Physicians must respond
immediately during a medical emergency to cater the needs of the patient.
The law holds to treat anyone who is in need even if without pay such as treating
indigent patients.
It is the duty of the physician not to abandon a patient when in need to
help them survive.
Physicians must be professional in dealing with noncompliant or incompetent
patients because not all patients have the same treatment towards them.
It is important for physicians to remain careful and handle them with the
utmost attention when treating patients with AIDS because they do not know
why and how they got it.
The main difference between macronutrients and micronutrients is that human body requires macronutrients in larger quantities whereas micronutrients are needed in smaller quantities. The major macronutrients are carbohydrate, protein and fat which contribute to the bulk of our food.
Meanwhile, micronutrients such as vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals are essential for maintaining a good health.
Macronutrients are chemical substances required for growth and other human body functions.
Micronutrients are chemical substances required for various functions of the body, growth, and disease prevention. Furthermore, they are essential for overall health of human beings.
The differences between macronutrients and micronutrients :
Macronutrients: “macro” indicates large and macronutrients are nutrients required in large amounts.
Micronutrients: “micro” indicates small and micronutrients are nutrients required in small amounts.
Answers:
1. Three problems associated with alcohol
a. High blood pressure
b. Liver and kidney disease or cancer
c. Heart diseases
2. “The direct answer to this question is that the government does not decide the legal status of drugs based on scientific assessment of potential for harm.
The ranking of drugs is a very interesting and controversial topic (subject to the apples and oranges problem), but it is simply not the basis by which governments make these decisions. The chart is worth analyzing, but it won't answer the question.
Practically speaking, making alcohol illegal is untenable. It was attempted in the United states in the 1920s, and I am not aware of any credible historians that consider prohibition to have been a success. Alcohol use has been present amongst humankind for millennia. It spans society, race, social class, etc. It does certainly present great potential for harm, individually through the detrimental health effects of abuse, and societally through the impact of impaired decision making, most notably drunk driving.
Despite that, alcohol also clearly provides some benefits that drive some people to use it. Others choose not to use it at all. Many use it without issue, and some develop problems. It is an effective social lubricant. In many cultures it is a common component of traditional celebrations, and in some cultures it is even a component of formal business interactions. It is one of the central rituals in the Catholic church.
Many of the problems associated with alcohol use can be reasonably mitigated without blanket prohibition, i.e. drunk driving and age restrictions. Many of the problems are also solved through basic social structures, in which friends and family address issues independently.
Given the above, the clear follow-on question is why these other, less harmful, drugs are illegal? If alcohol has demonstrated that it is actually more effective to manage these problems with regulation, how are other legalization decisions being made?
Those are much more complicated questions. The brief answers have to do with legacy (less history of widespread human use with other chemicals) and institutional racism.”
This is from the web so find details that will helped you and make sure to paraphrase!!
If helped mark me the brainiest!!
B. Inhumane & D. A criminal act
