The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is a non-nursing theory that has been used to explain and predict health behavior in the workplace. TPB suggests that behavior is determined by three factors: an individual’s attitude towards the behavior, perceived behavioral control, and subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991). This theory can be applied to many areas in healthcare settings such as patient adherence with medical advice or screening tests, administration compliance with safety protocols, and staff participation in continuing education programs.
For example, at my current workplace I observe how attitudes towards safety play a role in employee behaviors on a daily basis. Management works diligently to ensure a safe environment for patient care through regular training sessions which emphasize proper use of medical equipment, correct handling of hazardous substances or waste materials; these sessions often include videos promoting “safety first” reminding staff that their actions have consequences not only for themselves but also those around them. The increased awareness of safety protocols among staff members group discussions can be seen as an indication they have positive attitudes toward following safety protocol leading higher levels of compliance (Huang et al., 2014).
This prompts question of what fits the bill to be a soldier, and whether it is legitimate to kill each other as warriors. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legitimate to kill ‘to protect the guiltless from hurt… rebuff criminals (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above regular citizen can’t be hurt, showing warriors as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the blade against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ likewise, Frowe proposed warriors should be distinguished as warriors, to stay away from the presence of hit and run combat which can wind up in a higher demise count, for instance, the Vietnam War. Additionally, he contended they should be essential for the military, carry weapons and apply to the principles of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This recommends Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members keeping away from non-soldier passings, yet couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for warriors, as the two sides have moderately equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparative strategies? By the by, seemingly Frowe will contend that warrior can legitimately kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legal to draw the blade and use it against transgressors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ what’s more, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, yet never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legitimate to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it very well may be legal to do things like this however never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the genuine strategies as indicated by proportionality and military need. It relies upon the size of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the psychological oppressor bunches all through the center east, since it isn’t just relative, it will harm the entire populace, a potentially negative result. All the more critically, the officers should have the right expectation in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right goal and for a worthy motivation, relative to the damage done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legitimate to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury caused by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is significantly more upright than Vittola’s view yet suggests similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed essentially for battling.’ Thi
