Best Writer

create an instrcutional strategy plan to meet the emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs of college students. requires 5 sources in apa fomat. the reflection is 500 word summary of the plan.

NOTE: Your reflective essay should be composed as an essay of 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words) typed, double-spaced, 12 pt.Times New Roman font. See “Reflective Essay” rubric below for additional guidelines.
Review the case study below and answer the following questions:
Case Study:
A gym teacher’s wallet was stolen at a local High school located in Bronx, NY by a 14-year-old male student. Another student in the class reported witnessing the 14-year-old classmate steal the wallet and when questioned, the student confessed. The teacher reported the loss of $300.00 in cash. There is a loss of trust amongst school staff and other students in the class. There are also feelings of anger from affected parties including the mother of the teenage boy.
Provide historical background on theft laws (cite references)
Specifically, describe the theft laws in NY state.
How does the traditional criminal justice approach respond to the violation of theft laws?
How can community-oriented strategies in criminal justice be used to address theft?
Select a restorative justice program and explain how you would applied to this case study (i.e. What is the restorative process, and restorative outcome look like? Who is the victim, offender, and community in this case)

Submission: Assignments requiring submission as Word docs are to be uploaded to Blackboard, via the “Assignment” link for the week in which they are due. Assignments will be screened using SafeAssign, Blackboard’s anti-plagiarism software.
Formatting: Unless otherwise indicated, all assignments should be written in formal essay format, typed, 12 pt. Times New Roman font with your full heading. The file name for your Word doc should indicate your name and the assignment name (i.e., Amma Aidoo, RE 2). See handout under the “Course Information/Syllabus” tab for additional guidelines. IMPORTANT NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, assignments WILL NOT be accepted via email.
Citation: Students will be required to cite sources according to the APA citation style format: (author, year of publication, page number). In text citations are required when referencing direct quotes or paraphrased ideas which are not your own. Papers exceeding 3 pages in length must include a reference page detailing all sources in APA format.
NOTE: Your reflective essay should be composed as an essay of 6-8 pages (1500-2000 words) typed, double-spaced, 12 pt.Times New Roman font. See “Reflective Essay” rubric below for additional guidelines.
Review the case study below and answer the following questions:
Case Study:
A gym teacher’s wallet was stolen at a local High school located in Bronx, NY by a 14-year-old male student. Another student in the class reported witnessing the 14-year-old classmate steal the wallet and when questioned, the student confessed. The teacher reported the loss of $300.00 in cash. There is a loss of trust amongst school staff and other students in the class. There are also feelings of anger from affected parties including the mother of the teenage boy.
Provide historical background on theft laws (cite references)
Specifically, describe the theft laws in NY state.
How does the traditional criminal justice approach respond to the violation of theft laws?
How can community-oriented strategies in criminal justice be used to address theft?
Select a restorative justice program and explain how you would applied to this case study (i.e. What is the restorative process, and restorative outcome look like? Who is the victim, offender, and community in this case)

Submission: Assignments requiring submission as Word docs are to be uploaded to Blackboard, via the “Assignment” link for the week in which they are due. Assignments will be screened using SafeAssign, Blackboard’s anti-plagiarism software.
Formatting: Unless otherwise indicated, all assignments should be written in formal essay format, typed, 12 pt. Times New Roman font with your full heading. The file name for your Word doc should indicate your name and the assignment name (i.e., Amma Aidoo, RE 2). See handout under the “Course Information/Syllabus” tab for additional guidelines. IMPORTANT NOTE: Unless otherwise indicated, assignments WILL NOT be accepted via email.
Citation: Students will be required to cite sources according to the APA citation style format: (author, year of publication, page number). In text citations are required when referencing direct quotes or paraphrased ideas which are not your own. Papers exceeding 3 pages in length must include a reference page detailing all sources in APA format.

feminist critique of “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever.” Your essay should include: (1) a short (sentence or two) summary of the film and (2) draw on Laura Sjorberg’s analysis and, Kabeer article. How does the film’s implementation of gender and sexuality elevate and/or denigrate specific groups (e.g., cultures, nations, genders, people characterized by sexuality, individuals to the extent their characters are defined by gender and/or sexuality)?

Use Articles only 2019-2023 base literature review off of these and add to it as needed. The methodology is online survey with 5 people
Dixon, K. B. (2020). Bariatric Patient Reported Outcomes and the Use of Interprofessional
Intervention (Order No. 28150757). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2455589021). https://go.openathens.net/redirector/liberty.edu?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/bariatric-patient-reported-outcomes-use/docview/2455589021/se-2
Hanssen, R., Thanarajah, S. E., Tittgemeyer, M., & Brüning, J. C. (2022). Obesity – A Matter of
Motivation?. Experimental and clinical endocrinology & diabetes: official journal, German Society of Endocrinology [and] German Diabetes Association, 130(5), 290–295. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1749-4852
Sarwer, D. B., & Polonsky, H. M. (2016). The Psychosocial Burden of Obesity. Endocrinology
and metabolism clinics of North America, 45(3), 677–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecl.2016.04.016
Vázquez-Velázquez, V., & García García, E. (2022). Feasibility and Effectiveness of a
Comprehensive Care Program for People Living with Obesity: A Real-World Experience in a Public Hospital in Mexico. Obesity facts, 15(6), 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1159/000527024
Weiss, F., Barbuti, M., Carignani, G., Calderone, A., Santini, F., Maremmani, I., & Perugi, G.
(2020). Psychiatric Aspects of Obesity: A Narrative Review of Pathophysiology and Psychopathology. Journal of clinical medicine, 9(8), 2344. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9082344

Main question for my essay to respond is When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?When the interests of the individual and the norms of society conflict, how should that conflict be addressed and resolved?

Week 3 Assignment- Action Research Project Chapter 2
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your ability locating, analyzing, and applying credible, reliable research that will support your study and thesis paper. Identify five additional sources (professional articles or studies and offer an explanation of how each applies to your topic) and add these to the 9 sources you used in weeks 1 & 2. This will constitute Chapter 2 of your thesis paper.
Assignment Directions
Your Week 3 Written Assignment should have the following sections:
Introduction: Briefly describe your problem-statement and research question.
Body of Literature Review: Discuss five additional scholarly peer reviewed references (in addition to the six you already have used) that support your research in the context of your topic/problem statement. Describe the relevance of these articles to your study. Provide your analysis of how the research (the 11 resources thus far) supports your proposed study; mention each source/study and offer particulars. Did the articles or other references provide new information? Have they generated additional questions? How will you use these to confirm your proposal or to change the direction of your work? What generalizations can be derived from the research you are citing?
Conclusion: Use this final section to summarize and provide a cohesive conclusion for your chapter.
Page Requirements
7-10 pages excluding the title page and references.
References
This assignment should use a minimum of 5 additional quality references (e.g., .org, .edu, peer-reviewed journals, etc.) obtained from the library and/or scholarly online sources (added on to the 9 minimum you used in the week 1 and 2 papers). You will need your APA manual for this assignment.
Grading Criteria
This assignment is worth 10% of your grade.
Writing Studio
Please consider using the Writing Studio for feedback on this assignment. You can find directions on how to use the service in student resources.
Saving the Assignment
Please submit/attach this assignment in MS Word as LastNameResearchWeek#Course# (e.g., Davis Research Week 3 RSM551).
Due Date
Please submit this assignment by Sunday at midnight.
Week 3 Written Action Research Assignment Rubric
Quality of Content (80 Points)
___/15: Introduction (area of study, purpose, statement of the problem, research question, anticipated population)
___/50: Literature Review (5 additional quality of sources added to the six from weeks 1 & 2, directly link to research topic, summary of content of research, and relevance)
___/15: Conclusion
Quality of Writing (20 Points)
___/ 5: Format – Text meets APA/MSE standards.
___/ 5: Organization – Organization of paper demonstrates critical thinking. (Paper contains cover page, introduction, conclusion, headings, and effective transitions).
___/ 5: Precision – Student uses terminology and writes clearly and concisely.
___/ 5: Mechanics – Student spells, constructs sentences, and punctuates correctly.
Total: 100

The review of literature
Welcome to Week 3! During this week, we will be considering a variety of data collection methods, and when/why you would choose those methods based on the problem you are working with. We will also be doing some background exploration into the literature on the problem we are exploring. Literature should be scholarly, credible, found from the Keiser library, and focused on the background of this problem in the field, challenges faced, best practices/recommendations, and theory that supports the topic and potential findings/plans.
Note: for those doing formal action research, you will need to choose a methodology that makes the most sense for your problem. For those doing the data-based implementation project/plan, you will need to understand these methods during the “needs assessment” phase of the project.

Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).Research ONE of the following important cases in U.S. bioethics:
Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).Research ONE of the following important cases in U.S. bioethics:
Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).Research ONE of the following important cases in U.S. bioethics:
Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).Research ONE of the following important cases in U.S. bioethics:
Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).Research ONE of the following important cases in U.S. bioethics:
Nancy Cruzan
Terri Schiavo
Using one or more of the bioethics concepts found on Canvas (in the “Bioethics—Definition and Concepts” reading), such as autonomy, beneficence, informed consent, or other concepts such as “futility” which you may find useful, analyze the case you have selected from the perspective of the principle stakeholders (clinicians, attorneys, insurance companies, family members, the patient, the state, political interest groups as relevant).
Whose perspectives carried the most authoritative weight and why, in your opinion?
Take caution when using autonomy in these cases as someone unconscious only has autonomy if they left an advanced directive. Someone acting for them isn’t an example of autonomy.
Sources:
On Canvas, you will find sources to inform your analysis. One is an article on Terri Schiavo by Timothy Quill, and another, an article on Nancy Cruzan by George Annas. In addition, we have included a supplemental piece by Barbara Koenig, which you may find interesting and several other articles. Should you require additional references, please select reliable ones, such as major newspapers considered primary sources. These include New York Times, LA Times, London Times, Le Monde, or editorials from medical journals such as JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine. Do not use internet blogs or Wikipedia.
Please include a works cited page and in-text citations in Chicago Style. For example, in-text citations will include: (author date, page).

One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).One of the vexing problems in partnership law involves management rights in partnerships with only two partners. In the event of an internal dispute about a matter of partnership business, William Draper Lewis suggested that the UPA as written made the result clear: “A contract made by one of two partners against the protest of the other is not made by a majority. The implication from the section as worded, therefore, is that such a contract, the third person knowing of the protest, would not be a partnership contract.” William Draper Lewis, The Uniform Partnership Act—A Reply to Mr. Crane’s Criticism, 29 Harv. L. Rev. 291, 302 (1911). This view has not always prevailed in the courts. In the well-known case of National Biscuit Company, Inc. v. Stroud, 106 S.E.2d 692 (N.C. 1959), the Supreme Court of North Carolina faced this issue in the context of a partnership that operated a grocery store. One of the two partners (Stroud) decided that he no longer wanted to purchase bread from Nabisco, and he told Nabisco that he would not be personally liable for any future orders. When the other partner (Freeman) subsequently ordered bread, Nabisco delivered. Upon the failure of the partnership to pay for the bread, Nabisco sued Stroud for payment. The court held Stroud personally liable, reasoning:

Freeman as a general partner with Stroud, with no restrictions on his authority to act within the scope of the partnership business so far as the agreed statement of facts shows, had under the Uniform Partnership Act “equal rights in the management and conduct of the partnership business.” Under [UPA §18(h)], Stroud, his co-partner, could not restrict the power and authority of Freeman to buy bread for the partnership as a going concern, for such a purchase was an “ordinary matter connected with the partnership business,” for the purpose of its business and within its scope, because in the very nature of things Stroud was not, and could not be, a majority of the partners. Therefore, Freeman’s purchases of bread from plaintiff for Stroud’s Food Center as a going concern bound the partnership and his co-partner Stroud. . . .

While this case neatly displays the tension between the rules governing management rights and the rules governing authority, cases involving third-party claims against divided two-person partnerships are fairly rare.*1 A more common problem arises when a rogue partner acts in a manner that exposes other partners to liability. As you evaluate that problem, consider the possible justifications for holding partners responsible for fraudulent behavior that they did not condone.

For the sake of discussing the remaining problems in this chapter, assume that Lloyd Park and John Blaylock formed a general partnership, later adding a third partner named Kenneth Wheeler, who had expertise in real estate development. Wheeler was not licensed to practice in California, but he was licensed to practice in Arizona. In December 2018, Wheeler engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in several real estate transactions and began misappropriating client funds in connection with those transactions.

Questions Presented:

(1) If parties to the foregoing real estate transactions sued the law firm partnership because of Wheeler’s actions, under what circumstances would the law firm or its partners incur liability for Wheeler’s actions?

(2) If the law firm instructed Wheeler not to practice law until he obtained his license, would that influence your answer? Would it matter to your answer that the misappropriations would have been difficult for the other partners to detect?

(3) What preventative decisions, documents, policies and so forth, been valuable to prevent liability to the other partners. (Be Creative).

This assessment addresses the following course objective(s):

Analyze global health disparities through different perspectives.
Determine how socioeconomic status impacts health outcomes.
Define the principles of ethics and human rights as related to global health.
After completing Unit 2, you should be able to answer challenging questions that are concerned with human rights in the context of global health ethics. One of the most common ethical concerns worldwide is the access to quality and affordable medical care. Reflect back on the human rights that were outlined in this Unit. Now, think about the question, “Is health care a human right?”

You will write a five-paragraph persuasive essay answering the question, “Is health care a human right?” Be sure to include:

A strong introduction
Supporting paragraphs with details/examples
A thorough and thoughtful conclusion to support your argument
All components of an APA-formatted paper
You may want to conduct additional outside research.

APA requirements: Title and reference pages, three references

New trends in nursing education are emerging which require the development of new programs to facilitate and develop various teaching modalities and strategies of critical thinking and skills set which will prepare nursing students to work in a changing healthcare system. In a two – three (2-3) page paper (APA format), describe the following:

1. Identify two studies of a contemporary nursing education strategy (use of smartphone/apps, Simulation Models, or Distance Education).
2. Compare and contrast any similarities or differences in their educational model.
3. Summarize their findings and identify the effectiveness of the technology and any other alternative learning strategy.
4. How will this innovation affect nursing practice or nursing education? Include any pros and cons.

Paper should include an abstract. Title and reference pages are not included in the 2-3 pages. Minimum of three (3) references required

Unit 1: Readings
Cherry and Jacob Chapter 1, 2, 3; Notes on Nursing Page 1-36
Evolution of Professional Nursing; The Contemporary Image of Professional Nursing; The Influence of Contemporary Trends and Issues on Nursing EducationUnit 1: Readings