Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) – Case Summary

 The core of this case was individual’s right to exercise free speech and worship as enshrined in the First Amendment, especially with regard to non-discrimination in public accommodation.  Masterpiece Cakeshop declined a request by a gay couple seeking to have their custom wedding cake made based on the proprietor’s religious belief (Gilkis, 2018). The case was later forwarded to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which later determined that the owner’s actions were discriminatory. Furthermore, the bakery was issued with fresh orders relating to the couple’s request which prompted the bakery’s owner to lodge an appeal against the decision in the US Supreme Court. The commission’s decision was subsequently reversed since the commission failed to apply religious neutrality.

The main question in this particular case was whether the Colorado Public Accommodations law was applied constitutionally by issuing fresh orders requiring the defendant to design a cake violating his religious beliefs. The bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, was unequivocal in asserting his position as a staunch Christian whose religious beliefs were in direct opposition to his faith. In essence, this violated his First Amendment rights by obstructing the Free Exercise Clause.

The 7-2 ruling by the Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had failed to act constitutionally by ignoring Jack Phillip’s First Amendments. It also failed to implement religious neutrality during the initial appraisal and the autonomy enjoyed by persons in relation to free exercise (Levy, 2017). The court reversed the initial ruling and highlighted the need for an in-depth evaluation of anti-discrimination laws to address challenges bound to emerge during adjudication.

 The Supreme Court’s decision was to reverse a previous ruling made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Jack Phillips’ failure to design a wedding cake for a gay couple. Justices Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Stephen Brever, and Neil Gorsuch were unanimously agreed on Phillip’s right to freely exercise his religion and the religious neutrality clause subsequently violated (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018). The commission had, therefore, openly displayed belligerence towards Phillips religious disposition. Dissenting voices, primarily by Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, asserted that the Commission was justified in its ruling and had acted well within stipulated legal bounds. However, both justices were keep on stating that legal precedents were of the utmost importance in such cases since they provided a workable framework to inform commissions when confronted with a constitutional debacle. In this case, the business owner’s decision to deny an essential service to a member of the public did not go against their statutorily protected traits.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) – Case Summary

The main issue of contention in this particular case was the fundamental right to marry as enshrined in the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Protection Clause. This liberty extends to same-sex couples that were particularly lobbying against state legislation-based restrictions upheld by states such as Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky which only recognize unions between a man and a woman. This prompted the subsequent filing of lawsuits challenging laws in the aforementioned jurisdictions, ultimately culminating in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision that resulted in the formal legalization of same-sex marriages on a federal level.

            The Obergefell v. Hodges presented a number of key legal questions for evaluation solely based on the actual constitutionality of outlawing same-sex marriages in a number of jurisdictions in the United States. Chief among these questions was whether the definition of marriage only recognizing union between a man and a woman was constitutional or in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The choice to uphold this perspective was informed by the 1971 Baker v. Nelson Supreme Court case which acknowledged marriage as a union between a  man and a woman; subsequently invalidating the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

            The 5-4 decision in the Obergefell v. Hodges was that legal restrictions in Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky were unconstitutional and an affront on the Fourteenth Amendment. This resulted in the formal legalization of same-sex marriages on a federal level as a guarantee based on legal provisions within the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause.  All states with the United States and its insular territories were now required to acknowledge same-sex marriages and their protection under provisions outlined in the US Constitution,

            The rationale of the court’s decision was based on the rationale that it was prudent for the United States to reject legal provisions that only recognized marriage as a union between a man and a woman since it was unconstitutional.  In particular, the majority opinion by Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader, Stephen Brever, and Sonia Sotomayor underscored that outlawing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional since it does not uphold the provision of liberty to all. The decision to marry was, therefore, a personal choice that had to be protected since it was deeply steeped in individual autonomy.

            Dissenting opinions were expressed by Justices Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The rationale behind this dissent was the idea that the verdict would set a dangerous precedent where the substantive due process clause would be misused. Furthermore, dissenting voices also argued that the ban on same-sex marriages did not infringe upon the right privacy while further arguing that its main objective was promoting successful child rearing.

The Virtue of Nationalism – Book Review

A Review of Yoram Hazony’s The Virtue of Nationalism

The Virtue of Nationalism by Yoram Hazony advocates for national freedom as opposed to imperialism. Hazony seeks to show how the Bible sets the vision for a world of independent nations. The overall thesis of the book is that the world is governed best when nations are able to freely determine their own independent course, nurture their own traditions, and pursue their own interest without external interferences. According to Hazony, the new liberalism is imperialistic and has started restricting the basic freedoms of many nations. Contrastingly, nationalism entails the collective freedom to make choice and free-determination by a nation. Bottom line, Hazony advocates for nationalism explaining that it seeks to establish a world of truly free and independent nations.

Hazony divides the book into three parts: Nationalism and Western Freedom, The Case for the National State, and Anti-Nationalism and Hate. In part one – Nationalism and Western Freedom, the book lays out an argument asserting a biblical origin for nationalism in ancient Israel. According to Hazony, in an age of empires aspiring for universality (Persia, Rome, Babylon, and Egypt), Israel stood alone as a nation expressly forbidden by God to take other peoples’ lands but instead remain within its own borders. Hazony further elaborates that the biblical nationalism did not sit well with Roman Christianity came back with Protestantism in the Westphalia settlement (Hazony, 2018). Regarding the Biblical reference of the concept of nationalism by a state, Hazony is right. In Deuteronomy 2:4-19, God explicitly tells the Israelites not to expand their territory into that of neighboring nations. Moreover, Israel’s prophets frequently voiced their concern regarding the activities of the imperialistic empires such as Assyria, Persia, Babylon, and Egypt.

The second part – The Case for the National State, presents two interesting arguments. The first one is that nation-state is plausible historical compromise between tribal society and the global imperium. Given the two extremes, the nation-state stands out as the only political organization that best meets the competing human desires for freedom and belonging, and peace based on rule of law. The second argument postulates that variety among the social systems established in different nations serve as a global experiment that enable people to assess the strengths and weaknesses inherent in in them. Basing his argument on evolutionary theory and chaos theory, Hazony hypothesize that optimum outcomes are best achieved when there are competing alternatives. The argument is against the uniformity advocated by internationalism, which beneath the surface breeds rebellion (Hazony, 2018). Whereas this argument is to a degree plausible, it is not entirely correct. Nationalism is a compromise between the two extremes and is well-suited to satisfy the competing human desire for belongingness, freedom and peace. Nationalism provides nations freedom of self-determination, as a result, addressing the said needs (Baumann, 2020). Nationalism facilitates democracy and answers the wish of the sovereign people. However, the claim that optimum political outcomes will be achieved when there competing alternatives is questionable. Nations, especially in today’s outstandingly interconnected world, need to maintain diplomatic relations. Availability of alternative forms of governments all over the world established due to the freedom of nations to become self-determining is most likely to compromise the peace stemming from the diplomatic relationships (Statkus, 2019).

In the third part – Anti-Nationalism and Hate, Hazony argues that liberal internationalism is not straightforward positive agenda since beneath the surface it is an imperialist ideology that promulgates anti-nationalism hate. Hazony further elucidates that globalists are aggressively intolerant of cultural particularism and, as such, promotes hate and mistreatment of minorities. According to Hazony, nation-states are better suited to protect individual rights, especially minorities (Hazony, 2018). Whereas it is true that nations are well suited to protect the interests and rights of minorities, the statement regarding globalists promoting hate and mistreatment of minorities is arguable. Ateeque (2018), contradicts the argument that nation-states are well-placed to protect minorities citing evidence from nations that have refused to embrace universalism. Ateeque explains that research show that these nations have comparably less tolerance for divergent worldviews and, therefore, are more likely to mistreat minorities. Furthermore, the existence of international human rights which is a direct result of internationalism renders Hazony’s claim questionable (Ware, 2019).

Personal Opinion

            The model proposed by Hazony has both strengths and weaknesses. On the upside, nationalism is likely to promote freedom of nations to be self-determining. Additionally, nationalism will help preserve nations’ unique cultural heritage and allow them to base their laws and policies on their culture. Moreover, considering that the wars of the 20th century were a product of empires, free and independent nations are unlikely to take the same route. War between such minimal entities is likely to limited, local, and arguably easily mediated by neighboring countries.

            On the downside, there are troubling ethical aspects of Hazony’s proposed model. The idea of non-interference in the affairs of other nations poses a threat to fundamental human rights. Even in the 21st century the world has seen horrors inflicted to innocent populations due to internal wars within nations. For instance, internal clashes in the Middle East have seen many innocent people lose their lives and the life of many others destroyed. In such instances, it is only right that other nations interfere to prevent further deterioration. Hazony also fails to explain whether in his proposed model there is any room for global infrastructure.            

To sum up, The Virtue of Nationalism is a thought provoking book with laudable premise and attractive proposition. It is fertile with ideas and significantly contributes to the debate regarding how well to establish a just order, one that benefits people from all political perspectives. Although the book is not entirely persuasive it has several plausible arguments and sets up the stage for further debate on the issue.

Will Telepsychiatry Affect the Quality of Patient Care?

 Telepsychiatry is a relatively nascent subset of telemedicine which seeks to remotely providing a wide array of psychiatric evaluations and therapy using innovative technology. Apart from the aforementioned services, telemedicine has also emerged as a significant force in health promotion through medication management and patient education ({ConferennceSeries, 2017).

Telepsychiatry is, thus, bound to have a direct impact on the quality of care offered to psychiatric patients.  This is primarily due to its ability to foster direct correspondence between psychiatrists and patients through video conferencing. Furthermore, it also bolsters the capability of primary care providers by liaising with mental health care experts for consultations to aid in care delivery. Telepsychiatry has been hailed by most of its proponents as a practical, yet affordable healthcare option that can now be provided conveniently to mental health patients. This may, inadvertently, address health disparities by ensuring that access to mental health care is improved in remote inaccessible areas such as the mountainous rural expanse around Appalachia in West Virginia.

Additionally, its application is bound to ultimately improve care outcomes by combining the provision of primary and behavioral care. This will be particularly effective in reducing the emergency room cases and any accompanying delays commonly associated with such scenarios. The introduction of telepsychiatry also promises to address the stigma associated with mental healthcare by offering a discrete option for vulnerable sections of society (Maeder & Marcelo, 2016). Yet, one still has to consider the ethical dilemmas associated with recording and storing sessions. For instance, patient data may be compromised by malicious hackers known to target key medical data. Telepsychiatry also presents a rarely explored complication in relation to the duty of care during consultation since they may avoid assuming direct responsibility in case of an emergency.

The Right to Abortion – GOVT 421

Over the years, the scope of the right to privacy has significantly increased to incorporate many contentious aspects. One such controversial issue is abortion. In 1976, the US Supreme Court extended the right to privacy to the realm of abortion in Roe v. Wade. However, up to date, abortion is a highly debated and controversial topic due to its highly sensitive and emotional nature. This stems from the fact that a robust spiritual infrastructure undergirds America. However, in the light of the nation’s Constitutional heritage and principles, the right to an abortion is underpinned by a firm constitutional basis.

Read also Right to Privacy – Bill of Rights – GOVT 421

History of the Abortion Controversy

            Analysis of legal battles that foreshadowed the Supreme Court ruling to extend the right to privacy to incorporate the right to abortion leads to the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In this case, the appellants, the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and its Medical Director (a licensed physician) were convicted as accessories for giving married persons medical advice and information regarding preventing conception. Following an examination, the two prescribed a contraceptive device or material for the wife’s use. Notably, a Connecticut statute made it a crime for any person to use any drug or article or device to prevent conception (Wade, 2017).

The appellants argued that the accessory statute, as applied to their case, violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that the Connecticut statute forbidding the use of contraceptives infringed the right of marital privacy, which is within the purview of the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The Court held that a right to marital privacy existed in the significantly ignored Ninth Amendment. Thus, the judicial system made the right to marital privacy applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment (Wade, 2017). Once the decisional marital right to prevent the conception of children was established, it was just a matter of time before the right to abortion was propounded.    

Roe v. Wade

After the Griswold v. Connecticut came a rapid procession of cases challenging state abortion laws, which led to the landmark case, Roe v. Wade (1973). By the early 1970s, there were numerous confusing and inconsistent rulings by both state and federal court rulings regarding the right to abortion. As a result, the Supreme Court decided to review the issue to provide clarification. The Supreme Court agreed to resolve the issue based on a constitutional basis and free of emotion and predilection. The Court used ‘Jane Roe’ as a fictional name to protect the plaintiff’s identity, who instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas. A thorough analysis of the issue by the Court revealed that until relatively recent times, women enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate pregnancy than most states provided by the time (Goldenberg, 2017). The Court, therefore, established the right to privacy was incorporated within the ever-growing right to privacy.

It is worth noting that the concept of the right to privacy is not expressly incorporated in the Constitution. It is through judicial interpretations, starting at the end of the 19th century, that the right emerged. The right is underpinned by the philosophy asserting that every individual should lead his/her life as free from government intrusion as possible (Goldenberg, 2017). However, merely establishing that the right of privacy exists did not provide sufficient ground for the Court to extend it to the realm of abortion. Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the due process clause’s protective provision, convinced the Court criminalizing abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that criminalizing abortion violates a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, implicit in the liberty guarantee entailed in the protective provision of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Wade, 2017). The ruling extended the right to privacy to incorporate the right to abortion.

Religious Perspective

Before delving into the constitutional analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision to extend the right to privacy, it is crucial to explore the religious perspective regarding abortion, particularly the Christian worldview. America was founded on a robust spiritual infrastructure, which extends to inform morality and ethics, which were key building blocks of the US Constitution. According to the Christian worldview, abortion is a sin. Christians believe that only God reserves the right to give and take life. Notably, Christians equate abortion to murder, which is prohibited in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). As per the Christian perspective, an unborn child is a human being who reserves the right to live as per God’s plan. Terminating pregnancy, therefore, goes against God’s plan. In Jeremiah 1:5 (KJV), the Bible states, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”  The verse demonstrates that God knows every person even before they are conceived in their mother’s womb, as they are a part of His grand plan of life. Hence, based on this religious perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision to extend the right to privacy to incorporate the right to abortion is wrong since abortion is a sin.

Read also What is a Bill of Rights? What is an Amendment? How are thy Different?

Constitutional Perspective

            The three considerations necessary to determine the constitutionality of the right to abortion include (1) whether there exists a relationship between abortion and the right to privacy, (2) adherence to due process, and (3) the state’s interest in protecting fetus life. Regarding the relationship between abortion and the right to privacy, the concept emphasizes that individuals should lead their life as free from government intrusion as possible. The provision regarding equal protection as stipulated by the Fourteenth Amendment impliedly stipulates the right of privacy within the family unit. Notably, this right protects people, not practices (Nerney, 2020). The intrusion of a family unit by the government to dictate whether a woman should keep or terminate their fetus is a violation of the right of privacy. Besides, the right to privacy already incorporated the right to marriage, procreation, and contraceptive use; criminalizing abortion would be a constitutional contradiction (Blagojević & Tucak, 2020). Therefore, extending the right to privacy to incorporate abortion is constitutional since the Fourteenth Amendment seeks to protect people not practices.

Read also Bill of Rights, Fourth Amendment Is the Most Significant – A Personal Analysis

            The second and third concerns are significantly related. Concerning the second concern, due process, the Fourteenth Amendment states that if a state attempts to deprive an individual of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness, it must do so based on due process. Hence, for the states to deny women the freedom to terminate pregnancies, it must base the interest on due process (Ziegler, 2020). Those opposing the right to abortion argue that the state has an absolute interest in protecting a person’s life. The assertion leads to the second concern, whether the said interest extends to unborn persons. It is necessary to define when life begins to answer objectively and rationally tackle the question. After thorough analysis and in-depth consideration, the Court agreed that life begins at the stage of viability. Having established this premise, the state’s interest involves protecting viable, not potential life (Nerney, 2020). Thus, the state has no compelling interest in protecting fetal development before the viability point. Besides, the Constitution’s Framers did not intend to protect the interests of the unborn since a fetus is not a person within the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ziegler, 2020). Therefore, the decision by the Supreme Court is constitutional.

Read also Getting Women the Right to Vote

Conclusion

            To sum up, the case of Roe v. Wade served as a landmark as it facilitated the extension of the right to privacy to incorporate the right to abortion. Whereas the decision is still largely contested by many Americans due to their religious background, constitutional analysis of the ruling demonstrates that the decision was right. The decision is well based on the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, although the Christian worldview perceives the act as a sin and, as such, unlawful, the Supreme Court’s decision was robustly based on the Constitution.

Globalism vs Nationalism – GOVT 460

Throughout the early 20th century, nationalism was esteemed because it advocated for self-governance and freedom from oppression. The sentiment squared with growing awareness of political freedom, individual rights, and dignity held by people. However, this changed in the mid-20th century due to a contest between liberalism and nationalism, which saw the latter collapse due to its association with Nazi atrocities. However, Yoram Hazany, in his book The Virtue of Nationalism, argues that nationalism is back. The book explains that appeals for nationalism are on the rise. Hazony argues that the nation-state is the best expression of political order, whereby an international system of national states is preferable to imperial and anarchic alternatives. Arguably, a fusion of nationalism and globalism which utilizes the two worldviews as complementary models can prove more beneficial than choosing one over the other.

Hazony’s Theory of How and Why Nations Develop

            Hazony hypothesizes that nations are developed to give people who share a common language and cultural characteristics the freedom to govern themselves as they deem right. According to Hazony, national identity is not based on race or biological homogeneity but instead on the bonds of mutual loyalty to a shared culture and history that bind diverse groups into a nation unit. He further argues that social cohesion enabled by a nation-state where most people share a common language and history can produce a level of trust that allows the production of social and moral goods, including political and civic liberties. Regarding the development of nations, Hazony asserts that throughout history, nations have developed in several ways. Some are established as a result of geographical isolation. Others are created as the result of emigration, often displacing existing nations. Lastly, others developed from the breakup of large empires or due to peace treaties (Hazony, 2018).

Read also Locke’s Universal Rights are not Sufficient to Explain Nationhood

Nations establish justice, defend against external threats, and elevate their citizens beyond the limited horizons of the tribal world. Whereas developed based on any of the three above-mentioned ways, nations are sustained by mutual loyalty among their members. Hazony defines the said loyalty as a union of tribes marked by a shared heritage of a common language or religious tradition and a history of joining together against common enemies. The national state’s particularism has the dual advantage of restraining the imperial impulse toward constant expansion and providing a nation with a robust basis for mutual trust and social solidarity. Notably, this includes the solidarity between the ruling class and the ruled, with the former feeling a sense of obligation to the latter, based on shared communal identity. Besides restraining nations from becoming empires, Hazony also asserts that it prevents the creation of monarchies (Hazony, 2018).

The Anti-nationalist Arguments of Kant and Marx

            Unlike Hazony, Karl Marx advocated for socialist internationalism. Marx argued that there is a need for internationalism flows from the position of the working class internationally. From Marx’s perspective, embracing nationalism barred the much needed international flows. Marx’s anti-nationalist argument has been developed by capitalism through the organization of the global economy as one indivisible whole. The interests of the working class in one country are the same as the workers’ interests in other countries. The division of labor established by capitalism laid the basis for a new international organization of labor and planned production on a global scale. According to Marx, the said production possibilities can only be achieved by abolishing national barriers and establishing a global federation of workers’ states. Marx further argued that worldwide workers’ management is a necessary transition stage on the road to social internationalism. The workers have no country; thus, they are united by their shared struggles. Hence, according to Marx, in a social internationalism setting, the struggle of the working class in all countries undergirds the basis for movement toward nationalism (Kouvelakis, 2018). Marx’s anti-nationalist argument proposes internationalism as a means of uniting the multiple layers of the working class on a global scale.

Read also Is The Self Existent? David Hume Vs Immanuel Kant

            On the other hand, Immanuel Kant was a liberal internationalist. Kant advocated for a federation of free states governed by the rule of law. He argued that when states become republics, and their citizens have the freedom to make decisions, they are less likely to choose to go to war. Thus, as more states become republics and democracy spreads across the world, then the likelihood of war between nations decreases until, eventually, all nations view war as irrational. As a result, peace triumphs over conflict. Kant also argued that nationalism only contributes to the eruption of war, as was the case of World War I. Nationalist rhetorics were used as the key driving force of mobilization and justification of war atrocities. However, liberal internationalism organizes people who are diverse in their goals but also individualized and rationalized. Most importantly, they are capable of appreciating the moral equality of all persons as ends instead of means. The people in their respective republics are governed publicly by the law, as a republic, and problems are solved formally and legally (Kouvelakis, 2018). The pursuit of perpetual peace is, therefore, the critical aspect of Kant’s liberal internationalism argument. To summarize Kant’s anti-nationalist argument, he proposes the spread of democracy throughout the world as a means of bringing an end to conflicts; thus, maintaining peace and stability.

Read also Karl Marx, Marx Weber and Emile Durkheim View On Social Change and Order

Globalism versus Populist Nationalism

            For years globalism has dominated the world, with individuals routinely encouraged to have a global mindset. However, in recent years, populist nationalism sentiments seem to be on the rise. Notably, populist nationalism fuses the belief that citizens are being exploited by the privileged elite with the idea that the national culture and interests are under threat from both internal and external enemies. The recent spread of populist nationalism across the world has triggered a growing interest in the subject, with a sizeable number of people worldwide embracing the perspective that their government should place their welfare above that of foreigners (Higgott, 2018). These kinds of sentiments relate to Hazony’s argument on collective/family freedom.

In The virtue of Nationalism, Hazony postulates that a world of sovereign nations is the only option for those who care about personal and collective freedom. Hazony explains that human beings have always been part of a community, undergirded by concrete morals and traditions (Hazony, 2018). However, Locke disputes this claim, whereby he advocates for universal individual rights. Notably, the Lockean explanation for nationalism is largely universalistic and, therefore, more inclined towards globalism. Nationalism entails the collective freedom of citizens to freely make choices about their life and freedom of self-determination by both citizens and a nation (Skey & Antonsich, 2017). Whereas Lockean explanation of nationalism is flawed, it is worth acknowledging that globalism is beneficial to the world as it allows nations to access new cultures, facilitates sharing of technology and innovation, and lowers production costs. Other benefits include improving living standards, providing access to new markets, and access to new talent (Hicks, 2019).

Discussion and Conclusion           

Both nationalists and globalists present strong arguments in support of their proposed models of political organization by nations. However, rather than choosing one model over the other, the best approach would be to implement the best elements associated with each approach to reap optimal benefits. Nationalism allows citizens to enjoy the freedom to freely make their own choices and facilitate the self-determination of a nation and its people. However, without checks and balances, nationalism can contribute to wars between nations, as was the case of World War I and II (Hicks, 2019). On the other hand, globalism allows interconnectedness between nations, allowing access to new cultures, facilitating the sharing of technology and innovation, allowing access to new markets, et cetera. However, if unchecked, globalism can fuel inequality, creates a race to the bottom, labor exploitation, and loss of national identity (Hicks, 2019). Thus, nations should try finding ways to infuse concepts of nationalism and globalism.

Should all Clinical Data be Made Available to the Public?

One of the longstanding debate topics in the health care realm is whether clinical data should be made available to the public or not. Notably, most of these debates are centered around whether clinical data should be treated as a public good or private property. However, the vital question should focus on which option benefits the healthcare care field the most. From this angle, the simple answer is ‘yes,’ clinical data should be made available to the public to improve healthcare and facilitate enhanced patient outcomes.

Clinical data is often compiled with public funds; thus, rendering it public goods or utility. This fact alone suggests that the data should be shared widely and used for the common good of improving healthcare delivery. However, it is worth acknowledging that private entities also collect and analyze clinical data incurring great costs. This makes the data collected by these entities qualify as private property. However, from the perspective of improving healthcare delivery and enhancing patient outcomes, the best option for public and private entities is to make the data available to the public. The data can help address existing gaps and facilitate possibilities if researchers have the luxury of draw information from multiple, diverse sources.

However, for the above-described scenario to work, there must be a broad consensus on an ethical framework for sharing clinical data. This means that clinical data should only be made available to the public after being aggregated and all patient identifiers removed. Moreover, everyone who interacts with the data should be held to high ethical standards, including protecting patient privacy and using the data to improve the healthcare system. Indeed, making clinical data available to the public can prove significantly beneficial to evidence-based care.

Locke’s Universal Rights are not Sufficient to Explain Nationhood

Hazony’s Argument – Locke’s Universal Rights are not Sufficient to Explain Nationhood

In “The Virtue of Nationalism,” Yoram Hazony argues that Locke’s universal rights are not sufficient to explain nationhood. Hazony holds that true freedom comes only where the possibility of collective self-determination exists. He explains that true freedom (one that sufficiently explains nationhood) comes on two levels. The first level entails the freedom of individuals to freely make choices about their personal lives. The second level involves the freedom of self-determination. Hazony elucidates that nationhood exists where there is freedom of a nation to shape policy according to its unique moral principles as well as preserve and pass on its unique culture (Hazony, 2018).

Read also Theme of Inequality in Locke and Rousseau Works

Hazony points out that nationhood entails preserving the freedom of nations to make laws and policies for themselves. Using universal rights to explain nationhood contradicts the said definition as it compromises nations’ sovereignty to preserve their independence and self-determination. Nation-states with the freedom to preserve their independence and self-determination do not necessarily need the universal rights to function well. They can protect the rights of minorities and resist the creation of empires (Hazony, 2018). People and nations are inherently inclined towards morality and ethicality. Jeremiah 31:33 states “…I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.” The verse illuminates that even without universal rights, people and nations have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. Most importantly, they enable individuals to come together as a coherent political unit to determine their future; thus, answering the fundamental human need for belonging to a democratic nation (Skey & Antonsich, 2017).

Read also Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau – Who’s Theory of Government is Most Compatible With Biblical Principles?

Personal View

            Lockean explanation of nationhood is largely universalistic. Locke advocates for popular sovereignty, as evident in his use of universal rights to explain nationhood. Whereas universal rights are necessary to preserve people’s freedom and prevent nations from becoming tyrannical, Locke’s explanation contradicts the definition of nationhood. The basic definition of nationhood refers to the status of being an independent nation with a national identity (Rozynek, 2017). True independence and national identity can only be achieved when a country has the freedom to preserve its independence and self-determination. Incorporating universal laws or policies in the explanation of the concept of nationhood introduces a divergent point.

Read also The Fundamental Political Ideology of John Locke   

Moreover, nationhood involves the unique moral principles and culture of a nation. When a country has the freedom to refer to its unique moral principles and culture when creating laws and policies rather than relying on universal rights, it truly achieves nationhood. Besides, when the concept of nationhood is explained using Locke’s universalism, it creates a loophole whereby some nations might assume the role of determining other countries’ future. This robs them of the freedom to preserve their independence and self-determination. Therefore, arguably, Hazony provides a better argument than Locke for explaining nationhood.

Read also How John Locke Views Personal Identity – Sample Essay

Sexual Harassment – Deviance and Its Consequences

Deviance refers to behaviors or actions that violate social norms or formally enacted rules. The deviant behavior under consideration in this paper is sexual harassment. While the perpetrator of sexual harassment may perceive the act as erotically gratifying, society considers it unacceptable. Examples of sexual harassment include making inappropriate sexual gestures, making sexual comments about appearance, clothing, or body parts, and threatening to fire someone if they do not give sex. Others include making offensive comments about a person’s sexual orientation, sharing sexual anecdotes, inappropriate touching, and sharing indecent images or videos.

Read also Sexual Harassment as a Growing Ethical and Legal Concern for Businesses Today

In recent years, cases of sexual harassment against women have become prevalent in Hollywood. A recent scandal of sexual harassment involved Harvey Weinstein, a renowned Hollywood producer. Weinstein was accused of sexual harassment by hundreds of women pursuing a career in Hollywood. The women described that Weinstein solicited sex from them, whereby she threatened to sabotage their careers if they do not accept his sexual advances. Weinstein promised the females that if they accepted his sexual advances, he would boost their careers. Another woman accused Weinstein of badgering her into giving him a massage while he was naked. An investigation by The New York Times unearthed previously undisclosed allegations stretching over nearly three decades. Numerous former and current Weinstein’s employees, from top executives to assistants, admitted they knew of appropriate sexual conduct while working for him (Kantor & Twohey, 2017).

Read also Functions That Deviance Provides For Society

Notably, Weinstein’s case is just one of the many prevalent within the Hollywood industry. Kantor and Twohey (2017) elucidate that sexual harassment in Hollywood has created a toxic environment. Women working in Hollywood have described situations whereby their male bosses subjected them to sexual harassment. Forms of sexual harassment experienced by the women include appearing nearly or fully naked in front of them, repeatedly asking for a massage and inappropriate sexual advances. The women explained that these men have mastered a way of making anyone who declines their advances feel like an outlier (Kantor & Twohey, 2017). In 2018 more than 900 women came forward accusing more than 200 high profile Hollywood men of sexual misconduct (Carlsen et al., 2018). These statistics point out that by the time the New York Times was published the expose on Weinstein, sexual harassment in Hollywood was significantly prevalent.

Red also Evolutionary Theory and Crime – Sexual Deviance And Sexual Coercion

Deviance results in sanctions whereby different degrees of violation resulting in varying degree of sanction. The three main forms of social sanction for deviance include legal sanction, stigmatization, and preference for the deviant behavior over the preexisting one (Ben‐Yehuda, 2019). Regarding the deviance under consideration, the group rejected the behavior. Following the New York Times expose, the group started the #MeToo movement to expose sexual harassment perpetrators in Hollywood. The campaign saw 201 prominent men in Hollywood lose their jobs. Others like Weinstein are facing criminal charges. The #MeToo movement is still shaking power structures in various sectors of society by empowering women to expose perpetrators who have subjected them to sexual misconduct without fearing being stigmatized (Carlsen et al., 2018). Therefore, sexual harassment against women in Hollywood was sternly rejected.

Read also Breach of Ethics in the Workplace – Vice Media Holdings Sexual Harassment

Charismatic Figures of the French Revolution

Louis XVI

A non-Catholic had legal status and religious freedom in France under an edict. Foreign policy success for Louis XVI included aiding the American colonies’ fight against France’s archenemy, Britain. He could not let his ministers and subjects live in wider luxury and honor than him. To him, absolute monarchy was a divine right. To his mind, the “Roi-Soleil” (Sun King) was omniscient and infallible. Lesser concerns were religious uniformity and foreign policy (Hastings, 2019). Louis XVI was a non-Catholic and had legal status and religious freedom in France under an edict. Louis XVI nearly went bankrupt supporting the American colonies’ victory over the British. The French Revolution began when Louis XVI convened the Estates-General to address his budget crisis.

Read also Women Role in the French Revolution and Art

Read also Effects of Absolutism on Art during the Reign of Louis XIV

Robespierre

Maximilien Robespierre was a radical democrat. Robespierre led the powerful Jacobin Club in Paris. He was narcissistic and odd. Manipulative, physically and psychologically cold, and ineffectual of the revolutionary virtue and direct democracy inspired Robespierre. Robespierre, like Rousseau, saw moral power in the “volonté générale.” Maximillian Robespierre was strict. His policies were centered on equality. Leader of the Committee of Public Safety, Robespierre inspired the guillotine execution of over 17,000 Revolutionaries. To promote French revolutionary ideas, he led the Jacobins in April 1790 (Hastings, 2019).

Read also What Defenders of French Revolution Meant by “Morality” or “Virtue”

Napoleon Bonaparte

He became emperor in 1804 after seizing power in France in 1799. Napoleon expanded his empire by fighting against various European alliances (Hastings, 2019). When things went bad, Napoleon’s undeniable charisma in leading men lost him many supporters. The Napoleonic Code weakened illegitimate children’s rights and strengthened male family authority. Slavery was reinstated, but all male citizens gained legal and religious rights. In three years, the monarchy was overthrown and a republic declared. Napoleon put down a royalist uprising in Paris in 1795.

Read also HS250 – Origin and Fallout of the French, American, and Haitian Revolutions

Louverture

Slave revolt led by Toussaint Louverture end of slavery in Saint-Domingue (Haiti). He ruled Hispaniola as a negligible French colony ruled by ex-slaves. Former slave François Dominique Toussaint Louverture and his republican army defeated all enemies and brought peace to the troubled territory. Louverture, a royalist, began speaking of equal rights. In late 1791, he moved from better slave conditions to abolition. Louverture was a lifelong Roman Catholic. The War of the Knives ended in 1801 when Louverture formed a new colonial constitution. It legitimized Catholicism. Millions of free and enslaved Africans across the Atlantic were inspired by Toussaint Louverture and the Haitian Revolution. All Saints leaders helped the only Atlantic slave society defeat their oppressors (Hastings, 2019).

Napoleon is my favorite revolutionary because he revolutionized the French army and made France the world’s most powerful military power. His troops’ victories reflected his confidence and ambition. Napoleon saved France from the French Revolution.