Answer:
Explanation:
Get in touch with your local Jehovah's Witness branch. They can give you an earful on this subject.
They have religious reasons for objecting to transfusions. When it comes to children, the courts have overruled them saying that the welfare of the child is more important than any medical objection or argument that the witnesses may have.
People with Leukemia at some point in course of their disease, may need a transfusion. Nothing else will do. The cells in blood fight foreign antibodies and transport oxygen to organs that need it. If a patient's own blood can't do it, then a transfusion becomes necessary.
The courts have a right to dictate terms when children are involved. The courts do not have the same right with adults. If an adult chooses to end the suffering, they have that right. There even comes a point (in Canada at least) where death is an option. But an individual patient must give knowledgeable consent to taking his own life.
So medicine has a say in some things and not in others. In the United States, the population has not given up on the rights of the 1st amendment. And medicine can override even those rights.
It’s 1x2x6 that what it is
Answer:
cross-sectional approach
Explanation:
Based on the information provided within the question it can be said that the type of research approach being used is called a cross-sectional approach. This type of approach is a type of observational study in which you gather information from a population at a specific set time and date in order to analyze later.
Answer:
First of all, children in a single-parent family may not get to see their parent often since he/she will be busy working to support the family. Secondly, they might not have much social status and be constantly bullied at school. This will cause psychological damage.
Answer:
see below *ALSO SPELL CHECK PLEASE GRAMMERLY ISNT WORKING FOR SOME REASON*
Explanation:
In the persepctive of the German people, the post-war punishment that would be percieved as the "harshest" or "most upsetting" was most likely punishment 1,4 and 5, and the ones that were probably viewed as the "east harsh" or insignificant to the German people was punishment 8. The reason that I assume that the harshest, most significant, and most upsetting punishment(s) were 1,4, and 5 is because these are the punishments that effected the german people <em>directly. </em>The loss of land probably led to relocation and people losing homes, property, etc. The fact that Germany has to take the blame for the war led to racism and prosecution of the German people, many of which had nothing to do with the war and wanted it to end as much as everyone else. And, lastly, punishment 5 was one of the most upsetting because the debt that Germany went into (-33 billion dollars!) will no doubt have caused inflammation of prices, poverty, and lack of resources due to low government funding, which would have effected the people the most, especially those who depended on government help and were not doing well financially to begin with. The punishment that was probably the least significant to the German people was 8, "force all military leaders, including Kaiser Wilhelm II to face trials for war crimes". This is because the people did not have a direct relation with any of these leaders, so it does not concern them as much as punishments like 1,4 and 5 did.
