Answer:
False
Explanation:
Informed consent: In psychology, informed consent make sure that a client, research participant, and a patient is aware of all the possible costs and risks involved in a procedure or treatment.
Informed consent includes:
1. the researcher should tell the participant about the purpose of research, procedure and expected duration.
2. The right to withdraw from the study any time before and after the research has started.
3. Possible consequences.
Answer:
If it is nothing like the original is it C, If it uses some parts of the original and does not give credit is it B, If it uses word for word and doesn't give credit it is A ......the key part is to give credit. If it uses part of or all the original and does not give credit it is plagiarism.
Explanation:
Answer:
<h3>I think this might help you</h3><h3>
Explanation:</h3><h3 />
<h3>With the flu season swiftly approaching and the H1N1 already affecting large numbers across the world, New Hampshire faces the possibility of a flu epidemic. In such an instance, what action would the state or federal government take? The possibility of a massive quarantine gets thrown around every time a flu epidemic exists, but is such an action an infringement of the rights of individuals living in a free nation? Or is the common good of preventing the spread of infection more important?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>Even the current health care debate reflects the tension between individual rights and the common good. Over the past months New Hampshire town halls have been crowded with individuals taking a side in the individual rights/common good debate. Some have expressed the view that health care initiatives are in the interest of a healthier state and nation. Others claim that compulsory health insurance impedes individuals’ right to the best health care money can buy. Can the individual rights vs. common good debate help us understand some of the ideological tension behind the current health care discussion?
</h3><h3>
</h3><h3>As many of these examples show, this month’s question is largely political, but it can also flow into other areas of thought. There’s the philosophical and moral question of the Donner Party; if you and five others were stranded and starving, and your only hope of getting out alive is to eat the first member who passed away, would you do it to save the rest of the group? There is the question that comes up around the disabled. Do you build special infrastructure to accommodate the few who are disabled even if that meant the cost to do this would jack up prices. Then there is the commercial/environmental side. What is more important, buying a cheaper car that fits your personal budget and your personal tastes or a more expensive and efficient auto that would help save the environment? What do you think?
</h3>
The major factors that are contributing to changes in the distribution of power between the national government and the states are:
- The distribution of grants,
- Incentives
- Aid
<h3>The relationship between the states and the federal government?</h3>
The sharing or the distribution of power between the states and the national governments is known to be called Federalism.
Note that a way that the federal government can have some measures of influence over the states is by the sharing of grants, incentives, as well as aid.
Therefore, The major factors that are contributing to changes in the distribution of power between the national government and the states are:
- The distribution of grants,
- Incentives
- Aid
Learn more about Federalism from
brainly.com/question/1899994
#SPJ1
Answer:
A boycott is the renunciation of trade with a particular person or company, or even with the country as a whole. The participants in the boycott believe that the person or company in question is behaving immorally or dishonestly. A boycott is a non-violent, voluntary and deliberate refrain from using, buying or interacting with a person, organization or state as an expression of protest, usually in the moral, social, political or environmental spheres. The boycott is intended to cause economic damage to the target or to indicate moral outrage in an attempt to force the target to change its reluctant behavior.
In turn, an import quota means a quantitative restriction on the import of a certain good. Import quotas reduce the supply of the product in the country in question, which leads to a price increase. The effect is thus the same as for a duty, and there is therefore talk of import-equivalent duty. Thus, while a boycott completely prohibits the entry of a certain good, a quota only partially limits it.
