independent”. According to the state of nature, no man should endanger another man’s life, well-being, freedom, or possessions. Everyone is “obligated by the laws of nature to respect the rights of every man”, according to Locke. 2. It is necessary for man to give up certain liberties under the laws of nature when entering into society.
There is a risk in research involving individuals who have engaged with mental healthcare services as they might not be able to give this consent on their own behalf, lacking the capacity to do so. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 safeguards these individuals by inviting participants to consult with someone such as a carer, should their capacity to give consent be affected. Given the IAPT programme’s inclusion criteria to treat individuals with mild-moderate CMHPs, this was judged to be less of a risk. The programme also implements a number of specialist services for individuals whose capacity may be affected by a learning disability (IAPT, 2009) meaning this would likely be flagged
Everyone should be able to control its own life. Sadly, not everybody can do so. Some people get their life controlled by others. Controlling one’s life means to have the power to choose what you are going to do in any situation.
A philosopher named John Locke believed that people should be free to do what they want, but if their choices are poor, then they should be ready to face the consequences. In his justification, he asserts that “We must consider what state men are naturally in... a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose
However, no one has the right to end a person 's life, no matter what the reasons for it. A person 's life is individual and
One of the important values underpinning person-centered working is an understanding that everyone has the right to make choices and have their preferences respected, even if others make decisions on their behalf. This is a legal requirement under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Some people may need more support and information than others to make those choices and may need people on their side to represent those choices to decision-makers in services. The act contains clear procedures about what should happen if someone cannot make a particular choice for themselves. Some people don’t understand or know what personalisation is and how to implement it in their work due to lack of training, another could be poor communication and the support worker might not know how to use their preferred methods to be able to communicate with them.
The positives of the child protection act is that as a whole, it helps to prevent sexual offenders from reoffending and limits any opportunities which may lead to an attempt of doing so, such as by limiting certain jobs. This act works by putting offenders onto a register where they can be privately checked when applying for certain jobs such as in government roles and and industry that incorporates working with children in any form. These checks are known as Working With Children and National Police Checks and play a critical role in preventing offenders from reoffending by eliminating opportunity and therefore, lends to the overall success of reducing child offences. The major negative aspect of this law is that the register is not public
Who has the right to control our lives? The human rights are often abused by government. By controlling people, governments take away the rights that people need to survive. Some people might say that the government should have a complete control in its citizen’s lives, but they should only control their lives to some extent. Government should not try to change people's beliefs, it should not interfere with our right to live freely and women's right to education.
Now this may not be true to other people, who may have different responses to that question. It should not be, however, up to one person to decide for others what they believe they can or can't live without. "It becomes a question of ethics,” when someone “from a position of power” decides what makes “the lives of others bearable" (Butler 114). I don’t think it works that way. It is different for all of us.
But should we have to do something that could potentially hurt or ruin someone's life? There are so many questions that can arise when we begin talking about how society plays a role in what kind of decisions that we can make on our own. But here is one that would make the best argument and maybe help find some kind of answer. Should
Hence, the essence of being a person lies in the notions of individual autonomy and freedom of choice. "If we respect their human dignity, we want people freely to be what they can be and genuinely want to be. Considerations of human dignity must be balanced against the legitimate governmental interests that are furthered by a system of punishment. All punishment necessarily restricts free choice; most offenders would choose to avoid the sanction entirely. At the same time, punishment in effect honors the choice of the criminal because it completes the rational consequences of his act.
“I believe the freedom to choose my course in life but I do not believe I am free to choose the consequences of my
The freedom of thought involves our ability to make independent moral decisions. However, under the control of political authority, these rights are easily manipulated and can also be taken away at peril. The most basic of our rights is that of the right to life, but this can be easily taken away if one commits a crime serious enough in the face of the law. Under the veneer of political authority, laws seem to be somewhat arbitrary in their formation and execution, which brings into question the justification of such authority. The act of acting in accordance with moral obligations defined by the state for the very reason that they have been defined by the state is in conflict with our moral autonomy and protection of individual liberties, which was the supposed goal in the construction of political authority.
