Critically discuss the concept of financial disclosure with respect to information asymmetries that manifest when the agent is in possession of relevant information which is not available to the principal.

Topic:

Adequacy of disclosure is a gauge to determine what an investor knew or should have known, based on the information available to that investor. Critically discuss the concept of financial disclosure with respect to information asymmetries that manifest when the agent is in possession of relevant information which is not available to the principal.

Assess pros and cons for creating a pathway to citizenship for the 700,000 DACA recipients in the United States.

Watch this:
What ‘Dreamers’ Gained From DACA, and Stand to Lose (Links to an external site.)
What ‘Dreamers’ Gained From DACA, and Stand to Lose

1. Assess pros and cons for creating a pathway to citizenship for the 700,000 DACA recipients in the United States.

2. Practice good critical thinking and thoughtful online responding: Consider which side you agree with and WHY. What was your thought process? Find evidence to support the side of the argument you agree with more (e.g., book chapters, websites, journal articles, TED talks, videos, etc.), but make sure to mention the other side of the argument.

3. Your response should be about 150 words (no max) and you should reply to at least one other person.

Summarize the implications for the nursing profession and/or patients.

Be quickly and easily understood.
Be succinct and clear.
Appear very professional with the legislator’s name and title on top and your name and your credentials at the bottom.
Condense essential information in one, single-spaced page, excluding the title and reference list pages.
Be written using correct grammar, spelling, punctuation, syntax, and APA format.
Clearly describe the issue that you are addressing in the opening paragraph.
Include 3–4 bullet points regarding why you are seeking the legislator’s vote, support, or opposition. Bullet points should be clear and concise but not repetitive and should reflect current literature that substantiates your position.
Summarize the implications for the nursing profession and/or patients.
Conclude with two recommendations that you wish to see happen related to your issue, such as a vote for or against, a change in policy, or the introduction of new legislation.
Use current APA Style, correct grammar, and references as appropriate.

Do you agree with Lady Hale’s decision? Explain your conclusion with reference to the relevant ethical approach.

Description

ETHICS QUESTION

Below is a summary of the facts of the case Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] 1 All ER 573.

In May 2012, at the age of 68 years old, Mr James was admitted to hospital due to problems with a device fitted in 2001 in his colon (lower gut). It had been put there to help him get over cancer of the colon. Due to complications with Mr James’ treatment, he acquired an infection which led to pulmonary disease, kidney injury and low blood pressure. He was put on a ventilator in the critical care unit. Over the next few months he had many severe medical problems, including infections, a cardiac arrest and a stroke.

He remained there until December 2012, when the NHS Trust sought a declaration that, if Mr James’ condition were to suddenly get worse, they would be legally allowed not to treat him. The doctors and nurses put forward evidence that Mr James was very weak and would be very unlikely ever to leave the hospital. This evidence was confirmed by an independent medical expert.

Further, the NHS Trust sought at that December 2012 hearing to have the court acknowledge that Mr James had suffered such issues with his nervous system that he no longer had the capacity to make any decisions about his own health. This was agreed by the parties. The court would have to decide for him.

The NHS Trust argued that four specific and ‘deeply physical’ procedures should not be allowed, even if Mr James were to get worse, as they were so unpleasant and Mr James was so very unwell.

The family felt that Mr James might have the chance to get better and that every time he had an infection so far, he had managed to ‘pull through’. They had also noticed that the infections were becoming further apart in time and hoped he might recover through some or all of the four procedures.

The first judge agreed with the family and refused to declare that the NHS Trust could avoid the treatments. The NHS Trust appealed and the appeal judge did make the declaration, so the four procedures were never carried out. Ten days after the appeal hearing, Mr James died of a cardiac arrest.

Mrs James was given leave to appeal as to whether the declaration was legally correct as a matter of public importance.

Please read Lady Hale’s judgment in the case of Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] 1 All ER 573 in particular paragraphs [2] to [15] to get a wider view of the facts of this case.

 

QUESTION:

In the case of Aintree University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] 1 All ER 573, did the Supreme Court correctly conclude that the Court of Appeal had made a mistake in law when they declared that the NHS Trust should not carry out four procedures to treat Mr James?

Try to consider the below points in your answer:

• Summarise briefly Mr James’ medical problems and the procedures which had the potential to improve his condition.

• Give reasons why the NHS Trust felt that Mr James should not be treated. Link these reasons to any relevant ethical approach which might back them.

• Give reasons why the James family felt it would be correct to treat Mr James. Link these reasons to any relevant ethical approach which might back them.

• Which reasons did Lady Hale give in allowing the appeal? Which ethical approach(es) was she relying upon?

• Do you agree with Lady Hale’s decision? Explain your conclusion with reference to the relevant ethical approach.

Your essay should be a maximum of 1,000 words

How do the articles complement each other? How do the arguments differ? Do the articles contradict each other?

Compare and contrast all the readings for the selected week (i.e., if writing about the week of October 28, include both the Calvert and Smolensky readings)
Consider the following questions: How do the articles complement each other? How do the arguments differ? Do the articles contradict each other?
Add your thoughts regarding the readings, space permitting (i.e., prioritize comparing and contrasting the articles over your reflection)
Were you convinced by the authors’ arguments? Are there any gaps in logic? Does the article remind you of recent events? Were you confused by the content?

Is the above an accurate or adequate account of what the Conflict of Laws is about?

Ouestion 1
“one of the claims for this area of the Law [that is to say, Private International Law or the Conflict
of Laws] is that it seeks to apply where a foreign element is concerned, the system of law that best
meets the requirements of justice”
From what you have learnt so far, is this claim justified?
Question 2
“All the mystery and confusion surrounding the Conflict of Laws is dissipated as soon as you
understand that the subject has to do with the application of foreign law to foreign persons and
Circumstances.
* Use the concept of domicile as you understand it to answer the question above.
Is the above an accurate or adequate account of what the Conflict of Laws is about?