As an underrepresented minority in the pharmacy profession, I have made significant efforts to raise awareness and advocate for diversity and inclusion. One way I have done this is through my involvement in student organizations such as the American Society of Health System Pharmacists (ASHP). During my time with ASHP, I was elected president of our chapter where I worked to ensure that all members felt included by creating a welcoming environment for everyone regardless of identity or background. To achieve this goal, we organized events like panel discussions on topics related to diversity and inclusion which allowed students from different backgrounds to share their experiences and perspectives. Additionally, we hosted volunteer opportunities at local health clinics which served underserved populations allowing students to connect with those who may not typically receive adequate care.
Furthermore, I regularly participate in career fairs at my school where I speak about my own experience as a minority in healthcare and how others can add value by ensuring equitable care for all patients regardless of race or ethnicity (Ryan et al., 2018). Through these interactions with prospective students, I continue to encourage more diverse representation within the pharmacy profession while also inspiring individuals from all walks of life to pursue careers in healthcare. Finally, as part of getting involved with professional organizations outside my college such as the National Association of Chain Drug Stores (NACDS),I am able o attend conferences focused on promoting diversity among pharmacist leadership teams (“Diversity programs” 2019). These initiatives help me bring attention towards issues impacting minorities in healthcare while providing resources necessary for increasing diversity not only within the pharmacy profession but throughout healthcare system overall.
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
