Sample Solution
Point of care ketone testing (POCT) has emerged as a valuable tool in diagnosing diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in pre-hospital settings. POCT allows for rapid testing of blood or urine samples to detect levels of ketones, which are elevated when DKA is present (O’Donohue et al., 2019). This can be beneficial in the pre-hospital setting by providing an easy and cost effective method for initial screening and diagnosis, which can then help guide clinical decision making regarding the most appropriate form of treatment.
In addition to its diagnostic utility, POCT also has potential benefits in terms of patient safety and management. For example, it has been proposed that POCT may reduce time to treatment implementation since results are available almost immediately after testing (Chan et al., 2018). This could help prevent delays in receiving appropriate medical care while potentially reducing adverse outcomes related to improper or delayed treatments.
Despite these advantages however there have been some concerns raised over the accuracy and reliability of POCT results compared with laboratory tests performed on traditional equipment. Moreover there remains a lack of data concerning long term accuracy when using this type of technology to test for ketones repeatedly over time (Rebolledo & Umpierrez, 2017). These issues need further research before widespread adoption occurs within healthcare settings.
In conclusion then, Point Of Care Ketone Testing appears to offer a viable alternative to laboratory based testing within pre-hospital settings given its simplicity affordability alongside offering potential health benefits such as reduced time waiting for results enabling quicker access necessary interventions. Additionally, further studies need to be conducted to ensure reliability accuracy when relying upon such technology consistently(Keller et al 2018).
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 World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141).
This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportiona
