“Frankie & Alice” Motion Picture: Race And Mental Care Free Sample

Frankie & Alice is a Canadian motion picture by Berry, Cirrincione, DeKaric, Zaidi, and Sax (2010). It is based on a real story of an Afro-American woman with a Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Frankie is the protagonist, a go-go dancer who begins to experience violent episodes and blackouts. However, it takes her some time to search for professional help, and this fact can be related to discrimination issues.

Barriers and Access to Care

The topic of the dynamics between people of different races is very extensively explored in Frankie & Alice; in fact, Frankie’s DID forces her to assume the roles of black Frankie and white Alice from time to time (Lehman, 2014). Nowadays, racial disparities are still present in modern healthcare (Cook et al., 2013). At the period that is presented in Frankie & Alice, the issues must have been more severe, which is also demonstrated through the extensive exploration of the topic of racism throughout the picture (Lehman, 2014). In fact, the onset of Frankie’s illness must have been triggered by her mother supposedly murdering Frankie’s newborn child because Frankie’s partner (the child’s father) was white. Similarly, the relationship between Frankie and her partner was extremely discouraged by their families, which prompted them to try to elope and resulted in the young man’s death.

The typical effect of discrimination on minorities in the context of mental institutions includes fewer cases of initiation and lower quality of care (Cook et al., 2013). However, the reasons for this effect can be multiple, and they do not have to be limited to actual hostility and racism. For example, Cook et al. (2013) point out that linguistic and cultural barriers can result in misunderstandings, leading to a lower quality of care. In this respect, the cultural awareness training and anti-discrimination measures can ensure an improvement of the situation. However, Cook et al. (2013) also mention socioeconomic factors that can prevent racial minorities from getting quality care, and it is a systemic problem the healthcare sector cannot resolve on its own.

It is noteworthy that Frankie is discriminated for multiple reasons, which she knows. In one discussion with Dr. Oz, she states that people who see a “black stripper” immediately assume that she cannot be smart or have a genius-level IQ, which one of her personalities does. In other words, she experiences intersectional discrimination that is based on her race, gender, and occupation. From this perspective, it can be assumed that Frankie does not expect to be treated appropriately. This factor can explain Frankie’s reluctance to start seeing a professional, which shows that discrimination prevents people from getting help in more than one way. It is also important that Frankie regards mental illnesses as stigmas, and she is reluctant to admit having one since she is already greatly stigmatized. Therefore, the problem of treatment access cannot be resolved without the deconstruction of the stigmas and the increase in tolerance and cultural awareness in the society as a whole.

The relationships between Frankie and the professionals who try to help her are important for her well-being and recovery. Dr. Oz is the main character in this respect, and he is very supportive. For example, once he realizes that Frankie is worried about being stigmatized, he tries to reassure her. He is caring and responsible; he agrees to start working with Frankie when she asks him to, even though he intended to send her to another specialist. Dr. Oz is professional, and he successfully searches for the ways to help Frankie recover, eventually coming up with the idea of showing her a tape that recorded all her personalities. Most importantly, he manages to win Frankie’s trust, and he does not betray it by discriminating her. As he promises, there are no stigmas in his office.

Thus, Frankie & Alice demonstrates that the effects which discrimination can have on the mental health of a person are multiple and destructive, and a healthcare professional needs to be aware of this fact.

References

Berry, H., Cirrincione, V., DeKaric, S., Zaidi, H. (Producers), & Sax, G. (Director). (2010). Frankie & Alice [Motion picture]. Canada: CodeBlack Films.

Cook, B., Zuvekas, S., Carson, N., Wayne, G., Vesper, A., & McGuire, T. (2013). Assessing racial/ethnic disparities in treatment across episodes of mental health care. Health Services Research, 49(1), 206-229. Web.

Lehman, K. (2014). Woman, divided: Gender, family, and multiple personalities in media. The Journal of American Culture, 37(1), 64-73.

Is Euthanasia Morally Acceptable?

Introduction

Euthanasia is the act of purposely ending an individual’s life to help him or she get rid of pain and suffering. For instance, a medical worker who gives a patient with incurable cancer an excessive dose of relaxants to terminate their life would be well-thought-out to have performed euthanasia. Assisted suicide is the situation when the doctor (or any other person) is intentionally helping or reassuring another individual to end their life.

If a relative or a close one of an individual with an incurable disease were to attain powerful tranquilizers, realizing that the person planned to take an enormous dose of sedatives to execute themselves, they might be thought to be supporting suicide. Euthanasia and assisted suicide are considered illegal, and wrongdoers are considered criminals and punished by law. Contingent on the conditions, euthanasia is viewed as either homicide or manslaughter and is punishable by governmental regulations. The supreme punishment might even consider life imprisonment. Nonetheless, trying to execute yourself is not an unlawful action in itself.

Position Statement

I believe that any given individual with a terminal illness should be allowed to ask for euthanasia and his or her request should be granted under any circumstances.

Supporting Reason

It is known that currently euthanasia and assisted suicide are considered to be criminal acts. Nonetheless, every individual has the right to die. This means that the person who suffers from unendurable pain should be allowed to ask for euthanasia (Strinic, 2015). The categorical ban of the latter explicitly interferes with the individual’s liberty and should be dismissed. All the patients with a terminal illness who are on the verge of demise should not be required to suffer. It should be viewed as much of wrongdoing to make an individual live who reasonably does not want to endure as it is to execute an individual without permission (Strinic, 2015).

Moreover, we should consider the Hippocratic Oath to be one of the supporting reasons, too. Its extensively-quoted statement that a doctor should not harm the patient should be carefully reviewed. For a patient with a terminal illness, prolonging life might be a painful burden. In this case, the Hippocratic Oath should be seen as a support act when it comes to euthanasia (Strinic, 2015). Assisting death on no account excludes giving the finest comforting care possible but rather assimilates empathetic care and deference for the patient’s self-sufficiency and finally makes a fair death with self-respect a real opportunity.

Opposing Reason

It must be understood that assisted suicide and euthanasia will be provided with an eye on social disparity and preconception that exemplifies the provision of services in all layers of society, together with healthcare (Boudreau & Somerville, 2014). The least cultured and least empowered will be most susceptible to exploitation, mistakes, and indifference. This jeopardy does not mirror a verdict that doctors are more biased or influenced by social class or race than the rest of society.

While we want to eliminate discernment and the most grueling impacts of poverty on jobs, education, and law, we steadily fail in reaching our goals. The price of the fiasco associated with assisted suicide and euthanasia would be intolerable (Pereira, 2011). There is no reason to accept as true that the practices, whatever safety measures are utilized, will be not impacted by the wide-ranging social and medicinal setting in which they will be functioning. This statement is naive and unjustifiable.

References

Boudreau, J., & Somerville, M. (2014). Euthanasia and assisted suicide: A physician’s and ethicist’s perspectives. MB Medicolegal and Bioethics, 1-12. Web.

Pereira, J. (2011). Legalizing euthanasia or assisted suicide: The illusion of safeguards and controls. Current Oncology, 18(2), 38-45. Web.

Strinic, V. (2015). Arguments in support and against euthanasia. British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research, 9(7), 1-12. Web.

Engineering Ethics, Patent And Legal Issues

The issue of Engineer Z failing to communicate with his employer about the legal implications of patent rights does not create favorable conditions for his efforts. According to United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., an employee who has a contract that includes information about his or her rights to inventions related to one’s work has to follow these rules and transfer all the rights to the employer. In this case study, Engineer Z remembers signing a paper that most likely gave the company the right to use his inventions and ideas as its own. Thus, Engineer Z has to adhere to the contract. Moreover, he and the company did not enter into any written agreements that would allow him to confirm that the idea for the new project was his initially (Steensma et al. 2). Moreover, he also did not ask for any written confirmations of his official participation in the project’s development.

Another legal basis for the company to protect itself is the case Agawam Company v. Jordan which states that the first person to perfect the patent and introduce it to the public has a right to claim it as his or her own. Therefore, the company’s decision to stop working with Engineer Z may be interpreted as an attempt to develop the project further and gain full rights to the patent. The obligations first outlined by the company in the contest were not documented as a legal deal between the engineer and the firm, which renders all their previous claims as unofficial and unreliable for Engineer Z to use. Furthermore, if the engineer’s position implies new inventions and creative work, then it is most probable that the company has a full right to use his designs and claim them as the business’ property. According to Gill v. United States, the employer who allocates funds for the worker’s invention or improvement has a full right to entitle him or herself and gain complete control over developing this project.

One of the companies that value innovation and allow its employees to create new ideas is Cisco (Parnell). This conglomerate frequently works with its employees and other startups to bring new ideas and projects to the business. The firm holds multinational contests and allows winning workers to participate in the project’s development. The focus on entrepreneurship brings Cisco many new ideas, and it continues to implement new small inventions into its global strategy successfully. Employees are given the rights to share their thoughts and feedback and be rewarded for their achievements in innovation.

New engineers should attentively examine their contracts with their companies and see whether they have some ability to protect themselves from being mistreated. It is necessary for every engineer to know and adhere to the Code of Ethics that discusses possible issues that may arise for employees during their work (“NSPE Code of Ethics”). Moreover, young workers should remember that their state can have specific rules protecting their rights. These local regulations may grant them more powers over their own inventions and give them a chance to win the legal battle for their patent. Otherwise, it is vital for engineers to always communicate with their employers and come to a legally binding agreement which would write out all rights of both sides. While in this case, Engineer Z relied solely on his own assumptions and the company’s unauthorized statements, one should remember that a definite agreement and mutual understanding should be reached prior to revealing or developing any major projects.

Works Cited

Agawam Company v. Jordan, 74 U.S. 583 (1868). Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

Gill v. United States, 160 U.S. 426 (1896). Supreme Court of the United States. Web.

“NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.” National Society of Professional Engineers [NSPE], 2017. Web.

Parnell, Brid Aine. “Lessons From Cisco and Airbus on How Startups Inspire Corporate Innovation.” Rocket Space. 2016. Web.

Steensma, H. Kevin, et al. “A Comparative Analysis of Patent Assertion Entities in Markets for Intellectual Property Rights.” Organization Science, vol. 27, no. 1, 2015, pp. 2-17.

United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933). Supreme Court of the United States. Web.