In the Learn section for this Module: Week, refer to the Watch: Autism Spectrum Disorder – Subject Expert Analysis Series, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Moderate with Expert Analysis. Also, refer to the Autism Case Study Assignment page under the Autism Case Study Resources for a link to the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. In addition to both of these, use your class textbook as needed, and the Bible to answer the questions. Type answers in blue directly onto this sheet, and upload this completed document within the assigned Module: Week.
DSM Application: (8 points): List the DSM criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Next to each criterion, detail the specific symptoms that match Daniel’s symptoms. The DSM application should be thoughtful, thorough and detailed. If no symptoms match a particular criterion, write N/A next to that criterion.
Assessment Questions: (15 points): Answer the following assessment questions thoroughly. Answer should demonstrate critical thinking, provide examples, and address each part of the assessment question. Utilize information from the case study video and textbook as needed. 200 words minimum is required.
What would you consider to be the clinical skills or attributes most essential to successful therapy for this patient? What would be your therapeutic goals for this patient? What further information would you want to have to assist in structuring this patient’s treatment? Are there specific assessment tools you would use? What would be the rationale for the use of these tools? What is your conceptualization of this patient’s personality, behavior, affective state, and cognitions?
declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed. Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be debated throughout, showing that there is no definitive theory of a just war, as it is normatively theorised.
The second section begins deciphering jus in bello or what actions can we classify as permissible in just wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second