Ethics and Law in Dental Hygiene: Case Studies 16 and 17 Essay

Case 16 This case presents a very delicate situation that presents many legal and ethical questions. Do you tell your brother his partner has HIV? I would tell my brother, but the how and when, may vary based on circumstance. From a professional ethical standpoint, it would be unethical to disclose the patient’s HIV status without consent. It would violate the patient’s right to confidentiality, as it is the patient’s choice whom information may be shared with (Beemsterboer, 2010, p. 50). It could also be argued that it is a violation of the principle of nonmaleficence. By providing the patient’s HIV status to people unbound by HIPAA, you are putting the patient at risk of discrimination. This could cause mental anguish or psychological issues, therefore, in essence, inflicting harm on the patient. The most valued application of nonmaleficence is, â€Å"One ought to not inflict harm† (Beemsterboer, 2010, p. 42). This would outweigh the ethical argument th at you are also preventing harm to your brother, another less important application of nonmaleficence (Beemsterboer, 2010, p. 42). There is one professional ethical principle that I would argue was being applied. This being the principle of paternalism, stating that healthcare providers should do what they deem best for the patient according to their ability and judgment (Beemsterboer, 2010, p. 47). If the patient had a sexual encounter with the brother, and did not inform him of her HIV status, she may be arrested for reckless endangerment according to Pennsylvania law. A case where an HIV-positive person did not disclose their status to their sexual partner was brought before the Pennsylvania Superior Court. According to Pennsylvania law, â€Å"Disclosure of HIV status is a defense ag... ...w in Dental Hygiene (pp. 39-53). St. Louis, MO: Saunders Elsevier. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania State Board of Dentistry. (2012, September). Section 4.1 Reason for Refusal, Revocation, or Suspension of License or Certificate. In The Dental Law Act of May 1, 1993, P.L. 216, No. 76 Cl. 63. Harrisburg, PA, USA: Pennsylvania Department of State. Hanson, J. R. (n.d.). Fraud or confusion? RDH Magazine, 19(4). Retrieved 3 15, 2014, from http://www.rdhmag.com/articles/print/volume-19/issue-4/feature/fraud-or-confusion.html Smith, A. (2013). How NOT to commit dental insurance fraud! Retrieved from Amy Smith Consulting LL.: http://www.amysmith.biz/tip-of-the-month/2013/6/25/how-not-to-commit-dental-insurance-fraud.html Violations of Public Policy. (2007). Retrieved from Wrongful Termination: http://www.wrongfultermination.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66

Incarceration Essay

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the prison population in the United States but little efforts have been engaged in regard to the transformations observed in the composition of the jail population. The law enforcement agents are under obligation by the federal, state, and local authorities to arrest and confine individuals who are criminal suspects. It is the duty of our judicial system to imprison individuals who are crime convicts. The confinement that is imposed on individuals whether prior to or after conviction is what is referred to as incarceration. Any person irrespective of race, color, sex, and age is subject to incarceration at least in theory according to the constitution. Studies have however continued to show increasing imbalance in our penal institutions as more African Americans and Hispanics continue to account to a slightly larger percentage in comparison to the whites. This paper shall present an analysis of the structural inequality as observed in the judicial system within the United States. Structural Inequality: Structural inequality is something that is affecting virtually all societies around the world. This phenomenon however does not stem from the variations amongst individuals as generally thought, but it can be attributed to the meanings and values that individuals hold in regard to these variations. These values and meanings become systemized and thus the foundation of inequality in our society. The society becomes stratified based on differences between the individuals. This leads to a hierarchical society where prejudicial values and attitudes are developed which affects the views held by the different categories of individuals (Bartels-Ellis, 2010). The US is among the world’s most leading jailers with a rating of 750 imprisonments in every 100,000 individuals (Williams, 2009). The prison population is however disproportional with African Americans and the Hispanics and other minority groups accounting for a larger percentage compared to the majority whites. It is estimated that over 60% of the prison population is from the minority groups. The imbalance in the incarcerated population has been attributed to the war against drugs that has gained momentum in the recent past. This has had a toll on the minority groups though studies have continued to indicate that drug use is also a significant phenomenon amongst the whites. The judicial system has therefore been accused of racist discrimination when it comes to matters of fair and effective judgment (Williams, 2009). Racial Bias in the Judicial System: Racial inequalities have been observed when it comes to judicial matters in the United States. There are great variations in the incarceration of different racial groups that make up the population of the US (Martel, 2008). Studies have continued to reveal the unending trend of disparities in the criminal justice system as revealed by the United States Census Bureau in 2000. According to the Bureau, there is un-proportional representation in the incarceration within the US penal institutions which happens to favor the whites. As of the year 2000, out of close to 2 million adult prisoners, 63% were from the minority groups including the African Americans and Latinos. Such disparities are in contravention of the general population as it has been established that the minority groups account for only 25% of the general population (Human Rights Watch, 2002). Statistics: According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM), in every twenty blacks aged over 18, one is likely to be in prison whereas for the whites, the imprisonment rate is put at one in every 180 individuals. The African Americans and the Hispanics comprise of about 2/3 of the prison population. As of the year 2001, African American males and Hispanic males had a higher chance of being imprisoned compared to the whites. The blacks had a 32. 2% chance; Hispanics 17. 2% chance; whereas the whites had a 6% chance. In the year 2003, African American prisoners accounted for a larger portion of those serving a term of more than one year at 44% of the prison population followed by the whites at 35% whereas the Hispanics accounted for the remaining 19% (Families Against Mandatory Minimums Foundation, 2010).

US Institutions in the Global Financial Crisis - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 10 Words: 3069 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Narrative essay Did you like this example? This essay discusses about the global financial crisis that struck United States. It will look at what measures did US government took to protect these financial institutions. Then it will analyze shareholder and stakeholder models of corporate social responsibility, then relate this theory with the situation. Next it will discuss whether US governments action could be justified from either or both of these models and it will talk about the short and long term consequences of government intervention. And in conclusion it will discuss whether actions taken by US government is best for society or not. The global financial crisis all started back in 1977, when Community Reinvestment Act was passed by 95th US Congress and signed into law by president Jimmy Carter (Busy Times, 2008). It was designed to encourage commercial banks to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of the communities, including low-income neighborhoods (Busy Times, 2008) Then initially led by very low interest rate regime during Alan Greenspans era, 2000 2006, it allows homebuyers to take up mortgage with low interest as it allow financial institution to generate income growth, and one of it is subprime lending, practice of making loans to borrower who do not qualify for market interest rates of traditional housing mortgages cause it had problems with their credit history or the credibility to prove they had enough income to support the loan payment (Busy Times, 2008). Through this, borrowers with bad credit history were able to get a mortgage loan, even borrowers with no income, job and ability to repay; consequently it decreases the lending standards, as shown below (Busy Times, 2008). With this situation, 2nd tier institutions were lending money to homeowners, and then securitize the assets and sell it to major US financial institutions including many investment banks, and those investment banks sold it to investors (Busy Times, 2008). This cycle allow bank to earn extra income for the sale, consequently this let to a sharp rise in household debt, graph 1 (Busy Times, 2008). At first it was not a problem cause house price kept growing for years, graph 2, thus borrower could not repay the loan, bank could always foreclose mortgage and sell the collateral (the house) at a higher price (Busy Times, 2008). - Graph 1 Household Debts (APRA, 2008) Graph 2 House Price (APRA, 2008) - But as housing affordability fell, housing prices rose more than disposable income, this meant people were not up to meet the test of subprime, therefore banks income would fall due to lower volume of loans, but there were unrealistic expectations of asset growth in housing (Busy Times, 2008). Housing prices starts to fall, and more and more people defaulted, so now there are more houses in the market than buyers, which causes housing prices to fall even further (Busy Times, 2008), which mark the start of the global financial crisis. Global Financial Crisis initially started in United States, and United States being a super power country, brings a huge impact to the rest of the financial world. Trying to fix this, United States government responded by providing some solutions, one of it is Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) set up under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 2008 (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010), authorized the US Treasury Secretary a total of $700 billion to establish TARP (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010). TARP provides wide raging powers to US Treasury secretary to purchase, manage and sell troubled assets held by financial institutions, and to sell or enter into securities, loans, repurchase transaction or other financial transactions with respect to any troubled asset purchased under the Act (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010),. Under TARP, bank, thrifts, credit unions, broker dealers and insurance companies are deemed as financial institutions, but central bank or i nstitution that is owned by foreign government is not deemed as financial institution (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010),. And as for troubled assets, it include residential, commercial mortgages, securities, obligations and other instruments based on related to such mortgages, in each case originated or issued on or prior to March 14, 2008 as defined by the Act (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010). TARP was originally intended to be a lending programme and one that would increase liquidity by encouraging the flow of credit between the banks and from banks to customers (US treasury, 2008a). The idea was to enable federal government to obtain up to US$700 billion of illiquid mortgage backed securities (MBS) and assets backed securities (ABS) and thereby lubricate secondary mortgage markets (US Treasury, 2008a). TARP was also design to minimize losses of financial institutions owing the toxic assets and thereby, inducing credit growth (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010), Economic Stabilization Ac t, 2008, states the objective of TARP, is to provide stability to US financial system, preventing disruption in economy at large and financial system and protect US taxpayer (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010), The Act also offers setting up of Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund (TAIFF), the purpose is providing financial institutions the chance to purchase insurance from government to guarantee their troubled assets (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010). But conversely, in about five weeks, Treasury was suppose to buy those toxic assets off the balance sheets of the bank and financial institutions, but instead the Treasury bought non voting preferred stock from banks and institutions through investing TARP funds in them (US Treasury, 2008d). Cause of that, TARP has failed to ensure liquidity, repair confidence, build trusts in the banking system, redress the issues of encouraging lending to homeowners, counter massive foreclosures and contraction in housing market and stop house prices from spiraling downwards (Congress Oversight Panel Report, 2009c; Barr, 2008; McIntyre, 2009). The first tranche of $250 billion TARP money was used to pump in $167 billion in 87 banks in exchange for preferred stock and warrants (US Treasury, 2008e). Next it went to AIG, about $40 billion (US Treasury, 2008f), then to Citibank, about $45 billion in exchange for preferred stocks and warrants (Ericson et al., 2009). As in Wall Street Journal, it discuss that U.S. government made a bail out as of American International Group Inc. (AIG) as it injects $85 billion to the firm, this show the intensity of its concerns about the danger of AIG collapsing to the financial system (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). The decision was difficult one, as federal government had been strongly resisting overtures from AIG for an emergency loan or intervention that would prevent the insurer from falling into bankruptcy (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). Cause just a week before, government decided not to intervene to help Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc, as a result it went bankruptcy, but this time government decided AIG was truly too big to fail (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). U.S. government also took over mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the teetered near collapse, another Wall Street giants, Merrill Lynch Co agreed to self it self to the Bank of America Corp (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). In the end, U.S. negotiators negotiate a proposal that could help both sides, which the Federal will lend $85 billion to AIG and in return U.S. government would be entitled to 79.9% equity stakes in form of warrants (equity participation notes) and the two year loan will have Libor (London interbank offered rate) + 8.5% interest rate (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). Shareholder theory suggest that business are just arrangements by which shareholders advance capital to managers to be utilized for specified ends and for receive an ownership interest in the venture (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.66). In this perspective, managers perform as agent for shareholders, though bound by agency relationship to do so exclusively for the purposes of their shareholder principle (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). This fiduciary relationship implies that managers does not have the obligation to expand business resources in ways that are not authorized by shareholders, despite presence of societal benefits from doing so (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). However, both shareholders and managers are free to use their private funds for charitable or socially beneficial project, but when performing as officers of the business, managers have the duty not to divert business resources away from the intention of the shareholders, and managers, him or herself are obligated to follow legal directions of the shareholders and are required to maximize shareholder financial returns (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). Nevertheless, it does not state that managers to ignore ethical constrai nts in pursuit of profits, rather it make certain managers are compelled to pursue profits by all legal and non deceptive means (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.66) Adam Smiths invisible hand argument state the market is efficient if everyone is allowed to pursue Conversely, shareholder theory has been looked from two different perspectives, which are consequentialist and deontological. Consequentialist, argue that businesses or businesspersons does not have any social responsibilities, other than to legally and honestly maximize profits of the firms (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.67). Deontological side; argue that based on observation, shareholders transfer their funds to business managers on the provision, those funds are used on their wishes (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.67). If managers accepted those funds on that specific circumstance, they are not allowed to spend it to accomplish social goals, other than authorized by shareholders, and if they did without authorization, they would be viola ting their agreement and spending other peoples money without their concern (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.67). Stakeholder theory, a theory of organizational management and business ethics that addresses morals and values in managing an organization (Philip et al, 2003), as in the definition above, the theory itself is divided into two parts, organizational management and business ethics. The organizational management side is known as Empirical theory of management and the business ethics as Normative theory of business ethics. As in this essay, it will focus on the Normative theory of business ethics. Empirical theory of management just discuss about effective managements are required for balancing consideration of and attention to the legitimate interest of all stakeholders, anyone who has stake on firm (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). Normative theory in the other hand, argue, regardless whether stakeholder management leads to improved financial performance, managers should manage the business for the benefit of all stakeholders (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). It views firms not as a mechanism for increasing stockholders returns, rather as a vehicle managing stakeholder interests and sees management as having a fiduciary relationship not just to stockholders, but all stakeholders (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). As a result, it guides management to give equal interest to all stakeholder (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70), therefore in this normative form, stakeholder theory imply business have true social responsibilities (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70) But normative theory and empirical theory agree on one thing, the best way to enhance the stakeholders return on their investment is to pay attention to the legitimate interests of all stakeholders (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). Stakeholder theory holds that managements fundamental obligation is not to maximize the firms financial success, but to ensure its survival by balancing the conflicting claims of multiple stake holders (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). Meeting this obligation, act accordance to two of stakeholder management must be done, which are, principal of corporate legitimacy and stakeholder fiduciary duty. Principle of corporate legitimacy, the corporation should be managed for the benefit of its stakeholders: its customers, suppliers, owners, employees, and the local communities(Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70). The rights of these groups must be ensured and, further, the group must participate, in some sense, in decisions that substantially affect their welfare (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70) Stakeholder fiduciary duty, management bears a fiduciary relationship to stakeholders and to the corporation as an abstract entity, which must act in the interests of the stakeholders as their agent, and it must act in the interests of the corporation to ensure the survival of the firm, safeguarding the long term stakes of each group(Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70). As to shareholder theory, the act ions of the corporations comply with this theory, as corporations look for sources of income through securitization process. The cycle begin with institutions lending money to homeowner, then securitizing the assets and selling it to major U.S. financial institutions including many investment banks, and finally those investment sell it to investors (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). This allow bank to earn extra income for sale, and generate a massive income (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). By doing so, it comply with the shareholder theory, as it argue that businesses or businesspersons does not have any social responsibilities, other than to legally and honestly maximize profits of the firms, but this theory is best for short term (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). Since the theory emphasize on best to maximize profit, banks lower their standards of lending, not thinking thoroughly the consequences, banks were able to lend more and to securitize more, which can generate more income (Beaucha mp et al, 2009, p.66). At first it was not a problem at all, as if borrower could not repay loan, bank could always foreclose mortgage and sell collateral (house) at a higher price, cause house price kept growing for years (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). But as years past by, housing affordability fell, since supply is less then demand, to be able to equalize it, price need to be put up (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). As housing price rose more than disposable income, more people were not up to meet the test of subprime, for that reason banks income would fall due to lower volume of loans (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). But due to unrealistic expectations of asset growth in housing, housing prices start to fall and more and more people defaulted, so now there is more supply than demand (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). To equalize this, price needs to be put down, soon as housing prices fall down, it marked the start of the global financial crisis. Fiduciary duty of a shareholder theor y is to maximize their income for their shareholder, and neglecting other factors (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). But in stakeholder theory, the fiduciary duty is to act in the interest of the stakeholder and must act in the interest of the corporations to ensure survival of the firm, safeguarding long-term stakes of each group and it holds that managements fundamental obligation is not to maximize the firms financial success, but to ensure its survival by balancing the conflicting claims of multiple stakeholders (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.67). It also view firms not as mechanism for increasing stockholders returns, rather as a vehicle managing stakeholder interests and sees management as having a fiduciary relationship not just to stockholders, but all stakeholders (Beauchamp et al, 2009, p.66). As a result, it guides management to give equal interest to all stakeholder, therefore in this normative form, stakeholder theory imply business have true social responsibilities (Beauchamp e t al, 2009, p.67). It also suggested, corporation should be managed for the benefit of its stakeholders: its customers, suppliers, owners, employees, and the local communities(Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.70). The rights of these groups must be ensured and, further, the group must participate, in some sense, in decisions that substantially affect their welfare (Beauchamp et al, 2009,p.69). As what the U.S. government does, it complies with this theory. U.S. government intervenes with this situation, to help stabilize the financial system, cause if not, the financial crisis could have a worsen affect and everyone would suffer more. The U.S. government intervenes through TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). Those funds in TARP were used to pump in $167 billion in 87 banks in exchange for preferred stock and warrants (US Treasury, 2008e). Then to AIG, $40 billion (US Treasury 2008,f) then Citibank, $45 billion in exchange for preferred stocks and warrants (Ericson et al., 2009). U.S. go vernment also took over mortgage lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the teetered near collapse (Kartnitschnig, M. et al, 2008). The U.S. government also offers setting up of Troubled Assets Insurance Financing Fund (TAIFF), to help financial institutions have a chance to purchase insurance from government to guarantee their troubled assets (Ghosh, S. Mohamed, S., 2010). By those actions, it could show that US government is complying with the stakeholder theory. As the US government intervenes with those funds, it shows an act in interest of the corporations to ensure survival of the firm, safeguarding long term stakes of each group, and holds that managements fundamental obligation not to maximize the firms financial success, but to ensure its survival by balancing the conflicting claims of multiple stakeholder (Kartnitschnig, M. et al, 2008). Although the fundamental obligation was not to maximize firms financial success, but there fiduciary duty also stated to act in the interest of shareholder, and shareholder does want returns on their investment. Therefore the U.S. lend the $85 billion to AIG, but in return to U.S. government, U.S. government would be entitled to 79.9 equity stakes in form of warrants and 2 year loan will have Libor + 8.5% interest rate (Kartnitschnig, M. et a, 2008). This show both short term and long term consequences of this government intervention generate a positive outcome, as for the short term, US government sustain those companies from bankruptcy, so it does not worsen the financial crisis, hurting more people in their financial situation. For the long term, the US government benefit from the interest rate that they get from those banks. But from bailouts, it could also bring negative short-term effects, such as higher taxes, bigger government and lower salaries (Taylor, M., 2007). As well as for long term, it could bring negative effects, such as government abandoning fiscal discipline, asset bubble or inflation could occur and commodities bubble driven by negative real interest rate (Peng, B.,2008). In conclusion, this essay has discussed about the global financial crisis that struck United States. It discussed the measures that US government took to protect these financial institutions, such as TARP or TAIFF. It also have discussed and related shareholder and stakeholder models of corporate social responsibility with the Global Financial Crisis, by justifying US government action from either of these models and analyzing the short and long term consequences of the government intervention, and the conclusion that the action that US government has taken for this current situation was best for society, as if US government have not taken those steps. It could have worsen the financial crisis and have a greater impact to others countries, just like a domino affects. Cause United States is a super power country, which have a lot of impacts to other countries in this world. By taking those s teps, it was best for this society. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "US Institutions in the Global Financial Crisis" essay for you Create order