of their communication, and to also make active participation and contribution in the planning and implementation process of ethical policies.
In addition, it is equally important to ensure that the senior managers behave and conduct themselves accordingly (Kaptein, 2015). This is important because it acts as a source of motivation to the employees, and also creates a sense of equal concern from all parties involved, especially if these senior managers are actively involved in the training of employees on how to implement the program.
Engage Directors or the Board of Management
This could be easily achieved if an ethics committee is instituted in the agency, and the directors and managers made prominent members in it, and in such a way that they occupy active positions (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). This important because they will be able to include aspects of ethics during board meetings in their discussion, an aspect that could create more importance in the program once it is put in place. This could even be more effective if liability is placed on the board in cases of gross ethical transgression in the agency.
Formulate an Ethics Code of Conduct
A comprehensive code of conduct should be formulated, especially one that is aligned to the agency’s values and national laws. Furthermore, the codes should be able to equip employees with the appropriate knowledge about how to act in case they are caught up in a dilemma and where leeway could be the only solace (Ruiz et al., 2015). As such, the codes should be both flexible and adaptive in order to withstand changes in the environment, especially when new challenges emerge (Kaptein, 2015).
This would therefore necessitate regular updates to keep the codes as relevant as possible. However, rigid codes that are non-negotiable should be formulated, and where leeway is applicable, employees should be guided precisely on ways to act according to the agency’s expectations.
Integrate Ethics into the Agency’s Mission and Vision Statements
By formulating ethical codes, policies and procedural standards into the agency’s mission and vision statements, all employees and managers are constantly reminded of the importance of observing them, and that of exercising values in all their operations while working in the agency (Kaptein, 2015). New employees should also be trained about the necessity of operating within the ethical program, for instance, through orientation programs that are designed for new employees.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
Secure All Necessary Resources and Funding
In order to successfully plan and implement the ethical program, it is necessary to have adequate funding and the appropriate human resource in place to facilitate the process (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). All costs that will be incurred should be factored into the agency’s budget, which is in order to determine the sustainability of the program and to facilitate the necessary adjustments that should be put in place.
Encourage Autonomy while Exercising the Ethical Provisions
It is important that each and every employee is made to understand all ethical policies and procedural standards, and to also understand the agency’s values that support those policies and standards (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). This is necessary because the agency is prone to risks and challenges that emanate from the dynamic nature of the environment, which brings along new challenges every day that could compromise the employee’s ability to act within the stipulated guidelines (Kaptein, 2015).
In addition, encouraging autonomy and understanding of all aspects of the ethical program is important because of the fact that; no ethical codes or programs are able to envisage all possible situations and encounters the employees could find themselves in. It is therefore important that employees understand and embrace all values objectives of the agency.
Reinforcement
It is also necessary to develop reinforcement practices to ensure that the ethical program is adhered to, and that all employees are constantly reminded of the program’s importance (Manroop & Harrison, 2016). For example; all employees should have a copy of the ethical policies in their work stations at all times; mechanisms that report ethical breaches should be put in place as a counter-breach measure (Kaptein, 2015).
However, manner in which the mechanism works should be confidential; include the ethical code as part of job contracts; identify employees who should be responsible for the evaluation and implementation process of the code; organize and avail a detailed report about the use and effectiveness of the ethical program on a regular basis (Ruiz et al., 2015); and most importantly, ensure that all senior employees are able to act and demonstrate compliance with the codes in all their undertakings.
If well planned and implemented, the ethical program could go a long way to ensure that the agency is able to achieve its objectives, which is by enhancing both the management’s and employee’s commitment and responsibility in work (Hess, 2015). As such, the planning and implementation process should be treated with all the importance and necessity that it deserves.
References
Hess, D. (2015). Ethical Infrastructures and Evidence-Based Corporate Compliance and Ethics Programs: Policy Implications from the Empirical Evidence. New York University Journal of Law and Business, Forthcoming.
Kaptein, M. (2015). The effectiveness of ethics programs: The role of scope, composition, and sequence. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 415-431.
Manroop, L., & Harrison, J. (2016). The Ethics Portfolio: Building and Promoting Ethical. Leadership and Personnel Management: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications, 1.
In this case study, there is conflict between the nurse ethical responsibilities to her patient, legal responsibility to her employer and legal duty to the physician; which exposes the RN to professional risk. This is a challenging situation as there is inadequate guide in resolving such kind of dilemmas. For instance, the nursing standards and law are vague about rights to ethical decisions made by RNs. The code of ethics does not offer legal protection to RN who works as patient advocate (Hunt, 2013).
In this case, the role of the nurse is to remain cultural competent. The RN must respect the patient decision even when the patient’s decision is irrational or wrong. The RN should advise the patient about their clinical opinion without putting pressure on them to accept the RNs advice. While doing so, the RN should be careful not to use words and actions that disrespect the patient values and beliefs (Hinkle & Cheever, 2013).
RNs support to patient decision
The RN can offer support to patient’s decision by (Taylor, Lilis, LeMone, & Lynn, 2011);
Being an active listener
This is important as it helps establish mutual relationship and trust to the RN. It is a way for RN to show their concerns to the patient. The RN should ask the patient about their understanding of the health condition, which will help RN to address any misconceptions.
Explain medication detail
Most of the healthcare medical terms are jargons to ordinary people. It is important to discuss all the details associated with the medication, his risk level and programs which could help with the patient cost management and coping strategies.
Explore alternative approaches
Some of the patients could be comfortable to seek alternative medication such as herbal remedies or traditional healers. The RN must be thoroughly informed about the alternative medication because some of the treatment could be harmful. If considered as an alternative, the nurse can refer the patient to a certified practitioner. In Some cases, religious rituals such as prayers can be integrated into practice.
Example of major religion
An example of a religion that could possibly be holding similar doctrines is Muslim religion. Devout Muslims can reject medication containing alcohol such as those used during the peri-operative procedures, or medications made from pork derivatives. In medical situations which are not of emergency, the RN should educate the patient, but help them preserve their values and believes (Smith, 2013). This includes exploring other beliefs that do not contradict to their beliefs. These small accommodations could pay off the patient emotional well-being. Therefore, to remain culturally competent care, the RN must perform cultural assessment in order to understand their perception of illness and wellness (Kee, Hayes, & McCuistion, 2015).
Hunt, R. (2013). Introduction to community based nursing (5th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
Kee, J., Hayes, E., & McCuistion, L. (2015). Pharmacology: A patient-centered nursing process approach (8th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Taylor, C., Lilis, C., LeMone, P., & Lynn, P. (2011). Fundamentals of nursing: The art and science of nursing care (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins.
Smith, L. (2013). Reaching for cultural competence. Nursing, 43(6), 30-38.
Want help to write your Essay or Assignments? Click here
