La Navidad First European Settlement in the Americas

On the night of December 24-25, 1492, Christopher Columbus’ flagship, the Santa Marà ­a, ran aground off the northern coast of the island of Hispaniola and had to be abandoned. With no room for the stranded sailors, Columbus was forced to found the La Navidad (â€Å"Christmas†), first European settlement in the New World. When he returned the following year, he found that the colonists had been massacred by natives. The Santa Marà ­a Runs Aground: Columbus had three ships with him on his first voyage to the Americas: the Nià ±a, the Pinta, and the Santa Marà ­a. They discovered unknown lands in October of 1492 and began exploring. The Pinta became separated from the other two ships. On the night of December 24, the Santa Maria became stuck on a sandbar and coral reef off the northern shore of the Island of Hispaniola and was eventually dismantled. Columbus, in his official report to the crown, claims to have been asleep at the time and blamed the wreck on a boy. He also claimed that the Santa Marà ­a had been less than seaworthy all along. 39 Left Behind: The sailors were all rescued, but there was no room for them on Columbus’ remaining ship, the Nià ±a, a smallish caravel. He had no choice but to leave some men behind. He reached an agreement with a local chieftain, Guacanagari, with whom he had been trading, and a small fort was built out of the remains of the Santa Marà ­a. In all, 39 men were left behind, including a doctor and Luà ­s de Torre, who spoke Arabic, Spanish and Hebrew and had been brought along as an interpreter. Diego de Araà ±a, a cousin of Columbus’ mistress, was left in charge. Their orders were to collect gold and await Columbus’ return. Columbus Returns: Columbus returned to Spain and a glorious welcome. He was given financing for a much larger second voyage which had as one of its goals to found a larger settlement on Hispaniola. His new fleet arrived at La Navidad on November 27, 1493, almost one year after it had been established. He found the settlement burned to the ground and all of the men killed. Some of their belongings were found in native homes nearby. Guacanagari blamed the massacre on raiders from other tribes, and Columbus apparently believed him. Fate of La Navidad: Later, Guacanagari’s brother, a chieftain in his own right, told a different story. He said that the men of La Navidad went out in search of not only gold, but women as well, and had taken to mistreating the local natives. In retaliation, Guacanagari had ordered an attack and had himself been wounded. The Europeans were wiped out and the settlement burned to the ground. The massacre may have happened around August or September of 1493. Legacy and Importance of La Navidad: In many ways, the settlement of La Navidad is not particularly important historically. It did not last, no one terribly important died there, and the Taà ­no people who burned it to the ground were subsequently themselves destroyed by disease and enslavement. It’s more of a footnote or even a trivia question. It has not even been located: archaeologists continue to search for the exact site, believed by many to be near Bord de Mer de Limonade in present-day Haiti. On a metaphorical level, however, La Navidad is very important, as it marks not only the first European settlement in the New World but also the first major conflict between natives and Europeans. It was an ominous sign of times to come, as the La Navidad pattern would be repeated time and time again all over the Americas, from Canada to Patagonia. Once contact was established, trade would begin, followed by some sort of unspeakable crimes (generally on the part of the Europeans) followed by wars, massacres, and slaughter. In this case, it was the encroaching Europeans who were killed: more often it would be the other way around. Recommended reading: Thomas, Hugh. Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire, from Columbus to Magellan. New York: Random House, 2005.

Indicator and Determinants of High Blood Pressure

Indicators and Determinants of High Blood Pressure (Rough Draft) Carla Woodall Grand Canyon-HCA-515-0101 April 29, 2013 Introduction This paper implements the indicators and determinants of high blood pressure in men. Many studies have measure the effect of Hypertension among men of different ethnical and socio-economic backgrounds. Socioeconomic is one major determinant which influences high blood pressure in men. High blood pressure is a major illness in the human population, especially among men. High blood is normally called a â€Å"silent killer† due to the fact that there little to no symptoms. Fifty to fifty-eight million people suffer from hypertension with the increasing population being African Americans (John, n.d.).†¦show more content†¦Other indicator was the problems of sexual dysfunction that Steven suffered in his marriage. Steven stated that he was unable to perform with his wife due to the high blood pressure medicine that he was taken. Rahimi, (2012) state â€Å"Thus sex, education, and for the most part, race were not independently associated with a failure to be aware or to e nter treatment’. Rahimi, (2012) says â€Å"Sex and the number of antihypertensive drug days were independently associated with blood pressure control†. According to Steven physician Steven was also put on an enhancement drug to help with sexual dysfunction. According to Rahimi, (2012) â€Å"Vigorous public efforts led by the National High Blood Pressure Education Program and embraced by physicians’ groups and the pharmaceutical industry has steadily improved blood pressure outcomes in the past 20 years†. Rahimi, (2012) â€Å"To this point, however, overall increases in control have largely been driven by increases in awareness and entry into treatment among people with hypertension†. Rahimi, (2012) â€Å"Despite great technical advances, specifically the development of a wide range of new antihypertensive drugs and drug classes the process of care available in the community has not changed to any great extent and treatment itself remains highly inefficient†. Rahimi, (2012) â€Å"As an asymptomatic, chronic illness, hypertension does not pose a problem of diagnosis or cure, butShow MoreRelatedDeterminants of Quality Healthcare1664 Words   |  7 PagesDeterminants of Quality Health Care Determinants 2 There are people from all walks of life in America. There are people of different races, cultures, different shapes and sizes and different ages. Sickness and disease can occur with anyone. A person’s lifestyle or who they are related to is just a couple of factors when it comes to what can make them sick. Not only can disease cause death but a person can even lose their life from a mere accident. The U.S. health care delivery system wasRead MoreCross Sectional Study In Health1273 Words   |  6 Pagesprotective [to avoid] cardiovascular event† (AL-Nooh et al., 2014). Furthermore, the authors also found that there was a statistically significant difference in systolic blood pressure between male and female with â€Å"P value 0.001 and 95% confidence interval 7.2 to 11.2† (AL-Nooh et al., 2014). Another significant finding was high density lipoprotein between males and females with â€Å"95% confidence interval at -0.3 to -0.23† (AL-Nooh et al., 2014). Article 5: More Americans Living Longer With CardiovascularRead MoreCardiovascular Disease Among Aboriginal Men And Women Of Australia1632 Words   |  7 Pages(Department of Health | Cardiovascular disease, 2016). In order to examine the health issue such as cardiovascular disease among Aboriginal men and women using social determinants of health. We should understand what is meant by social determinants of health(SDH)? According to World Health Organisation (2016) â€Å"The social determinants of health† are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. This can be further explained as the economic and social aspects like education, foodRead MoreSocial Determinants Of Health And Health1170 Words   |  5 PagesSocial determinants of health are social, economic and physical factors that affect the health of individuals in any given population. There are fourteen social determinants of health but Income is perhaps the most important of these because it s hapes living conditions, influences health related behaviors, and determines food security. In Canada, people with lower incomes are more susceptible to disease/ conditions, higher mortality rate, decreased life expectancy and poorer perceived health thanRead MoreAn Insight Into Their Individual Effects On A Person s Health999 Words   |  4 Pagessuch as Housing, Income and Employment, affect the overall quality of health and wellbeing of an individual. Using various research findings, this essay aims to explore the various determinants, and give an insight into their individual effects on a person’s health. WHAT ARE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH Social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness (WHO, 2008). These circumstances are shaped byRead MoreFactors That Influence Health Status958 Words   |  4 PagesThe range of personal, social, economic, and environmental factors that influence health status are known as determinants of health. Social determinants of health reflect the social factors and physical conditions of the environment in which people are born, live, learn, play, work, and age. According to Florida Public Health, Heart disease was the second leading cause of death in 2012, accounting for41, 643 deaths. The heart disease age-adjusted death rate per 100,000 populations decreased betweenRead MoreWhat is Epidemiology?1686 Words   |  7 Pagesvarious levels of prevention. Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events (including disease), and the application of this study to the control of diseases and other health problems. Various methods can be used to carry out epidemiological investigations: surveillance and descriptive studies can be used to study distribution; analytical studies are used to study determinants (WHO, 2012). Epidemiology is a type of science that guides our understandingRead MoreThe Relationship Between Body Weight And Blood Pressure Essay966 Words   |  4 PagesThe Relationship between Body Weight and Blood Pressure The hypothesis is to determine the Relationship between Body Weight and Blood Pressure. High blood pressure has been noted as one of the leading non-infectious diseases around the world. According to Abdulle A. and his research colleges, in their research they stated that high blood pressure contributes to an important and prevalent risk factor to cardiovascular disease. The research finding of Abdulle A. et al. quoted that â€Å"it appears fromRead MoreThe Role Of Lifestyle On Influencing Our Health1241 Words   |  5 Pagesthe study of the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events (including disease), and the application of this study to the control of diseases and other health problems. Different methods can be used to carry out epidemiological investigations. That is surveillance and descriptive studies, which is used to study distribution, whereas analytical studies are used to study determinants. Epidemiology as the study of distribution and determinants of disease frequency in human populationsRead MoreHealth Problem Analysis Worksheet Essay638 Words   |  3 Pagescompetency, â€Å"Analyze determinants of health and disease using an ecological framework† was met through the exercise, â€Å"Health Problem Analysis Worksheet† and through reading Chapter 2 in the book Public Health: What it is and How it Works. The purpose of the â€Å"Health Problem Analysis Worksheet† was to pick a disease, I chose diabetes, and to determine the determinants, direct contributing factors and the indirect contributing factors. Turnock (2011, p.73) defines determinants as a scientific factor

Principles of Tort Law for Civil Liability Act - myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about thePrinciples of Tort Law for Civil Liability Act. Answer: Issue The key issue in this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of negligence being made against Dr Stark, on the basis of Civil Liability Act 2002, by the Nguyens. Rule Negligence is amongst the different torts which are applicable in Australia. In a case of negligence, a breach of duty of care takes place, which leads to the second part being harmed or having to face a loss or injured[1]. For establishing the presence of negligence in a particular case, there is a need to show the presence of certain elements which include the duty of care, its breach, resulting damages, foreseeability of loss, proximity between parties, direct causation and the losses not being too remote[2]. This requirement is given under the common law. The similar provisions are covered under the Civil Liability Act, 2002[3]. Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 provides that a person would be held liable for negligence only when they fail to take the requisite precautions against the possible risk of harm, where such a risk of harm was reasonably foreseeable and was not significant, and that in similar circumstances, a prudent person would have undertaken these precauti ons[4]. In order to show that a party had been negligent, the first requirement is to show that a duty of care was owed by one party to another. Donoghue v Stevenson[5] was a case where the court held that the manufacturer owes a duty towards the consumers, as the product which they produce, is consumed by consumer. And so, it is crucial that the manufacturer prepares drinks which are safe for the consumer. The deal snail found inside the ginger beer bottle was a breach of duty of care. In considering the duty of care in this case, the court analysed the proximity between the parties, where the actions of one party had the possibility of harming another[6]. Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 provides that a duty of care would be breached when the probability of the occurrence of such harm was not undertaken properly, along with the seriousness of harm. Further, there was also a failure in considering the burden of taking the requisite precautions for avoiding the harm and the social utility of the undertaken activity[7]. The second step is to show that the duty of care which had been owed by the defendant was contravened. And the third step is to show that this caused a serious harm to the plaintiff[8]. Paris v Stepney Borough Council[9] was a case where the court held that the defendant had to provide the safety gear to the plaintiff, which they failed to do. This was a breach of duty of care on part of the defendant. Further, as the plaintiff loss his only good eye, ultimately making him blind, the court had that the injury was substantial and this led to the court ordering the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for their injury. The injury has to be a direct result of the breach of duty of care, which was clearly established here. This clarifies that if the damages are too remote, the plaintiff would not be compensated, as was seen in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd[10]. One of the requirements for negligence is that harm or loss was foreseeable in a reasonable manner[11]. In this regard, the statement made by the judges in case of Wyong Shire Council v Shirt[12] proves to be of help. The judges stated that harm would be reasonably foreseeable when a reasonable person would perceive as being foreseeable. The parties need to be in proximity, so that the actions of one can affect the other. Perre v Apand[13] was one of such cases where the proximity led to the land of plaintiff being infected and his claims being upheld. Once, all of the requirements covered here are fulfilled, a case of negligence can be successfully made and the damages be claimed[14]. Rogers v Whitaker[15] presents the standard of care for the professionals. In this case, the respondent was nearly blind in one eye since she was 9 year old. At 47, during her routine eye check-up, she was referred for a possible surgery to the appellant. It was claimed by the appellant that by operating on her good eye, the scar tissue could be removed, which could prevent glaucoma. After the operation, her eye did not improve, and in the eye which was nearly blind, loss the sight completely. The appellant had failed to advice the respondent of this risk and the question was brought before the court regarding the failure to inform the patient was a breach of duty of care or not. The court held that this was a clear breach of duty of care as the patient could not an educated decision of going forward with the surgery or not. The standard of care of a skilled person could not be compared to an ordinarily skilled person and thus required care on their part. The facts of the case study match the case of Cattanach v Melchior[16], where the mother went with a sterilization procedure which failed and as a result, a healthy child was born. The court held that the doctor was negligent was required to compensate the mother for the cost of raising, as well as, maintaining a healthy child. Application In the given case study, the Nguyens were the patient of Dr. Stark and this put the doctor in a position, where apart from their duty as a doctor in general, the proximity between the parties led to a duty of care being owed by the doctor to the family. On the basis of Donoghue v Stevenson, Dr. Stark would owe a duty of care to the Nguyens. Based on this duty, it was a duty of the doctor to inform the family about the recanalization possibility, so that an informed decision could be made. The next step is establishing that there was a breach of this duty of care. The facts of the case clearly highlight that Dr Stark carried out the operation without telling them of the possibility of recanalization. This was a clear breach of duty of care on the basis of Rogers v Whitaker as due to this lack of information, the Nguyens could not make an informed decision. Applying Paris v Stepney Borough Council, the harm was significant in the case as the new born child was to have Down syndrome due to the child being conceived at such a late stage, where the possibility of this disease was high. The proximity is already established, due to the presence of patient doctor relationship between the two, where the acts of one, affected another, on the basis of Perre v Apand. The most important aspect is the reasonable foreseeability in this case, which is a substantial clause under both the common and statutory law. Section 5B of the Civil Liability Act 2002 requires that for holding Dr. Stark liable, it has to be shown that they filed to take the required precaution, where the risk was reasonably foreseeable and a prudent doctor in Dr. Starks position would have taken these precautions. Wyong Shire Council v Shirt requires the view of a prudent person to be taken in this regard. A reasonable doctor would have, based on the ruling given in Rogers v Whitaker, informed the Nguyens about the possibility of recanalization, however remote that may be. A chance is a chance and this information was required to make the informed decision. Further, on the basis of Section 5B, the probability of the occurrence of such harm, along with the seriousness of harm, was not undertaken properly by the Doctor. It was clearly foreseeable that a child born to a woman who passes the age of 35 has chances of Down syndrome for the children, along with possible birth complications. And Mrs Nguyen had already agreed to it. Mrs. Nguyens getting pregnant thus was the negligence of Dr. Stark. And on the basis of Cattanach v Melchior, Dr. Stark would have to compensate the mother for the cost of raising, as well as, maintaining a healthy child. Further, this case involved a child with Down syndrome, which was different from the quoted case, as a healthy child was born in that case. So, the Nguyens can also claim for the medical costs of the child and for the mental stress which they had to undergo due to this negligence of the doctor. Conclusion This discussion makes it very clear that there is a high possibility of a successful claim of negligence being made against Dr Stark, on the basis of Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002, by the Nguyens. And instead of precluding the claims, the act would permit the case of negligence to be made against Dr. Stark. Issue The key issue in this case revolves around the possibility of a claim of negligence being made against Dr Stark, on the basis of Civil Liability Act (NSW) 2002, by the new child. Rule An unborn child gets the right to sue the negligent party, upon being born. Watt v Rama[17] is the first Australian case where the possibility of a child suing for the injuries sustained by them was considered, whilst the child was in the mothers womb, due to the negligence of the defendant. The main question in this case was whether or not the defendant driver owed a duty of care towards the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant indeed owed a duty of care towards the child, in the equal manner as the mother. As a result of the defendants negligence, he was ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the disability suffered by him due to the fault of the defendant. Similarly, in Lynch v Lynch[18] was a case where the daughter was allowed to sue her own mother for negligence driving, which led to the daughter being born with cerebral palsy. Though, in X Y v Pal[19], the child was not allowed to recover the damages as the disabilities which he had, did not occur due to syphilis, wh ere the defendant had been negligible. Application It has already been established in the previous segment of this discussion that Dr. Stark had been negligent when she failed to inform the Nguyens about the possibility of re-canalisation. Due to the actions of Dr. Stark, the new born child in question here was born with Down syndrome. Applying the case of Watt v Rama and Lynch v Lynch, for the negligence of the party, which injures the child in the womb, a claim can be made by the child when he/ she is born, for the loss sustained by them on the basis of the negligence of the defendant. And unlike in X Y v Pal, the disability was a direct result of the negligence of Dr. Stark. This is because if the Nguyens had known of the possibility of conceiving even after getting sterilized, they would have taken precautions to avoid the chances of getting pregnant. As this choice was not available to the Nguyens, the new child was born and so, a direct causation is present here. So, these cases make the chances of a claim being made by the ne w born child against Dr. Stark. And the new child would be able to claim damages for their physical condition from Dr. Stark. Conclusion This discussion makes it very clear that there is a high possibility of a successful claim of negligence being made against Dr. Stark, on the basis of the doctors negligence, by the new child. Bibliography A. Articles/ Books/ Reports Abbott K, Pendlebury N, and Wardman K, Business law (Thompson Learning, 8th ed, 2007) Latimer P, Australian Business Law 2012 (CCH Australia Limited, 31st ed, 2012) Lunney M, and Oliphant K, Tort Law: Text and Materials (Oxford University Press, 5th ed, 2013) Steele J, Tort Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Oxford University Press, 3rd ed, 2014) Stewart P, and Stuhmcke A, Australian Principles of Tort Law (Federation Press, 2009) Turner C, Unlocking Torts (Routledge, 3rd ed, 2013) B. Cases Cattanach v Melchior [2003] HCA 38 Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 Lynch v Lynch (1991) 25 N.S.W.L.R. 411 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1961] UKPC 2 Paris v Stepney Borough Council [1951] AC 367 Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Watt v Rama [1972] VicRp 40 Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40 X Y v Pal (1991) 23 NSWLR 26 C. Legislations Civil Liability Act, 2002 (NSW)

On August 2nd, 1990 Iraqi Military Forces Invaded And Occupied Essays

On August 2nd, 1990 Iraqi military forces invaded and occupied the small Arab state of Kuwait. The order was given by Iraqi dictatorial president Saddam Hussein. His aim was apparently to take control Kuwaits oil reserves (despite its small size Kuwait is a huge oil producer; it has about 10 per cent of the worlds oil reserves ). Iraq accused Kuwait, and also the United Arab Emirates, of breaking agreements that limit oil production in the Middle East. According to Saddam Hussein, this brought down world oil prices severely and caused financial loss of billions of dollars in Iraqs annual revenue. Saddam Hussein had the nearly hopeless task of justifying the invasion. He plead the fact that Kuwait had been part of the Ottoman province of Basra, a city in the south of Iraq. However, the Ottoman province collapsed after World War I and todays Iraqi borders were not created until then. There was also a further and more obvious blunder in a bid to justify this illegal invasion. Baghdad, the capital of Iraq, had namely recognized Kuwaiti independence in 1963. Furthermore, Hussein claimed that Kuwait had illegally pumped oil from the Iraqi oil field of Rumaila and otherwise conspired to reduce Iraqs essential oil income. By invading Kuwait, Iraq succeeded in surprising the entire world. The USA ended her policy of accommodating Saddam Hussein, which had existed since the Iran-Iraq war. Negative attitude toward Iraq was soon a worldwide phenomenon. The United Nations Security Council passed 12 resolutions condemning the invasion. The ultimate decision was to use military force if Iraq did not withdraw unconditionally by January 15, 1991. Then, when the deadline was set, it was time to start preparing for the worst-the war. President George Bush confronted little difficulty in winning Americans support for the potential war against Iraq. However, the government found it difficult to decide upon and state one overriding reason for going to war. Was it to oppose aggression or was it just to protect global oil supplies? Other powers were more directly concerned as consumers of Persian Gulf oil, but they were not as eager to commit military force, to risk their youth in battle and to pay for the costs of the war. Critics of President Bush continued to maintain that he was taking advantage of the issue of energy supplies in order to manipulate the U. S. public opinion in favor of war. After consulting with U. S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in early August 1990, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia invited American troops onto Saudi soil. He had seen Kuwaits destiny; therefore, he wanted protection. It was also the interest of the USA to stop any further advantage of the Iraqi army. The deployment was called Operation Desert Shield. These troops were armed with light, defensive weaponry. On November 8, 1990 President Bush announced a military buildup to provide an offensive option, Operation Desert Storm, to force Iraq out of Kuwait. The preparation of the operation took two and a half months and it involved a massive air- and sea lift. Finally, in January 1991, the U. S. Congress voted to support Security Council resolution 660. It authorized using all necessary means if Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by January 15. Shrugging off this final warning, Saddam Hussein resolutely maintained the occupation of Kuwait. The United States established a broad-based international coalition to confront Iraq militarily and diplomatically. The military coalition consisted of Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The war also was financed by countries which were unable to send in troops. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait were the main donors. More than $53 billion was pledged and received. Before the war, it appeared obvious that Iraq would have very little chance against the Coalition. The relative strength between the parties was extremely unequal. The most critical difference was that the Coalition had a total of 2600 aircraft, over three times more than Iraqs 800 aircraft. Most Arab observers thought Hussein would not last more than six months. Lieutenant General Khalid bin Sultan, the commander of the Arab coalition forces, gave Iraqs leader only 40 days, and repeated this prediction many times. Iraqs prospect was dreary. President George Bush waited two days after the UN deadline for Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait before ordering the Coalition to begin action against Iraq. The winds of Desert Storm began howling across Iraq on January 17,