Fourth Amendment Issue Essay Example for Free

Fourth Amendment Issue Essay Bailey v. United States In this paper I will be discussing the case of Bailey v. United states. First we will be looking to see all the facts of this case to get a clear view of the issue at hand. Then well cover what the issue is for this case, and why it would be an issue in accordance to the Fourth Amendment. I will make a stance in this paper about if I think the issue at hand is or isnt a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The decisions of all the courts will be looked at, and their reasonings. These sort of cases are important to the ever living and breathing document that is the Constitution because cases like hese help change, form, and update (so to speak) the rights that we are afforded according to the United States. On July 28th, 2005 the police of Suffolk County received information via a confidential informant that he had purchased drugs. The drug deal was for the amount of six grams of crack cocaine. During the drug deal the informant described that he had seen a firearm in the apartment. The apartment was separate space ofa house located in the basement of 103 Lake Drive in Wyandanch, New York. The information gave further details as such. The exact description of the person he had urchased the guns from; [a] heavy set black male with short named known as Polo. Oustice. org, page 2) The informant also gave the exact details of the type and description of the gun that he had seen in the apartment which was a handgun. On the same day the police went to the Judge on call to obtain a warrant. After proving the credibility of the informant they were able to obtain a no-knock warrant. A no-knock warrant is given when there is an idea that the police going to execute a warrant might be harmed or if there is a chance that the evidence expected to be ollected could be destroyed. The search warrant specified the basement apartment as the location to be searched, and items to be retrieved were the handgun and any ammunition to go along with it. A single Detective was given the task of watching the apartment while the warrant was being obtained to ensure that the officers that were going to execute the warrant would know if any one was in the apartment, and if so how many. The affiant then went to the scene while the search unit got ready to execute the warrant. While they were watching the house the two of them itnessed two individuals that could meet the description of the the informants description of Polo exit from the basement apartment and get into a car. The two officers followed the car fora few blocks before pulling over the vehicle. After the car was stopped the officers asked the two occupants to step out of the vehicle and proceeded to pat them down. After the two identified themselves, the officers confirmed the driver was the Polo, and the occupant was a friend he was driving home. During the stop the officer searched the pockets and found a set of keys in Polos front pocket. Polo explained the keys were to his apartment. The officer then office stated that he was being detained not arrested incident to the search warrant of the apartment. The officer put the two men into a patrol car that was called in and they were driven to the apartment. The second surveillance officer drove Polos car back to the apartment while the first drove the undercover car. By the time they all reached the apartment again the search unit had already entered the home, executing the warrant. A gun and drugs were in plain view when they had entered the apartment. It was then that the Polo and Middleton were arrested. The keys that were found in the front pocket were also seized incident to his arrest along with two addition guns outside the one in plain view, many rounds of ammunition, a bullet proof vest, 40 grams of crack cocaine,39 grams of powder cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and several documents with the petitioners name on them. Several boxes of personal items that indicated someone had recently moved into the apartment. The police officers also had tried the keys they had seized from Polo and found that one of the keys opened the door to the apartment. It was in April 2006 that Bailey, Polo, was indicted on the multiple counts for having both drugs and firearms in his apartment. The questioned issue here can be clarified by this statement presented in the government brief. Whether the Fourth Amendment permitted police officers, incident to the execution of a valid search warrant for a deadly weapon at a private residence, to detain an occupant who left the immediate vicinity of the premises, when the detention was conducted as soon as reasonably practicable. (americanbar. org). The issue seems to be the fact they the pair were ot in the direct vicinity of the place to be searched when they were initially stopped and detained, nor was the warrant being executed when they were pulled over. The key and the statements were the only things that could absolutely tie the petitioner to the apartment and the drugs and firearms found within it. Bailey moved to suppress the evidence of the key that was seized, and his conversation with the two officers during his stop under the argument that they had illegally detained him. The court said this was a legal stop using the case of Michigan v. Summers (452 U. S. 692 1981)) as an explanation as to why the police had a right to detain Bailey. There are three points to the Summers case that explain why an officer may detain someone during execution of a search warrant; those being officer safety, aiding the completion of the search, and preventing flight if incriminating evidence is found (ohioattorneygeneral. gov). The first issue of officer safety is considering the fact that people within the residence may being riled and rise up and try to harm the officers in effort to conceal or destroy evidence (law. cornell. edu). Secondly the dea of aiding officers to complete the search claims those that would be detained, if they were not occupants [might] wander around the premises, [and] there is the potential for interference with the execution of the search warrant. They can hide or destroy evidence, seek to distract the officers, or simply get in the way. (law. ornell. edu) Lastly on this seemingly three pronged test when it comes to the Summers case, is the prevention of flight if evidence is found. It is because of the prosecution using this cases three pronged test to determine the validity of etaining someone during a search that I take a stand on the side of the defense and say that the detention of Bailey is something that unlawful and violated his fourth particular car is was not. There a re many reasons why, but I can simply look at the three prong test and clearly shred two of their prongs to pieces. There was no real reason for them to pull Bailey over after he left his home and because they did the key they found on his person during the pat down and the confessions he made to the officers are something that should have been left out of the trial. When it comes o the first prong of the Summers test in comparison of the Bailey case it is ridiculous to even believe that from nearly a mile down the road that Bailey would have been able to affect the safety of the officers. It was argued that if they had stopped Bailey just outside the apartment people within the apartment could have been notified of the police and they could have been ready to harm the officers, since it was suspected that weapons were in the home. This is true, however if this were the case why did they not simply stop him as soon as he got around the corner? The second art of the three is the fact that there could be an instance where those in the home being searched could go around and destroy evidence or even hide it. I agree that the police can do their Job far more effectively, and search more thoroughly, if they dont have to keep an eye on those inside a home. However how can this even apply to Bailey? Bailey and the other person that had been in his house were no longer in it. There was no threat that Bailey nor his companion would have been able to hinder the execution of the search warrant. So to me this prong absolutely does not pply in this case. The final result of the Summers prong is that the person in question could become a flight issue if there were evidence found during the search. This is true, Bailey could have fled and become a flight risk if someone were to tip him off that there were cops searching his apartment. However, this is true of any search warrant ever. This is too broad ofa point when it comes to the detention of people. Does this mean that ten miles across town if a search warrant is being executed that they have a right to find you wherever you are until they are finish with heir search? If not circumscribed, the rationale of preventing flight would Justify, for instance, detaining a suspect who is 10 miles away, ready to board a plane. The interest in preventing escape from police cannot extend this far without undermining the usual rules for arrest based on probable cause or a brief stop for questioning under standards derived from Terry. (law. cornell. edu) So in closing I absolutely agree that the detention of Bailey in this case was unlawful and one hundred percent violated his fourth amendment rights. When this ase first went to court this petition to withhold the keys and confession was denied by the District court, and The Second Circuit agreed on this finding.

Social Exclusions Relationship With Poverty

Social Exclusions Relationship With Poverty Is The Term Social Exclusion Just A New Euphemism For Poverty? Introduction In some quarters the terms social exclusion and poverty are used almost interchangeably. This has led some writers to question whether social exclusion is a catch all term, and a new euphemism for poverty. In recent decades unemployment levels have risen dramatically and continue to do so. This has led to a rise in the number of those who are long-term unemployed. It has also meant that there are now a large number of people dependent on benefits. During the same period social changes and successive government policies have served to widen the gap between rich and poor. Field (1996) believes that under the Conservatives, there were fundamental contradictions in social security policy which continued up until 1997 when John Major was voted out of power. Conservatives vowed to get people back to work and to reduce the role of the ‘nanny state’. The Government targeted benefits, which became means tested, thus increasing dependency and putting people into a poverty trap fro m which it was difficult to escape. This Field (1996) contends is the major contributory factor to social exclusion and has, he states, led to the development of an underclass whereby some people are denied the social and citizenship rights enjoyed by other members of society. This paper will examine what is meant by social exclusion and compare this with some debates about poverty to assess whether the term social exclusion might be regarded as a new euphemism for poverty. Social Exclusion The Social exclusion unit was originally set up in December 1997. The Government’s approach, in setting up the unit is to find ways of tackling what they call the intractable problems of teenage pregnancy, deprived neighbourhoods and troublesome behaviour. The Unit aims to achieve this through the use of what they term a connective approach. New Labour’s social exclusion unit has produced a number of reports on the root causes of social exclusion and on initiatives intended to tackle them. Government documents[1] maintain that people who are economically disadvantaged are also liable to be disadvantaged in other areas. They may live in areas with the poorest housing, and have less access to decent schools and health services. Poverty is not just going without ‘things’ The Child Poverty Action Group has identified the fact that the poorest members of society suffer from poor health, stress and stigma. Theorists speak of the poverty trap because people become stuck in a never ending cycle of making do and mending in situations where people would choose differently, were they given the option. Poverty curtails freedom of choice. The freedom to eat as you wish, to go where and when you like, to seek the leisure pursuits or political activities which others accept; all are denied to those without the resources†¦poverty is most comprehensively understood as a state of partial citizenship (Golding, ed. 1986 quoted in Browne, 1998,p.61) Social exclusion is not restricted to the poor in society. Traditional families in rural areas may be excluded from leisure opportunities and cut off from basic services such as public transport (Giddens, 2001). Government policy often gives with one hand and takes back with another. On the one hand it initiates drives for social inclusion, many of them aimed at young people, on the other, there have been moves to restrict the amount of Local Authority Housing to young, lone mothers and the curtailment of benefits for those who are not regarded as actively seeking employment. Some of this is related to other Government policies, not least the pledge to strengthen families. The result has been that an increasing number of young, unmarried mothers and their children live with their parents thus shifting the responsibility back into the private sphere. The 2004 government report on tackling social exclusion maintains that exclusion is a generational problem and that those who have parents living on the margins of society are more likely to be among the socially excluded in society. The reasons for social exclusion are connected. Thus, poverty, unemployment, and a lack of education are all facets of the same problem. Government recognises that they cannot tackle social exclusion unless they adopt an approach that deals with all these issues together (ODPM, 2004). The report maintains that its efforts are paying off and that there is a reduction in the number of households where no adult is working and that what they see as the seemingly intractable problems of single parents and youth offending are being addressed (ODPM, 2004:6). It should be noted here that while the Government expresses concern, and pledges to help excluded groups, at the same time it labels them and crime and illegitimacy become increasingly linked with poverty in public consciousness. Poverty The Department for Work and Pensions Website published a paper on 8th April 2004, it states that the Government is determined to tackle poverty and its causes, not just its symptoms and that this will involve joined-up Government action across the board.[2] Definitions of poverty are highly contested however, and some sort of measure is needed if any practical application is to be achieved. The concepts absolute and relative poverty, are most commonly used, and raise heated debate as scholars fail to agree on the issue. Absolute poverty is the most minimum standard of resources that people could be said to need and is defined by the poverty line or poverty rate. Because standards of living vary widely between countries the poverty rate is calculated as relative to the standards that apply in a given country (Giddens, 2001). This is the poverty index. There are a number of indicators that are used to measure poverty in Britain and to assess whether a person is living in absolute or re lative poverty and the poverty index is widely used in policy decision making. This is problematic because Government measures of poverty are taken as relative to the household incomes of the whole population. The Institute for Fiscal Studies argues that this: obscures the true picture (because)..Previous predictions were too optimistic because they largely did not take into account the fact that the governments target measure of child poverty is a relative one (Guardian,25/6/03).[3] Since Townsend’s work in the 1970s many theorists argue that there are large numbers of people in Britain who live in a state of relative poverty. One of the problems with speaking of relative poverty is that societies do not remain the same, rather they change and develop and with this is the need for understandings of relative poverty to change also. Western society in particular is becoming increasingly more affluent and standards of relative poverty are adjusted upwards in response to this (Giddens,2001). The British Medical Journal (2000) report looked at absolute and relative child poverty in developed countries where household income is more than fifty percent lower than the average. The report found that in the league table of relative child poverty one of the four bottom places was held by the UK. Nickell (2003) contends that since 1979 increased unemployment coupled with a rise in benefit payments and earnings that are index linked to prices rather than wages, has re sulted in a massive increase in the number of people in the UK who are living in relative poverty.[4] The concept of relative poverty causes problems in a number of areas rather than using household income as the regulator it might be better if statisticians calculated the prices of basic goods and services (Daily Telegraph 27/08/02). Another approach to measuring relative poverty is through people’s perceptions of what constitutes the necessities of life. The work of Mack and Lansley (1985, 1992) identified a number of categories that were considered to be necessary to modern day life. There were twenty six things that most respondents considered important and included new clothes, heating, a bath and indoor toilet. Relative poverty was thus measured by the presence or absence of those things. The research found that there was a rise in the number of people living in poverty in the 1980s, this was defined by the lack of three or more of the basic necessities. Between 1983 and 1990 when the two studies were undertaken the number of people living in poverty rose from 7.5 millio n to 11 million and those living in severe poverty (lacking more than 7 items) from 2.6 to 3.5 million (Mack and Lansley, 1992). Poverty is also defined by people’s ability or inability to participate in social activities such as visits to the cinema or school trips. Social Exclusion and Poverty In recent years there has been a concentration on social exclusion, which does not look at poverty simply in terms of a lack of material resources, but at the wider picture of people’s ability to participate in society. The 2004 Report maintains that social exclusion is inter-generational and that such families are more likely to be headed by a lone mother, more inclined to be on the fringes of petty crime and to be long term unemployed. Children from these families often follow the same patterns as their parents and grandparents, There is, however, little concrete evidence to suggest that children of socially excluded parents always follow that pattern, there are many who do not. Unemployment, single mothers and homelessness are mentioned alongside rising crime levels, drug abuse and anti-social behaviour. Chambez (2001) Argues that single parent households are very often among the poorest. English speaking countries have the highest number of single parents, and those who ar e working are among the lowest paid. Employment chances are still limited for women with children because employers expect that motherhood is more important than a career (Walby, 1990). These are parents who are attempting to be self-reliant and while family working tax credits may seem like a good idea it is, arguably the case, that they serve to encourage a dependency culture for people who might prefer to be independent. Lewis (1992) has argued that Britain is a strong male breadwinner state with gendered welfare policies, for example its inadequate childcare provision. While no effort is now made to stop women working, the assumption is that women will be secondary wage earners and, despite the large numbers of women in paid employment, they tend to be in short, part-time, low status work (Lewis,1992:165). As Pierson (1998) contends women (and in many cases their dependent children), because of the way in which society works against their proper enfranchisement, are more reliant on the welfare state. This is a state which looks on them with less favour than it does the masculine majority because the latter are generally in more secure, long-term, and better paid employment. Such and Walker (2004) contend that public and policy debate on the lives of children and the family has increasingly centred around the idea of responsibility. The Prime Minister has gone on record as saying that people need to be responsible for themselves and their families and that New Labour was offering a hand-up rather than a hand-out. The Conservative Government had been voted out because they had failed to act and had not cared about the disadvantaged in society. Their values were wrong and the time had come for a new set of values where the better off and the disadvantaged worked together. There is a new u nderclass in Britain Tony Blair has said, who are cut off from mainstream society. He argued for a better society one where everyone was included, provided that if they wanted to get something out then they had to put something in. On the one hand Blair was handing out a vision of a utopian Britain while at the same time implying that if people were on the margins of life then by and large it was from their own rootless morality and they needed to act responsibly in order to be part of the new society that New Labour would create. What was termed anti-social behaviour is spoken of in the same light as criminal behaviour and Blair said that these things would be rooted out. The following excerpt from an early speech by the Prime Minister is, arguably, a central factor behind much of the Government’s agenda to those it deems to be on the margins: Now, at the close of the twentieth century, the decline of old industries and the shift to an economy based on knowledge and skills has given rise to a new class: a workless class. In many countries- not just Britain-a large minority is playing no role in the formal economy, dependent on Benefits and the black economy. In 1979 only one in twelve non-pensioner households had no-one bringing in a wage, today one in five are in that position  (Blair, T. 1997 no page number) This kind of rhetoric perpetuates the stereotypical view that people who live on benefits are work shy and thus quite happy to live on handouts. Walker (1994) argues that public conceptions that people on benefits have taken the easy option are misplaced, in the majority of cases life becomes a greater struggle. She contends that: Despite sensational newspaper headlines, living on social assistance is not an option most people would choose if they were offered a genuine alternative. Most find themselves in that position because of some traumatic event in their lives; loss of a job, loss of a partner or the onset of ill health (Walker, 1994:9). The Government’s 2004 report on social exclusion conflates it with poverty. In this way the Government resorts to nineteenth century views of the undeserving poor. Social exclusion has come to be a catch all term for anything that authority sees as detrimental to the workings of a capitalist society. It has become the new euphemism for poverty because in capitalist societies poverty has always been regarded as some sort of crime. Conclusion Poverty means that people are unable to afford the goods that are associated with an acceptable standard of living, social exclusion on the other hand, refers to more than the lack of resources to obtain commodities, it is, rather, a process of being shut out, totally or in part, from the social, cultural, political and economic systems which contribute to a person’s integration into society (Haralambos et al, 2000). Nolan and Whelan (1996) contend that, Talking of social exclusion rather than poverty highlights the gap between those who are active members of society and those who are forced to the fringe, the increasing risks of social disintegration, and the fact that, for the persons concerned and for society, this is a process of change and not a fixed or static situation (Nolan and Whelan, 1996:190). The effects of social exclusion, the 2004 Report further maintains, result in huge costs to society and to the economy. It would seem therefore that Government concerns over social exclusion are motivated primarily by budgetary concerns. Making social exclusion the new euphemism for poverty effectively criminalises those who in many instances are poor as a result of successive Government policies rather than through any fault of their own. Bibliography Alcock, P. 1997 2nd ed. Understanding Poverty. London, Macmillan. Blackman, S. 1997 â€Å"Destructing a Giro: a critical and ethnographic study of the youth underclass† in Macdonald R. ed. 1997 Youth, the Underclass, and Social Exclusion. London, Routledge Browne, K.1998. (2nd ed.) An Introduction to Sociology. Cambridge, Polity Press. Chambez, C. 2001. â€Å"Lone-Parent Families in Europe: A Variety of Economic and Social Circumstances† Social Policy and Administration 2001, 35, 6, Dec, 658-671 Field, F. 1996. Stakeholder Welfare. London, IEA Giddens, A. 2001. (4th ed). Sociology. Cambridge, Polity Press Haralambos et al 2000. 5th ed Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London, Collins Mack, J. and Lansley,S. 1985. Poor Britain. London, George Allen and Unwin. Mack, J. and Lansley,S. 1992. Breadline Britain 1990s The Findings of the Television Series. London, London Weekend Television. Mack, J. and Lansley,S. 1985. Poor Britain. London, George Allen and Unwin. Mack, J. and Lansley,S. 1992. Breadline Britain 1990s The Findings of the Television Series. London, London Weekend Television. Nickell, S. RES conference paper April 2003 Poverty and Worklessness in Britain Nolan, B. and Wheelan, C. 1996 Resources: Deprivation and Poverty. Oxford, Clarendon Press Such, E. and Walker, R. 2004 â€Å"Being responsible and responsible beings: childrens understanding of responsibility† Children and Society 18 (3) Jun 2004, pp.231-242 Walby, S. 1986. Patriarchy at Work. Cambridge: Polity. Walker,C. 1994 â€Å"Managing Poverty†. Sociology Review April, 1994 p.9 The Daily Telegraph 27th August 2002 The Guardian Newspaper 25th June 2003 Townsend, P. 1979. Poverty in the United Kingdom. Harmondsworth, Penguin. Blair, T. 1997 The Will to Win, http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=59 (no page numbering) http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=44 Mental Health and Social Exclusion Consultation Document ODPM 2004. Count Me In http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id= ODPM. 2004 Tackling Social Exclusion: Taking Stock and Looking to the Future http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=13 page 17 Community Care, 2005 communitycare.co.uk/articles/article.asp?liarticleid=48388liSectionID=30sKeys=anti+social+behaviourliParentID=14th April (no page numbers). 1 [1]http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id [2] http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2004/childpov-response/govt-response.pdf [3] Appendix One [4] http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp0579.pdf Nickell, S. RES conference paper April 2003

Biomedical and Social Models of Health

Biomedical and Social Models of Health The bio-medical and social models of health offer different views of health and disease. Outline the main characteristics of each model and assess their strengths and weakness in explaining health and disease. Health can be viewed as the state of being fit and well, as well as a state of mental sanity (WHO 2005). According to Blaxter (2004), if a person can perform daily functions such as going to work, taking care of the household, etc he/she is healthy. Many studies have found that lay people define health as the absence of illness (Williams 1983, Calnan 1987, Hughner Kleine 2004). However being healthy means different things to different people as much have been said and written about peoples varying concepts of health. Some lay perceptions are based on pragmatism where health is regarded as a relative phenomenon, experienced and evaluated according to what an individual finds reasonable to expect, given their age, medical condition and social status. For them being healthy, may just mean not having a health problem, which interferes with their everyday lives (Bury 2005). Some taxonomies have evolved in attempt to define health. In this work, health has been considered from the perspective of biomedical and social models. According to Baggott (2004) the biomedical model of health looks at individual physical functioning and describes bad health as the presence of disease and illness symptoms as a result of physical cause such as injury or infections and attempts to ignore social and psychological factors. Baggott (2004) states that the features of biomedical model rest mainly on biomedical changes, which can be defined, measured and isolated. In effect this is directed towards the dysfunction of the organs and tissues of the body rather than the overall condition of the patient. Biomedical treatments often involve the removal of the cause, for instance the virus or bacteria. The biomedical model is based on the belief that there is always a cure and the idea that illness is temporary, episodic and a physical condition. The basic values of the biomedical model of health consist of the theory called doctrine of specific aetiology, which is the idea that all disease is caused by theoretically identifiable agents such as germs, bacteria or parasites (Naidoo Wills 2004). The advantage of biomedical model shows disease as representing a major public health problem facing our society. This model sees disease state as an issue that needs to be treated, and that disease can be readily diagnosed and quantified (Ewles Simnett 2003 2010). This approach appears narrow, negative and reductionist. In an extreme case, it implies that people with disabilities are unhealthy and that health is only about the absence of morbidity. Further, this model is limited in its approach by its omission of a time dimension. Modern biomedicine rests upon two major developments, both of which remain influential to this day. It is first important to consider the Cartesian revolution after the seventh century French philosophy Rene Descarts. The Cartesian revolution encouraged the idea that the body and mind are independent or not closely related (NRC 1985). In this mechanistic view, the body is perceived to function like a machine with its various parts individually treatable, and those that treat them considered engineers (Naidoo Wills 2004). Biomedical also concentrates on the individual unlike the social model. Biological model adopts a negative perspective on health as it views health more in terms of the absence of disease than the possession of healthy attributes (Baggott 2004). This model stresses the importance of advancing technology both in the diagnosis and treatment of disease, an approach that has undoubtedly improved both the knowledge and understanding of numerous diseases. Biomedical model has led to the improvements in the treatment of patients, which has favoured gains both in the length and quality of life of people. Despite the aforementioned feats, the biomedical model has received considerable criticism, as many writers have argued that it was inappropriate to modern, complex health problems (Inglis 1981). The medical model, in terms of specific health risks, does not encompass all of what health means to an individual. For instance, a physician speculating on what, based on current knowledge at the time, would be the composite picture of an individual with a low risk of developing coronary artery disease. Further criticisms of this theory focused principally on the suggestion that it over simplified biological processes now known to be very intricate. For many diseases there are multiple and interacting causes. Moreover, such a theory looks only to the agent of disease, and ignores the host, and the possibilities of biological adaptation. The theory is much more easily applicable to acute conditions than to chronic ill-health and is difficult to apply to mental disorders. The second theory of the biomedical model is called the assumption of generic disease. This is when each disease has its own distinguishing features that are universal, at least within the human species. These will be the same in different cultures and at different times, unless the disease-producing agent itself changes. Criticisms of this focus on the rather obvious point that diseases are differently defined in different cultures and that medical definitions of disease have clearly changed over time. Each new advance in knowledge of physiology and each new wave of technology have added new definitions of ill health to the accepted canon. Despite the doctrine of specific aetiology many conditions, which are still only symptoms or syndromes, are recognized within medicine as diseases. Generally, it can be seen that what is viewed as illness in any particular society and at any historical time depends on cultural norms and social values (Naidoo Wills 2004). Thus new diagnoses such as alcohol, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue syndromes are born through an interaction of new knowledge about both their possible causes and how they might possibly be helped. As a definition of disease what doctors treat has obvious problems, however, it implies that no one can be ill until recognised as such and leaves the concept at the mercy of idiosyncratic individual medical decisions. The third theory is the scientific biomedicine, which accepts the model of all ill-health as deviation from the normal especially the normal range of measurable biological variables. There is an association with the definition of health as equilibrium and disease as a disturbance of the bodys function, with the purpose of medical technology the restoration to equilibrium. The immune or endocrine, or neuropsychological systems attempt to restore the normal and the purpose of medicine is to instigate or assist this process. But medical science now realizes that the human organism has no set pattern for structure and function, and it is often unclear where normal variation ends and abnormality begins. The fourth theory of medical model is based on the principles of scientific neutrality. Medicine adopts not only the rational method of science but also its values objectivity and neutrality on the part of the observer, and the view of the human organism as simply the product of biological processes over which the individuals themselves have little control. The reply to this is that the practice of medicine, whatever its theory, is always deeply embedded in the larger society. It cannot be neutral, for there are wider social, political and cultural forces dictating how it does its work and how the unhealthy are dealt with. Biomedicine now admits multiple and interactive causes, and that the whole may be more than simply the sum of the parts. Social and psychological causes of ill health- stress, unhappiness, life events- are admitted as agents of disease or contributing factors, but they are not themselves defined as ill health. Modern medicine has moved on, to incorporate elaborate ideas about the various and interrelated causes of ill health. Studies of the way in which doctors make diagnoses demonstrate this, while at the same time lip service is paid to the importance of the social. Moreover, even when social and psychological influences are admitted this is still a very negatively oriented approach to health. The social model came about in mid twentieth century when there was increasing dissatisfaction with the dominant model of health offered by biomedicine. The preoccupation with disease and illness made it less able to deal with any positive concept of health. The ideology, which viewed the individual in mechanistic ways justified ever-increasing use of medical technologies, precluding the exercise of other therapies and diminishing the importance attached to positive health or preventive medicine. Since the last decade medical professional practice has become a major threat to health. Depression, infection, disability and other specific estrogenic disease now cause more suffering than all accidents from traffic or industry by transforming pain, illness and death from a personal challenge into a technical problem, medical practice expropriates the potential of people to deal with their human condition in an autonomous way and becomes the sources of a new kind of un-health. The emphasis on health as simply the absence of disease encouraged thinking about only two categories the health and the disease. As we are meant to believe that science can produce a utopia of disease free and lengthy life meaning scientists only look for their magic bullet. There is a feeling that the most angry critiques of the biomedical model was wilfully ignoring the contributions of modern science to human welfare. But claims to the unique truth of biomedicine were weakened by some loss of faith in sci entific objectivity and a distrust of a Frankenstein technology that could run out of control, and this was part of the modern movement towards a new model usually called social health. Social model of health imbibes social constructs and relativity in its approach to health. It tends to define and redefine health in a continuous manner, and views health differently between individuals, groups, times and cultures. Some supporters of Social model have written extensively about sickness having a role to play in various societies (Parsons 1951) as this helps to determine the structure of and functionality of the society. The concept of social health incorporates many differences of emphasis though it has to be noted that it is more than simply the recognition that social factors such as poverty have to be included in a model of the causes of ill health. The social model is a different construction, locating biological processes within their social contexts and considering the person as a whole rather than a series of distinct bodily systems. The social model is organic and holistic rather than reductionist mechanical method. A mechanical system acts according to its programming, its instructions, or natural laws. The social model allows for mental as well as physical health and wider sphere of taking part in active life. This model also allows for more subtle discrimination of individuals who succeed in leading productive lives in spite of a physical impairment. Another disadvantage of this model is that the conception runs the risk of excessive breadth and of incorporating all of life. Thus they do not distinguish clearly between the state of being healthy the consequences of being healthy nor do they distinguish between health and the determinants of health (Ewles Simnett 2010). The medical profession is a social institution, which cannot be separated from the values, pressures and influences of the society in which it practices. As health has been defined in various ways, most part rests on the ideas of the normal and of seeing health as opposed to disease or illness. In practice, the definition of health has always been the territory of those who define its opposite: healers, or practitioners of medicine as a science or a body of practical knowledge. Since medicine is one of societys major systems, it is obvious that it is these definitions which will be institutionalised and embodied in law and administration, though the extent to which lay models adds to or diverge from this body of ideas is significant to the individual in respect of their perception of health. Whilst the medical model built on the Cartesian theory of the body as a machine disorders can be corrected by repairing or replacing parts of the organism, holism describes the view that the whole cannot be explained simply by the sum of the parts, just as healthiness cannot be explained by a list of risk factors. Every disturbance in a system involves the whole system. Human beings are living networks formed by cognitive processes, values, and purposive intentions, not simply interacting components (Blaxter 2004). The development of this social model has been accompanied among the public, by a growing enthusiasm for alternative therapies, which tend to rest on holistic theories. Gradually, these too have been integrated to some extent into the mainstream model. In order to have a comprehensive understanding of health, one has to look at the phenomenon from various premise of health definition, as just one aspect may not provide complete answer to the enquiry about our health at a particular given time. It is therefore important to consider the various aspects of health when making judgement and decision about the health status of an individual. In summary, the biomedical model of health is obviously most easily defined by the absence of disease, though the model is also compatible with more positive definitions in terms of equilibrium of normal functioning. In the social model health is a positive state of wholeness and well being associated with but not entirely explained by the absence of disease, illness or physical and mental impairment. The concepts of health and ill-health are unbalanced. The absence of disease may be part of health but health is more than the absence of disease.

Public School Curriculum Content :: Education Curriculum Teaching Essays Papers

Public School Curriculum Content In this era of progressive thinking and open mindedness, it was only a matter of time before society tried to change our school system for the better. The long-standing theories of Charles Darwin on evolution are finally being contested. Intelligent Design has emerged as the leading opposition to Darwin's blasphemy, but another equally valid theory has recently made some noise in the world of evolution. The Flying Spaghetti Monster's Intelligent Design, also known as FSMism, has recently built up quite a following. These two theories are pushing very hard to one day be in our high school curriculum. Are ID and FSMism both worthy of being taught in our schools or is one more scientifically valid? Intelligent Design, or ID, states that there are certain aspects in nature that show individual signs of intelligence that can not be accounted for, or that are too complex for our understanding. Therefore, an "Intelligent Designer" must have deliberately created everything in nature that shows this unaccountable sign of intelligence. Followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, also called Pastafarians, follow the same criteria as ID proponents. On top of those ideals, Brian D Rabern, a Pastafarian and a member of the Department of Philosophy at UC Santa Barbara, adds another perspective. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause for existence. Since no scientific explanation can provide a causal account of the origin of the universe, the cause must be supernatural, i.e. a god. Therefore, a god exists. Gods create humans in their own image. The brains of humans resemble a bowl of spaghetti. Thus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god." This statement brings up the most blaring difference between ID and FSMism, the fact that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is defined and ID has no particular designer. The fact that ID has no specified designer has both positive and negative effects on the theory. On the one hand, having no higher power defined brings the separation of Church and State out of the equation. Conversely, since no higher power is mentioned, one would have to come to the conclusion that there is not just one higher power. ID states that an "Intelligent Designer" must have created anything that shows an unexplainable intelligence. This means that the "Intelligent Designer" would have to have unexplainable intelligence of his own which would lead to the conclusion that their must be another designer that designed him.

Televised Violence is Here to Stay :: Media Argumentative Persuasive Argument

Televised Violence is Here to Stay      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   One of the most heated issues debated, ever since the invention of the television, is the effects of media violence on society. Many try to wipe it out, but will undoubtedly fail. It has great educational and entertainment value. There have even been studies showing that viewing television violence will actually relieve stress. For these reasons, televised violence, including fights, with or without weapons, resulting in bloodshed, will never diminish.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Many parents try to shelter their kids from the violence portrayed on television. They only look at the negative aspect because the parents complain by saying the violence only teaches their children how to kill and to get away with it (Leonard 92).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Television is the most credible and believable source of information on the reality of the world. It teaches that the world is a violent and untrustworthy place (Bennett 168). It reports on how the world really works. Televised violence cultivates dominant assumptions about how conflict and power work in the world.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Violence is an important fact of life (Howitt 17). It is very much part of the human condition. The media cannot pretend that violence does not exist.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Televised violence orients people to their environment. It helps them understand their world. It serves as a mirror in which people examine themselves, their institutions, and their values (Comstock 357).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The exposure of children to televised violence is functional to the extent that it prepares them to cope with reality. Conflict is important for children to grow up with. It is part of their life. Kids should not be lead to think that nothing is going to happen to them (Comstock 354). Exposure to violence in childhood is not a bad idea. Ghetto children see violence unknown to other children. They have to live with it, and because it is so hateful, they do not get influenced by it. People who grew up in a tough ghetto situation regard others who did not as patsies, naive, and easy to use.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Children learn a good deal of their society's culture by viewing the violent television shows. People acquire definitions of appropriate behavior and interpretations of reality from the mass media. Lower income persons often think they are learning the style and etiquette of middle-class society from television programs (Ball 305).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The viewing of televised violence helps children academically, as well as socially. One study shows that children entering school, raised on the violent television shows, picked up a one-year advantage in vocabulary over children whose parents prohibit the viewing of violence (Clark 136).

Why Did Wwii Break Out in 1939?

The Second World War started for many reasons but the most important were: the treaty of Versailles and the negative impact it had upon Germany, the foreign policy of Adolf Hitler and what did the other countries do to stop Hitler’s actions. The treaty of Versailles was a very important factor for the break out of war. The treaty took away land from Germany and gave it to Poland, France and Britain. This land included the colonies that Germany had in Africa that was given to France and Britain.It made Germany pay huge reparations that left them in a crisis, and Germany was already in a crisis due to the war which made the germans felt it would stop them from recovering. There were a lot of unemployment and whole families suffered from constant hunger. They had to take blame for starting the war and they did not feel it was fair because it was Serbian terrorist groups that trigger it by killing the Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The treaty also ordered the reduction of the German ar my to only 100,000 men and it limited its navy to six battleships.The Germans didn’t feel this was fair because it meant that they were nearly helpless if someone tried to conquer them and they felt bitter as the other countries didn’t had to disarm. They also had to demilitarize the Rhineland. The Rhineland was the border between France and Germany and it was demilitarized in order to protect Alsace-Lorraine. The big three had different opinions on whether how to punish Germany. Woodrow Wilson (America) thought that Germany should be treated fairly because if it was punished too harshly they would want revenge.America did not suffer as much because of the war due to the fact that the war was not fought in America and they joined the war in 1917 so they did not had such many casualties as the other countries. Lloyd George wanted also a fair settlement but the British people, as Georges Clemenceau (France), wanted revenge because all of the soldiers killed in battle and all of the harm they had done to their country. The Germans became vengeful because overall they did not see fair the treaty of Versailles and the sate it had left the country and they had their revenge with the war.The second factor was Adolf Hitler’s foreign policy. Hitler wanted to make Germany a big and powerful country so he could have revenge of the other countries because of the treaty. He started to get back all of the things that the treaty had took from Germany, starting with the joining of Germany and Austria. Hitler sent his troops and made the Austrians hold a vote to join Germany to Austria. The Nazis rigged the vote so that 99% of the Austrians voted for unification.I think that he wanted to unite with Austria because Austrians had German blood so they were part of the Master race, he also wanted Germany to be big and powerful and with Austria he would have more territory and there would be more people working for Germany and it’s army. Then he demanded the Sudetenland region of Austria back to Germany because there were 3 million German people living there and also the Sudetenland had good farming areas and also a lot of raw materials and industries.This meant that there would be more food for German people and its army, the raw materials and the industries could be used for the air force and navy for the German army. After invading the Sudetenland, the German troops invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia. I think Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia to have a better chance against the USSR and also to make easier the invasion of Poland by having more land around it. Hitler then made a non-aggression pact with Stalin, they agreed not to fight each other and to share Poland between them.Hitler wanted the land of the Polish Corridor back to Germany because it had cut Germany in two and many German people lived there. But Poland refused to give back the lands because it would mean that they would lose the only access they had to th e sea. Hitler invaded Poland so he could have back that land and to expand its territories. More land meant more men in the army and more space to oppose the USSR. And the last of the most important factors of the breakout of the war was the fact that other countries only reacted and decided to fight back when Hitler conquered Poland.When Hitler began to rearm Germany they didn’t do nothing because they were more worried of the communist invasion and they thought that a stronger Germany could protect Europe from the USSR. Then, when Hitler rearmed the Rhineland they did not do anything because they thought that it was reasonable for Germany to have troops in their own territories, I think that the other countries weren’t as bothered with the treaty as they were in 1919. When Hitler United with Austria and the Austrian leader asked for help Britain, France and Italy didn’t do wanted was peace.In 1938, Britain and France made an agreement with Hitler saying that h e could have the Sudetenland back if he didn’t took the rest of Czechoslovakia. They were so centered on maintaining peace that they didn’t even talked to the Czechs of this. But when Hitler broke this agreement they didn’t help Czechoslovakia because they wanted to evade war by any means and they promised Poland that if they were attacked by Hitler’s army they would help them. They began to prepare for war because they knew that if Hitler continued his invasions then Poland would go next.When Hitler invaded Poland, England and France declared war on Germany but they did not send any troops to help Poland as they had promised because they thought it was too late for Poland. On my opinion, if the other countries had decided to act earlier when Hitler was beginning to expand they would have been able to evade war because he was not powerful enough. I think that if they had actually tried to stop war they would have actually done something because it was ver y obvious that Hitler wanted revenge and he would do more than reversing the treaty of Versailles.If they had done something things could have been very different to what they are now. There wouldn’t have been so many deaths from soldiers and citizens from the cities, and also whole cities would not have been devastated by the bombs. Also there would not have been as many victims from the holocaust were thousands of Jews died in the concentration camps. In conclusion, the other countries could have prevented the WWII from happening easily by acting when Hitler was weaker.

Recreation, Leisure and Play Essay

The idea of leisure has been in existence for many centuries and has come to have many different meanings depending on the period in history or the civilization that it originated from. From as early as Ancient Greece, Rome or Babylonia, the term we now know as leisure has existed in some form or another. As has been widely noted in introductory recreation texts, schole was both the ancient Greek word for leisure meaning, â€Å"serious activity without the pressure of necessity† and is the root of the English word for school (Godbey, 2003). To the ancient Greeks, leisure, education, and culture were intertwined. In other words, learning was available only for the rich, people with the wealth to afford free time. Leisure, as we know it today, has changed from the original meaning of the word. From what I have read and found in various books and articles, Leisure can be defined in 3 different ways: leisure defined as a state of being or a state of mind, leisure defined as an activity, and leisure defined as time. I will discuss the various definitions of leisure today and then discuss my issues with each definition. Leisure Defined as a State of Mind Leisure defined as a state of mind is, in my mind, the least often used definition of the word. The way to understand this concept would be use it in the context such as â€Å"someone who is at leisure†; meaning freedom from anxiety, obligation, or constraint or having an internal locus of control. Locus of Control refers to an individual’s perception of main causes of events in life. More simply, having an internal locus of control means that you believe that you are the master of your own destiny. John Neulinger (1974) states: Leisure has one and only one essential criterion, and that is the condition of perceived freedom. Any activity carried out freely, without constraint or compulsion, may be considered to be leisure. â€Å"To leisure† implies being engaged in any activity as a free agent and of one’s own choice. (p. 12) Now I want you to keep in mind this idea of leisure as any activity of one’s own free willed decision because I am going to touch on it again during the leisure defined as time. Leisure Defined as an Activity Leisure defined as an activity is used widely as well. Most people would agree that leisure activity is something that is fun and enjoyable during a non-working time. This idea makes it difficult to pinpoint a leisure activity though. Understanding if the activity is performed for intrinsic or extrinsic purposes may be the deciding factor whether the activity is leisure or not. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties plays an essential role in stating several interesting philosophical problems. Why am I performing this action? If you are doing the activity because you enjoy it, then you are performing it for its intrinsic value. If you do not want to participate in an activity, but you know that you will benefit from the activity, you are performing it for its extrinsic value. An example would be a person who practices on the piano because they like to play, versus a person who practices piano because they want to win a music contest. Who of the two is experiencing leisure as an activity? Most people would agree that the first person is definitely experiencing leisure as an activity. The second person is where the debate lays. It is the same exact activity as the first person, but the motivation for performing the activity is different. I feel that as long as you, as a free willed individual, choose to perform any activity then you are experiencing leisure as an activity because you are fulfilling your desires. I feel that the only time when you are may not experience leisure is when you are dying. If you have lived a long life and eventually die from old age, I do not believe that you made the decision out of free will to pass away. Although, if a person commits suicide, does that persons free willed decision make the act of dying a leisure activity? Some good questions to ask: If your career is your passion, are you always at leisure? Conversely, is a person without a job always at leisure? Musicians, professional athletes, and the homeless are all specific examples of situations that may help answer these questions. Leisure Defined as Time Leisure defined as time may be the most commonly understood meaning of the word today because of its positive connotations (Martin, 1975). People often use the word leisure and the term free time interchangeably. On the surface this definition seems fine, but as you delve deeper and ask difficult questions, it starts to become less clear. What is free time? Free time is defined as time free of obligations or responsibilities, or time to do with what you please. As Neulinger stated his definition of leisure, performing the activity out of free will is the deciding factor for whether it is leisure or not. This idea brings this thought to mind. All human beings have been blessed with the gift of free will; a consciousness of who we are and of the decisions we make. Without consciousness we would still be aware of what is going on around us, but we would react to it in a reflexive, instinctive way. With consciousness, we can deliberately weigh what the senses tell us, and respond accordingly. If this definition holds true, shouldn’t all of life be considered leisure? Every decision, every action, comes from our decisions of our own free will. If we continue with this thought, some questions arise: †¢ Are there any instances in life that would prevent you from experiencing free will? †¢ Do we always make decisions based on our desires? †¢ Do having priorities that are not in sync with our desires negate our free will? These questions came after having a conversation with my friend. She told me that when you are a parent, you have obligations to your children that may interfere with your free time. This is where the damn breaks open and it is up to the individual to decide. Her question was, â€Å"What if my needs as a parent cannot be fulfilled because I have work to make sure my kids are fed and clothed? † I feel that even though you have the responsibility as a parent to provide for your children, you made the decision to have a child knowing full well the obligations and responsibilities that would ultimately come with that decision. Free time, who would have thought two little words, would bring up so many questions? My Definition of Leisure After contemplating on the various definitions of the term leisure I propose the following: Leisure is the phenomenon experienced by all self aware beings whose decisions are based out of free will, whether those decisions are made in the conscious or subconscious mind of the individual. Recreation Recreation is any activity which is relaxing to humans or provides diversions from their normal routine, and in many ways is also a therapeutic refreshment of one’s body or mind. Any activity can potentially be a recreational one. Vacations to exotic islands, sporting events, meditation, watching television, or playing monopoly are all forms of recreation. A key factor to the activity being considered a recreational activity is whether or not it is pleasurable. If the activity is not pleasurable then the activity cannot be considered recreational because it is not rejuvenating to the body or mind. For example, a couple travels to the Caribbean for a second honeymoon. They have planned the vacation far in advance and the tickets and reservations are non-refundable. Upon arriving, the weather is awful and the couple is unable to participate in any of the activities they had planned for the trip. Even though the fact they were engaging in a commercial recreational activity, the weather prevented them from having an enjoyable time and therefore the vacation was not recreating to oneself or another. With the information provided, this vacation would not be classified as recreation. Fairchild defined recreation as â€Å"any activity pursued during leisure, either individual or collective, that is free and pleasurable, having its own immediate appeal, not impelled by a delayed reward beyond itself† (Fairchild, 1944). Another aspect of recreation was presented by Gray and Greben (1974) as: an emotional condition within an individual human being that flows from a feeling of well-being and self-satisfaction. It is characterized by feeling of mastery, achievement, exhilaration, acceptance, success, personal worth, and pleasure. It reinforces positive self-image. Recreation is a response to aesthetic experience, achievement of personal goals, or positive feedback from others. It is independent of activity, leisure, or personal acceptance. (p. 23) This definition is not focused on the activity itself, but on the individual’s reaction to the activity; the individuals state of mind. I would agree that this definition touches the heart of the subject much better. I stated earlier that any activity has the potential of being a recreational activity. This is true because it depends on how the individual feels about the activity. Most people experience pleasure during activities like exercise, sports, relaxing, and vacationing. If you think along these lines then it is easy to understand why some activities are generalized as recreational and why some are not. Although some people consider work pleasurable, most people do not love their job. This is why I believe that work is not universally accepted as recreational. My Definition of Recreation After contemplating on the various definitions of the term recreation I propose the following: Recreation is a positive state of mind achieved during any physical or non-physical activities characterized by feelings which are rejuvenating and recreating to the body and spirit. Play Leisure and recreation as I discussed them are states of mind experienced by an individual. Play, although related to these concepts, is different in the fact that it is a means to achieve this positive state of mind which all living beings desire. Play has existed since the beginning of time. Johan Huizinga (1950) described the characteristics of play as: †¢ Voluntary behavior †¢ Stepping outside of â€Å"ordinary life† †¢ Secluded and limited in time and space †¢ Not serious but absorbs the player intensely †¢ Bounded by rules †¢ Promoting formation of social groups that surround themselves with secrecy As you read the characteristics, you realize that they appear in all forms of play. Although play is a common occurrence within all ages of life, it is a concept that it liked to immaturity in today’s society. The Instinctual Aspect of Play. Play is a puzzle to scientists. Why do animals spend so much time and energy doing such silly things that seem to have no purpose? The struggle for survival in nature is deadly serious. What place is there for activities that don’t help animals eat, grow, and reproduce? Play is also very risky. Animals can break bones, pull muscles, or get bitten too hard. In a study of 14 Siberian ibexes (wild goats), more than one-third were hurt badly enough during play to cause limps-a serious concern in the race for survival. And animals can become so wrapped up in play that they are unaware of danger. One study showed that 80 percent of the deaths among young fur seals occurred because the playing pups didn’t see predators coming! (Braaf 2003,  ¶ 4) Why is play worth the risk? Many scientists believe it’s essential for survival-as important as food or sleep. Why Play? Most scientists believe that when animals play, they are practicing skills they’ll need later in life. This is why different kinds of animals play in different ways. Young predators, such as wolves, lions, and bears, play by stalking, pouncing, biting, and shaking their heads from side to side. They’re honing their skills for when they will run down, catch, and kill prey. When a wolf pup chases its own tail, bites it, and yanks it back and forth, the pup is rehearsing skills it’ll need one day as a hunter. Research shows that smarter animals spend more time playing. Elephants play more than horses. Chimps play more than macaques. Wolves play more than rabbits. And parrots play more than either ducks or sparrows. Smarter animals also play in more creative and complex ways. Not surprisingly, humans and chimpanzees are among the most playful species. (Braaf 2003,  ¶ 9) Here are three questions to start with: Why do humans play? Is play something that is learned, or is it instinctual? And what purpose does it serve in humans? To answer the first question, Godbey (2003) presents the following: If you put a person in a dark tank of water heated to same temperature as their body in a dark room devoid of sound, their need for stimulation will be so great that they will usually start to hallucinate. If you are walking down the street with nothing much absorbing your attention, you may start to notice cracks in the sidewalk and make up a game in which you have to avoid stepping on them. (p. 46) In conclusion, humans need stimulation. If the mind is idle then the person will seek out the stimulation in his or her surroundings. Whether or play is instinctual or learned, I believe that it is both. Most games that we play are learned, such as baseball, hide and seek, or even make believe games such as house. Obviously, not all forms of play are taught though. As in the example from Godbey, a person will make up a form of play if there are no other options for stimulation. Finally to understand the purpose of play in humans we must first discuss the four forms of play developed by Caillois (1958). †¢ The pursuit of vertigo in which one tries to momentarily destroy the stability of perception, escaping reality for the moment. †¢ Games of chance †¢ Make Believe †¢ Contests which require appropriate training, the application of skill, and the desire to win As in animals in the wild, play is used to hone a person’s skill for later in life. Some examples of this are interacting with other children on the playground, which will increase social skills, hitting rocks with a stick, which will increase hand-eye coordination, and cloud watching, which will develop a persons imagination. My Definition of Play After contemplating on the various definitions of the term play I propose the following: Play is voluntary behavior, bounded by rules, experienced by both human and non-human beings, which stimulates the mind and body, prepares an individual for similar future situations, and allows for personal growth within the individual. How Leisure, Recreation, and Play Relate Now that I have discussed my definitions of leisure, recreation, and play, I will explain how my definitions are related to one another. As I stated earlier, Leisure is the phenomenon experienced by all self aware beings whose decisions are based out of free will, whether those decisions are made in the conscious or subconscious mind of the individual. Life, to me, is leisure because of our ability to act out of free will. The question should not be, â€Å"Is this activity a leisure activity? †, but rather, â€Å"Is this activity considered good or bad leisure? † Recreation, I feel, is a subset of leisure. All of recreation can be considered leisure, but not the converse. Recreation is a positive state of mind achieved during any physical or non-physical activities characterized by feelings which are rejuvenating and recreating to the body and spirit. The reason that not all of leisure can be considered recreation is because not all of life is recreating to the mind and spirit. Play is a subset of recreation. Similar to leisure and Recreation, all of play is recreation, but not the converse. Play is voluntary behavior, bounded by rules, experienced by both human and non-human beings, which stimulates the mind and body, prepares an individual for similar future situations, and allows for personal growth within the individual. The main difference is that play is bounded by rules where recreation is not. Some examples of recreation that are not considered play would be meditation, reading, or watching TV. If you look at the following diagram, I think it makes it easier to understand the relationship between all three of the concepts. [pic] Leisure is all encompassing. Within it lays recreation and play. Although they are both within leisure there are still some aspects of leisure that are not considered recreation. This blue arrow points to this area. The red arrow points to the area that is recreational but does not classify as play. Quality of Life The well-being or quality of life of a person is an important concern when trying to understand leisure, recreation, and play in an individual’s life. Understanding quality of life is today particularly important in health care, where monetary measures do not readily apply. Decisions on what research or treatments to invest the most in are closely related to their effect of a patient’s quality of life. There are many components to well-being. A large part is standard of living, the amount of money and access to goods and services that a person has; these numbers are fairly easily measured. Others components like freedom, happiness, art, environmental health, and innovation are far harder to measure and are generally considered to be more important. There are two main strategies we can adopt to improve the quality of life in our everyday lives. The first is to try making external conditions match our goals. The second is to change how we experience external conditions to make them fit our goals better. Neither of the strategies is effective when used alone. Changing external conditions might seem to work at first, but if a person is not in control of his or her consciousness, the old fears or desires will soon return, reviving previous anxieties. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 89) For instance, feeling secure is an important component of happiness. The sense of security can be improved by purchasing a gun for home protection, placing security locks on the front door, having an alarm unit installed, or moving to a safer neighborhood. All of these actions would fall under making our external conditions fit our goals better. One also has to understand that perfect safety is, in all reality, not possible and risks are inevitable. Once a person understands this then the threat of insecurity will not have as great of a chance of having a person live in fear; ultimately ruining ones quality of life. In society today, wealth, status and power have become symbols of happiness. People often assume that the rich and famous have very rewarding lives just because of their status. We often assume that life would be better if we were in other peoples shoes. The reality of the situation is that quality of life does not depend directly on what others think about us or what we own, but rather how we feel about ourselves and what happens to us in our everyday lives. Some people today suffer from affluenza, the bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses. It is an epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by dogged pursuit of the American Dream. In layman’s terms, affluenza is experienced when people have the mentality that their possessions is what defines them as an individual. This is not to say that having nice things, being famous, or being is peak physical condition are irrelevant to happiness. These things can be genuine blessings but only if they make us feel better without having to sacrifice other important aspects of our life. Research on happiness suggests that in general, there is a mild correlation between wealth and well-being. Given these observations, instead of worrying about how to make a million dollars or how to win friends and influence people, it seems more beneficial to find out how everyday life can be made more harmonious and more satisfying, and thus achieve by a direct route what cannot be reached through the pursuit of symbolic goals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, p. 91). How Leisure, Recreation and Play Affect Quality of Life Everyone is familiar with stress. We experience it in varying forms and degrees every day. In small doses, stress can actually be beneficial to us. It is only when the stress becomes too great, affecting our physical or mental functioning, that it becomes a problem. The stress response of the body is meant to protect and support us. To maintain stability or homeostasis, the body is constantly adjusting to its surroundings. When a physical or mental event threatens this equilibrium, we react to it. This process is often referred to as the â€Å"fight or flight response. † We prepare for physical action in order to confront or flee a threat. When it is part of a natural reaction to challenge or danger, the body’s response is called positive stress. However, when you feel out of control or under intense pressure, you may experience the physical, emotional, or relational symptoms brought on by negative stress. Stress can cause both physical and emotional in an individual’s life. Stress adversely affects reproduction, sexual behavior, and growth. Stress inhibits the immune system, making you more vulnerable to colds, flu, fatigue and infections. Leisure, recreation and play are natural ways to reduce negative stress that builds up in the body therefore improving ones quality of life. The human body is like any other system in nature. If we don’t have ways to vent our stress from everyday life through activities that are pleasurable, we will start to experience the negative side effects of stress. Final Thoughts My thoughts on the subject of leisure, recreation, and play before this paper could not be further from where my thoughts are now. I feel that too much emphasis is placed on unimportant things today. Society, more so than ever, has gotten into the habit of treating the symptoms of people, instead of treating the individual. I feel that having a better understanding of the concepts of recreation, leisure, and play and the role they play in your life will ultimately lead to a happier and hopefully longer life. Refrences Braaf, E. (2003). Why animals love to play. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from Find Articles Website: http://www. findarticles. com/p/articles/mi_qa4128/ is_200311/ai_n9307508/pg_1 Caillois, R. (1958). Man, play and games. Glencoe, IL: The Free press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow ‘ The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, NY. Harper and Row. Fairchild, H. (1944). Dictionary of sociology (pp. 251-252). New York, NY: Philosophical Library. Godbey, G. (2003). Leisure in your life: An exploration. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Gray, D. and Greben, S. (1974, July). Future Perspectives. Parks and recreation, 61, 49 Hiuzinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play element in culture. Boston, MA: Beacon Press Martin, A. (1975, March). Leisure and our inner resources. Parks and Recreation, 69. 1-16 Neulinger, J. (1974). The psychology of leisure: Research approaches to the study of leisure. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishers.