Prior Efforts And Recommendations

at
Categories
Tags

 

In this component of the white paper, you will review what you have written so far and provide evidence-based descriptions of what has been done so far to address your chosen topic. Then, you will provide a strong evidence-based recommendation to address your chosen topic. Specifically, you will highlight what you believe, in your expert opinion based on what you have learned, is especially important in addressing this issue. You will then recommend and describe current and prospective solutions.

Please review the Final Project: White Paper Overview and the M5.5 grading rubric carefully so that you know what is expected of you in completing this assignment. Let me know if you have any questions.

Helpful Links:

Final Project: White Paper OverviewDownload Final Project: White Paper Overview
All Final Project: White Paper assignments combined are worth 65% of your overall course grade.
Please address the following:

What has been done to date to try to address the issue (choose 1-2 efforts from the literature)?
Your analysis of the successes and failings of these efforts.
A recommended solution to this issue, fully backed by the evidence base.

 

Sample Solution

In recent years, there has been increased attention to the issue of inequitable healthcare access worldwide. Various efforts have been put in place in an attempt to address this disparity. One effort that has proven to be particularly successful is the implementation of universal health coverage (UHC). UHC guarantees a basic level of health services for everyone – regardless of their socio-economic status – and eliminates financial barriers at the point of care (WHO, 2019). Additionally, UHC provides incentives for health providers to increase service quality while decreasing costs; by doing so, it helps ensure equitable access to healthcare regardless of where one lives or works (Sumner et al., 2020).

Despite its effectiveness, some argue that UHC falls short when it comes to addressing the underlying causes behind inequality in healthcare. For instance, some countries lack sufficient funding and resources needed to implement comprehensive UHC systems; as such they may only be able to provide limited coverage at best (Krishnaswami et al., 2020). Additionally, due to cultural biases and social norms within certain societies there may still remain discrepancies between population groups accessing different levels of services despite having equal legal rights (Nueno & Ainsworth 2018).

To fully tackle inequity in health access worldwide requires a multi-pronged approach which encompasses legal reforms as well as broader social policies aimed at reducing discrimination based on gender identity or race/ethnicity . More specifically , governments need to prioritize providing adequate funding for public health infrastructure and expanding social safety nets through better targeted welfare schemes . Furthermore , effective communication campaigns should be launched throughout communities which aim not only raise awareness about existing disparities but also foster a sense of collective responsibility amongst citizens regarding taking action towards achieving greater equity . Finally , training programs should be established for frontline workers so that they can develop cross-cultural competencies needed for delivering more inclusive services across different populations.

furthermore, has outcomes; an exhaustive assessment of the reason for war is expected alongside the readiness to arrange rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is upheld by the activities of Hitler are considered treacherously. Additionally, in this day and age, wars are not generally battled exclusively by states yet additionally non-state entertainers like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s regularizing guarantee on power is obsolete. This is additionally upheld by Frowe’s case that the pioneer needs to address individuals’ inclinations, under genuine power, which joins on to the fourth condition: Public statement of war. Concurred with many, there should be an authority declaration on a statement of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63). At last, the most questionable condition is that wars ought to have a sensible likelihood of coming out on top. As Vittola emphasized, the point of war is to lay out harmony and security; getting the public great. On the off chance that this can’t be accomplished, Frowe contends it would be smarter to give up to the adversary. This can be legitimate in light of the fact that the expenses of war would have been greater (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7). Thus, jus promotion bellum involves a few circumstances however in particular: noble motivation and proportionality. This gives individuals an aide regardless of whether entering a war is legal. In any case, this is just a single piece of the hypothesis of the simply war. By and by, it very well may be seen over that jus promotion bellum can be bantered all through, showing that there is no conclusive hypothesis of a simply battle, as it is normatively speculated.

Jus in bello
The subsequent segment starts unraveling jus in bello or what activities could we at any point arrange as reasonable in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 323). In the first place, it is never to kill guiltless individuals in wars, upheld by Vittola’s most memorable recommendation purposefully. This is broadly acknowledged as ‘all individuals have a right not to be killed’ and in the event that a warrior does, they have disregarded that right and lost their right. This is additionally upheld by “non-warrior resistance” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which prompts the topic of soldier capability referenced later in the paper. This is validated by the bombarding of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, finishing WWII, where millions were eagerly killed, just to get the point of war. In any case, now and again regular people are coincidentally killed through battles to accomplish their objective of harmony and security. This is upheld by Vittola, who suggests proportionality again to legitimize activity: ‘care should be taken where evil doesn’t offset the potential advantages (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe who makes sense of it is legitimate to inadvertently kill, at whatever point the soldier has full information on his activities and tries to finish his point, yet it would include some major disadvantages. In any case, this doesn’t conceal the reality the accidental actually killed honest individuals, showing unethical behavior in their activities. In this manner, it relies again upon proportionality as Thomson contends (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This prompts question of what fits the bill to be a soldier, and whether it is legal to kill each other as warriors. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legal to kill ‘to shield the guiltless from hurt… rebuff criminals (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above non military personnel can’t be hurt, showing soldiers as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the sword against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ likewise, Frowe proposed soldiers should be distinguished as warriors, to keep away from the presence of hit and run combat which can wind up in a higher passing count, for instance, the Vietnam War. Also, he contended they should be essential for the military, remain battle ready and apply to the principles of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This proposes Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members staying away from

This question has been answered.

Get Answer