Business Process Outsourcing in the Philippines

The Principle of Legal Paternalism justifies State interference with personal rights to protect individuals from self-inflicted harm and to guide them toward their own good. Legal Philosophers have often drawn a distinction between “soft” and “hard” Paternalism. “Soft” Paternalism restricts an individual’s actions in circumstances where the conduct is insufficiently voluntary. In contrast, "hard" Paternalism restricts an individual's actions in circumstances where the conduct is sufficiently voluntary.

Paternalism is the belief that someone knows 'better' than the individual him or herself what is the right way for that individual to live. For example, for centuries, many men had paternalistic attitudes about middle-class women, deeming it unseemly for women to work. Paternalism was used by self-interested whites to justify enslaving African-Americans for 'their own good,' or to colonize non-white people to 'carry the white man's burden.'

Autocratic Approach: Autocratic leadership gives a positive belief about the updates about any policies. However this kind of approach is not highly regarded by many of the working environments. This is due to the amendments being brought into use prematurely for the uses to access them. This approach of leadership and management may be viewed as being too authoritative.

5John Stuart Mill2 wrote in 1859 that the only justifiable reason for interfering in someone’s freedom of action was to prevent harm to others. According to Mill’s “harm principle,” we should almost never stop people from behavior that affects only themselves, because people know best what they themselves

Sarah Conly’s book “Against Autonomy” proposes many counterarguments to the liberalist approach of Mill. One of her most interesting arguments in defense of coercive paternalism is that “while in some cases autonomous action does no harm, in other cases it does, however ‘harm’ is construed – as detrimental to happiness, detrimental to material survival, or even detrimental to the promotion of autonomous action.” It is really interesting because it claims that perfect autonomy would be detrimental to itself. To give

This essay will first consider the different leadership theories and the evidence that supports those theories within healthcare practice. Highlighting how these theories can enhance patient experience whilst promoting a transparent open culture to healthcare, linking leadership and decision making to a patient scenario experienced by the author. It will then go on to describe the differences between behavioural, trait, transformational leadership models researching the positive and negatives of the theories from a range of academic sources. The third part looks at the importance of clinical decision making in the practice setting, encompassing when and who is responsible for making decision in a healthcare setting (Haycock-Stuart, E and

Autonomy is more than a bioethical principle that promotes an individual’s ability to choose their own life path. It is a concept that varies by kind and by degrees. While Western medicine holds patient autonomy as a right, every right has its limitations. One such constraint on an individual’s autonomy, is the individual deciding whether or not to take a medication for their mental illness. This was the case for one of Dr. Brendel’s patients, “Lisa.” In this essay, I suggest that even though Lisa is depressed, Lisa made an autonomous decision to take her medication; and if she refused to take her medication, I would not obtain a court order.

Paternalism is prominent in modern day society and it continues to be very impactful in modern medicine. Paternalism can be portrayed in various forms and ways. In my social life for example, my parents have made decisions and chose to make medical decisions when I was younger. This is an example of soft paternalism because my parents took the opportunity to interfere with my autonomy when I was not mentally capable of making decisions.

John Stuart Mill’s harm principle states, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (M.S Gendreau). This means that people should be allowed to do whatever they please and they should always take accountability for their own actions if they cause direct harm to others. Mill’s principle demonstrates that it is acceptable for one to do wrongdoings and harm oneself; however, it is awfully wrong that their wrongdoings impact other’s lives in a negative way. His principle elevates many questions regarding the consequences of drugs, whether drugs only negatively impacts on the individual who is using it or on others as well. By looking at the legalization of

Often times an authoritarian leader has full control of those around them, and believes to have complete authority to treat them as they want. An authoritarian leader would provide instructions without looking for inputs and superintend his or her nurses in a close manner. However, problems may arise if a nurse must wait for the manager's decision or direction before taking action regarding a patient. Although the authoritarian leadership style can be viewed as undesirable, it has proved to be very efficient in emergent and stressful situations. One of the key benefits of authoritarian leadership is the fact that decision making becomes much more simple and fast, as the leader doesn't have to consult or convince anybody. Basically authoritarian leadership can work wonders for the organization when decision making has to be quick and during some crisis.

In Mills writing, clearly the harm principle is a huge focal point, it is viewed that this principle is based on the premise that an individual should not be interfered with by the government regardless of what actions are being cared among themselves, as long as they are not harming

Within public health, the issue of paternalism has become a controversial topic. Broadly, paternalism is defined as the interference of a state or individual with a subordinate overpowering the will of the subordinate, claiming the subordinate will be better off (Dworkin, 2017). Autonomy is the right of an individual to be independent and govern himself. These polarizing terms have raised questions pertaining to the ethical rights of public health working in conjunction with the government to develop policies meant to create healthy conditions for the

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals’ access to drugs through the liberty-limiting principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal autonomy and is significant to an individual’s freedom to act as they wish according to their values. The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter argument by

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.