Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Essay Example for Free

Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Essay Medical Records and Privacy of the Famous Privacy seems to be something that many people desire, but is becoming less and less available. With all the new technology, it is easier than ever to invade someone’s privacy. With cameras everywhere, from ATM’s to people’s cell phones, it is difficult for anyone to do anything that can be kept to one ’s self. While privacy is a right that the average person doesn’t normally struggle with, it is a problem that celebrities encounter everyday. Paparazzi are constantly following these famous people around as they do their everyday things like shopping, playing with their children, partying, or simply hanging in their homes. It is basically the price to pay to be famous. While these celebrities’ lives are invaded to a large degree, shouldn’t they still enjoy the right to keep some aspects of their lives private? Celebrities should have the right to keep things like medical records private, because not only is it a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), it is unethical to release medical information about someone to the public, even celebrities. In recent years, there have been a number of break-ins of celebrity medical records that have been leaked to the tabloids. In 2006 one of the country’s leading medical institutions discovered that the security of their medical records had been breached when The National Enquirer printed a story about Farrah Faucet’s cancer relapse, before the actress even told any of her family members† (Steinhaurer, 2008). Ms. Faucet is not the only celebrity who has had this happen. In 2007, George Clooney was informed that his medical records were accessed by people who didn’t have the right to look at them, following a motorcycle crash that left the actor with broken ribs and scrapes. Britney Spears was also a victim when the media reported that she was involuntarily hospitalized in 2008 and put in the psych ward under the thought she could be a danger to others or herself. Gossip outlets and other news media reported on her interactions with staff and visitors throughout her hospitalization (Techweb, 2008). These are incidents that have occurred for many years, as tabloids are always interested in the medical issues celebrities deal with, and keeping it under wraps is more difficult with technology making it easier for anyone to gain instant access to health secrets. â€Å"With the advent of networked computers, the problem has increased exponentially, and celebrities are constantly surrounded by people who are willing to trade in medical information for profit or their own 15 minutes† (Blankstein, 2008). While the people who accessed the records of these celebrities and leaked the stories are definitely at fault, I think that much of the blame also lies with the reporters and journalists who actually print and air the stories. The press is violating privacy by releasing these stories in two ways, legally and ethically. â€Å"Medical privacy rules apply to everybody, including celebrities,† Alicia Mitchell, spokesperson for the American Hospital Association said. â€Å"Everybody is entitled to confidentiality of what is often very personal information† (Rhea, 2007). By printing the very private medical information, there was a violation of HIPPA. HIPPA is an act that went into effect in 1996 and it set a national standard for securing and protecting patient health information. Hospitals have strict policies against leaking information, with the exceptions of insurance and law enforcement investigations. Because of this law, many health care providers won’t even admit to treating some patients (Techweb, 2008). While the people who leaked the stories to the press have been reprimanded by either suspension or termination, there wasn’t any type of consequences for the press for reporting this illegal material. That brings me to the ethical violation. â€Å"Depriving people of their privacy is a cruel and immoral act, which could destroy their lives. The sole objective of tabloids is to make money, so they’ll go to any extreme to satisfy their readers and increase circulation figures† (Heng, 2006). It is obvious that celebrity news is an outlet that sells, as seen by the numerous tabloids and entertainment shows. The public has an interest in what is going on in the lives of these rich and glamorous people. This brings on a form of mediated voyeurism, which can be defined as, â€Å"the consumption of revealing images and information about others’ real and unguarded lives, not always for the purpose of entertainment but frequently at the expense of privacy and discourse, through the means of the mass media† (Calvert, 2000). Basically saying that the public has a need to see these famous people and learn about their lives, even at the risk of invading their privacy. The tabloids simply exploit the public’s desire to learn these things, regardless of the ethical issues of invading a human being’s privacy. They know people will buy it and that they will make money. I think that to be an ethical journalist it is important to empathize with the person whose life is about to be splashed on the papers. Of course there is the matter of getting the story and pleasing the readers and the editor, but it should take into account the public’s real right to know. A story about the health of someone like the President of the United States might be something worth printing, because knowing how he is medically is of public interest because this is a man that is running the country. However, that is a different scenario with someone like Britney Spears. She is simply an entertainer and it isn’t important for the public to know her health because it will not affect the daily lives of people. It is simply news that the public likes to learn about. If I were a journalist, I would like to think to myself how I would feel if someone had released my medical records for the public to read. I would feel very violated. As Lance Morrow states, â€Å"Good journalistic standards are not difficult to state, just tough sometimes when applied case by case. Journalists function best when they are mature, experienced, and intelligent; when they keep their work as clear and simple as possible; when they fall back upon decency and common sense if questions arise about whether to run a piece† (Morrow, 2002). If these people were true journalists, they would think ethically about whether or not to release this type of information, and whether or not it is simply the decent thing to do. I would think that it would be an easy answer because, just because someone is famous, doesn’t mean that all of their privacy rights should be violated.

elationship between art and society :: essays research papers fc

Relationship Between Art And Society: Mimesis The relationship between art and society: Mimesis as discussed in the works of Aristotle, Plato, Horace and Longinus The relationship between art and society in the works of Plato are based upon his idea of the world of eternal Forms. He believed that there is a world of eternal, absolute and immutable Forms (the world of the Ideal) and thought that this is proven by when man is faced with the appearance of anything in the material world, his mind is moved to a remembrance of the Idea or an absolute and immutable version of the thing he sees. It is this moment of recollection that he wonders about the contrast between the world of shadows and the world of the Ideal. It is in this moment of wondering that man struggles to reach the world of Forms through the use of reason. Anything then that does not serve reason is the enemy of man. Given this, it is only but logical that poetry should be eradicated from society. Poetry shifts man’s focus away from reason by presenting man wit h imitations of objects from the concrete world. Poetry, with its focus on mimesis or imitation, has no moral value. While Plato sees reality as a shadow of a realm of pure Ideas (which in turn is copied by art), Aristotle sees reality as a process of partially realized forms moving towards their ideal realizations. Given this idea by Aristotle, the mimetic quality of art is redefined as the duplication of the living process of nature and its need to reach its potential form. Art then for Aristotle does not become the enemy of society if the artist is loyal in the representation of the process of becoming in nature. Horace, like Aristotle and Plato, also brings to view a theory of poetry as mimesis. He believes that a poet should imitate real life and real manners in a similarly real language of the times. This is because of his belief of the importance of the audience’s response to art. Horace focuses on the conventions that an artist must fulfill so that the expectations of the audience may be met. The audience of that time was composed of both the equites , who expected amusement from art, and the senatores , who expected beneficial lessons from art, and so the artist must know his craft and the conventions of his craft so that art may fulfill its ultimate role in society which is both to create pleasure and to instruct.

Immanuel Kant Metaphysics of Morals Essay

Kant argued that moral requirements are based on a standard of rationality he dubbed the â€Å"Categorical Imperative† (CI). Immorality thus involves a violation of the CI and is thereby irrational. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality ? the CI ? is none other than this law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ?slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect. In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by moral demands or as he refers to this, by the Moral Law Kant’s analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a ? good will’. While the phrases ? he’s good hearted’, ? she’s good natured’ and ? she means well’ are common, ? the good will’ as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of these ordinary notions. The idea of a good will is closer to the idea of a ? good person’, or, more archaically, a ? person of good will’ The basic idea is that what makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way ? determined’ by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, the moral law The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value. Kant believes we value it without limitation or qualification. First, unlike anything else, there is no conceivable circumstance in which we regard our own moral goodness as worth forfeiting simply in order to obtain some desirable object Second, as a consequence, possessing and maintaining one’s moral goodness is the very condition under which anything else is worth having or pursuing. Intelligence and even pleasure are worth having only on the condition that they do not require giving up a commitment to honor one’s fundamental moral convictions In Kant’s terms, a good will is a will whose decisions are wholly determined by moral demands or as he refers to this, by the Moral Law A holy ordivine will, if it exists, though good, would not be good because it is motivated by thoughts of duty. argues that a dutiful action from any of these motives, however praiseworthy it may be, does not express a good will and other outcomes of lawful behavior. Indeed, we respect these laws to the degree, but only to the degree, that they do not violate values, laws or principles we hold more dear. Yet Kant thinks in acting from duty that we are not at all motivated by a prospective outcome or some other extrinsic feature of our conduct. We are motivated by the mere conformity of our will to law as such Kant holds that the fundamental principle at the basis of all of our moral duties is a categoricalimperative. It is an imperative because it is a command (e. g. , â€Å"Leave the gun. Take the cannoli.†) More precisely, it commands us to exercise our wills in a particular way, not to perform some action or other. It is categorical in virtue of applying to us unconditionally, or simply because we possesses rational wills, without reference to any ends that we might or might not have. It does not, in other words, apply to us on the condition that we have antecedently adopted some goal for ourselves. Kant’s first formulation of the CI states that you are to â€Å"act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. † First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these circumstances. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible. Kant held that ordinary moral thought recognized moral duties toward ourselves as well as toward others. Hence, together with the distinction between perfect and imperfect duties, we recognize four categories of duties: perfect duties toward ourselves, perfect duties toward others, imperfect duties toward ourselves and imperfect duties toward others Kant’s example of a perfect duty to others concerns a promise you might consider making but have no intention of keeping in order to get needed money At the heart of Kant’s moral theory is the position that rational human wills are.

Pruposess of Bills in the US Congress

The bill is the most commonly used form of legislation considered by the US Congress. Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception provided for in the Constitution. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose or concur with amendments. By tradition, general appropriation bills also originate in the House of Representatives. Purposes of Bills Most bills considered by Congress fall under two general categories: Budget and spending, and enabling legislation. Budget and Spending Legislation Every fiscal year, as part of the federal budget process, the House of Representatives is required to create several â€Å"appropriations† or spending bills authorizing the expenditure of funds for the daily operations and special programs of all federal agencies. Federal grant programs are typically created and funded in the appropriations bills. In addition, the House may consider â€Å"emergency spending bills,† which authorize the expenditure of funds for purposes not provided for in annual appropriations bills. While all budget- and spending-related bills must originate in the House of Representatives, they must also be approved by the Senate and signed by the president as required by the legislative process. Enabling Legislation By far the most prominent and often controversial bills considered by Congress, â€Å"enabling legislation† empower appropriate federal agencies to create and enact federal regulations intended to implement and enforce the general law created by the bill. For example, the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – empowered the Department of Health and Human Services, and several of its sub-agencies to create what are now hundreds of federal regulations to enforce the intent of the controversial national health care law. While enabling bills create the overall values of the law, such as civil rights, clean air, safer cars, or affordable health care, it is the massive and rapidly-growing collection of federal regulations that actually define and enforce those values. Public and Private Bills There are two types of bills--public and private. A public bill is one that affects the public generally. A bill that affects a specified individual or a private entity rather than the population at large is called a private bill. A typical private bill is used for relief in matters such as immigration and naturalization and claims against the United States. A bill originating in the House of Representatives is designated by the letters H.R. followed by a number that it retains throughout all its parliamentary stages. The letters signify House of Representatives and not, as is sometimes incorrectly assumed, House resolution. A Senate bill is designated by the letter S. followed by its number. The term companion bill is used to describe a bill introduced in one chamber of Congress that is similar or identical to a bill introduced in the other chamber of Congress. One More Hurdle: The Presidents Desk A bill that has been agreed to in identical form by both the House and Senate becomes the law of the land only after: The President of the United States signs it; orThe president fails to return it, with objections, to the chamber of Congress in which it originated, within 10 days (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in session; orThe presidents veto is overridden by a 2/3 vote in each chamber of Congress. A bill does not become law without the presidents signature if Congress, by their final adjournment, prevents its return with objections. This is known as a pocket veto.