explain the respect for rights
Answers
Answered by
2
Respect for persons is the concept that all people deserve the right to fully exercise theirautonomy. Showing respect for persons is a system for interaction in which one entity ensures that another has agency to be able to make a choice.
This concept is usually discussed in the context of research ethics. It is one of the three basic principles of research ethics stated in the Belmont Report issued by the Office of Human Subject Research; it comprises two essential moral requirements: to recognize the right for autonomy and to protect individuals who are disadvantaged to the extent that they cannot practice this right.[1]
An autonomous person is defined as an individual who is capable of self-legislation and is able to make judgments and actions based on his/her particular set of values, preferences, and beliefs. Respecting a person’s autonomy thus involves considering his/her choices and decisions without deliberate obstruction. It also requires that subjects be treated in a non-degrading manner out of respect for their dignity. In practice, respect for persons is operationalized by obtaining Informed Consent from all individuals who are going to be research subjects.
This concept is usually discussed in the context of research ethics. It is one of the three basic principles of research ethics stated in the Belmont Report issued by the Office of Human Subject Research; it comprises two essential moral requirements: to recognize the right for autonomy and to protect individuals who are disadvantaged to the extent that they cannot practice this right.[1]
An autonomous person is defined as an individual who is capable of self-legislation and is able to make judgments and actions based on his/her particular set of values, preferences, and beliefs. Respecting a person’s autonomy thus involves considering his/her choices and decisions without deliberate obstruction. It also requires that subjects be treated in a non-degrading manner out of respect for their dignity. In practice, respect for persons is operationalized by obtaining Informed Consent from all individuals who are going to be research subjects.
Answered by
0
The basis of a Democratic Government is that it should rule within limits set by constitutional law and citizens’ rights.
Let us take the case of Zimbabwe to highlight this factor.
Zimbabwe attained independence from White minority rule in 1980.
Since then the country has been ruled by ZANU-PF, the party that led the freedom struggle.
Its leader, Robert Mugabe, has been ruling the country since its independence.
Elections have been held regularly and has always been won by the ZANU-PF.
President Mugabe is popular but also uses unfair practices in elections.
Over the years his government has changed the constitution several times to increase the powers of the President and these power make him less accountable.
Opposition party workers are harassed and their meeting are disrupted.
Public protests and demonstrations against the government are declared illegal.
There is a law that limits the right to criticise the President.
Television and radio are controlled by the government and give only the ruling party’s version.
There are independent newspapers but the government harasses those journalists who go against it.
The government has ignored some court judgments that went against it and has pressurized judges.
From this we can come to the conclusion that though there is popular approval for the leader in Zimbabwe, in a democracy, it is not sufficient.
So, we learn that…
Popular governments can be undemocratic.
Popular leaders can be autocratic.
To determine the strength of a countries Democratic status it is necessary to look at the elections, and it is equally important to look before and after the elections.
this is your answer..
Let us take the case of Zimbabwe to highlight this factor.
Zimbabwe attained independence from White minority rule in 1980.
Since then the country has been ruled by ZANU-PF, the party that led the freedom struggle.
Its leader, Robert Mugabe, has been ruling the country since its independence.
Elections have been held regularly and has always been won by the ZANU-PF.
President Mugabe is popular but also uses unfair practices in elections.
Over the years his government has changed the constitution several times to increase the powers of the President and these power make him less accountable.
Opposition party workers are harassed and their meeting are disrupted.
Public protests and demonstrations against the government are declared illegal.
There is a law that limits the right to criticise the President.
Television and radio are controlled by the government and give only the ruling party’s version.
There are independent newspapers but the government harasses those journalists who go against it.
The government has ignored some court judgments that went against it and has pressurized judges.
From this we can come to the conclusion that though there is popular approval for the leader in Zimbabwe, in a democracy, it is not sufficient.
So, we learn that…
Popular governments can be undemocratic.
Popular leaders can be autocratic.
To determine the strength of a countries Democratic status it is necessary to look at the elections, and it is equally important to look before and after the elections.
this is your answer..
Similar questions