Qualified Personnel in the Pharmaceutical Industry free essay sample

A paper which shows how medically qualified personnel can add value to the pharmaceutical industry. By examining several examples, the paper shows how medically trained personnel play a key role in bridging the gap between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry. It shows that as well as the medical knowledge, the ethics and patient focus of a medically trained professional also adds value to the industry and to health and patient care in general. This is also valuable working in the opposite direction. Medically qualified personnel can communicate the needs of the medical community to the pharmaceutical industry, for example if a new drug is needed for a certain condition. If a strong need is communicated, the pharmaceutical can put research funding into searching for a suitable new drug. Based on the commercial nature of the pharmaceutical industry, it is logical that pharmaceutical companies will work to develop products if they know there is a market for them. We will write a custom essay sample on Qualified Personnel in the Pharmaceutical Industry or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This helps both the medical industry, the pharmaceutical industry and ultimately, the public and the patient as well.

The Meaning of Social Order in Sociology

The Meaning of Social Order in Sociology Social order is a fundamental concept in sociology that refers to the way in which the various components of society- social structures and institutions, social relations, social interactions and behavior, and cultural features such as norms, beliefs, and values- work together to maintain the status quo. Outside the field of sociology, people often use the term social order to refer to a state of stability and consensus that exists in the absence of chaos and upheaval. Sociologists, however, have a more complex understanding of the term. Within the field, it refers to the organization of many interrelated parts of a society. Social order is present when individuals agree to a shared social contract that states that certain rules and laws must be abided and certain standards, values, and norms maintained. Social order can be observed within national societies, geographical regions, institutions and organizations, communities, formal and informal  groups, and even at the scale of global society. Within all of these, social order is most often hierarchical in nature; some people hold more power than others in order to enforce the laws, rules, and norms necessary for the preservation of social order. Practices, behaviors, values, and beliefs that are counter to those of the social order are typically framed as deviant and/or dangerous  and are curtailed through the enforcement of laws, rules, norms, and taboos. Social Order Follows a Social Contract The question of how social order is achieved and maintained is the question that gave birth to the field of sociology. In his book  Leviathan, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes laid the groundwork for the exploration of this question within the social sciences. Hobbes recognized that without some form of social contract, there could be no society, and chaos and disorder would reign. According to Hobbes, modern states were created in order to provide social order. People agree to empower the state to enforce the rule of law, and in exchange, they give up some individual power. This is the essence of the social contract that lies at the foundation of Hobbess theory of social order. As sociology became an established field of study, early thinkers became keenly interested in the question of social order. Founding figures like Karl Marx and Émile Durkheim focused their attention on the significant transitions that occurred before and during their lifetimes, including industrialization, urbanization, and the waning of religion as a significant force in social life. These two theorists, though, had polar opposite views on how social order is achieved and maintained, and to what ends. Durkheims Cultural Theory of Social Order Through his study of the role of religion in primitive and traditional societies, French sociologist Émile Durkheim came to believe that social order arose out the shared beliefs, values, norms, and practices of a given group of people. His view locates the origins of social order in the practices and interactions of daily life as well as those associated with rituals and important events. In other words, it is a theory of social order that puts culture at the forefront. Durkheim theorized that it was through the culture shared by a group, community, or society that a sense of social connection- what he called solidarity- emerged between and among people and that worked to bind them together into a collective. Durkheim referred to a groups shared collection of beliefs, values, attitudes, and knowledge as the collective conscience. In primitive and traditional societies Durkheim observed that sharing these things was enough to create a mechanical solidarity that bound the group together. In the larger, more diverse, and urbanized societies of modern times, Durkheim observed that it was the recognition of the need to rely on each other to fulfill different roles and functions that bound society together. He called this organic solidarity. Durkheim also observed that social institutions- such as the state, media, education, and law enforcement- play formative roles in fostering a collective conscience in both traditional and modern societies. According to Durkheim, it is through our interactions with these institutions and with the people around us that we participate in the maintenance of rules and norms and behavior that enable the smooth functioning of society. In other words, we work together to maintain social order. Durkheims view became the foundation for the functionalist perspective,  which views society as the sum of interlocking and interdependent parts that evolve together to maintain social order. Marxs Critical Theory of Social Order German philosopher Karl Marx took a different view of social order. Focusing on the transition from pre-capitalist to capitalist economies and their effects on society, he developed a theory of social order centered on the economic structure of society and the social relations involved in the production of goods. Marx believed that these aspects of society were responsible for producing the social order, while others- including social institutions and the state- were responsible for maintaining it. He referred to these two different components of society as the base and the superstructure. In his writings on capitalism, Marx argued that the superstructure grows out of the base and reflects the interests of the ruling class that controls it. The superstructure justifies how the base operates, and in doing so, justifies the power of the ruling class. Together, the base and the superstructure create and maintain social order. From his observations of history and politics, Marx concluded that the shift to a capitalist industrial economy throughout Europe created a class of workers who were exploited by company owners and their financiers. The result was a hierarchical class-based society in which a small minority held power over the majority, whose labor they used for their own financial gain. Marx believed that social institutions did the work of spreading the values and beliefs of the ruling class in order to maintain a social order that would serve their interests and protect their power. Marxs critical view of social order is the basis of the conflict theory perspective in sociology, which views social order as a precarious state shaped by ongoing conflicts between groups that are competing for access to resources and power. Putting Both Theories to Work While some sociologists align themselves with either Durkheims or Marxs view of social order, most recognize that both theories have merit. A nuanced understanding of social order must acknowledge that it is the product of multiple and sometimes contradictory processes. Social order is a necessary feature of any society and it is deeply important for building a sense of belonging and connection with others. At the same time, social order is also responsible for producing and maintaining oppression. A true understanding of how social order is constructed must take all of these contradictory aspects into account.

Mid3 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Mid3 - Essay Example This was swiftly followed by the addition of Florida as a slave state (Brinkley, 440). Additionally, the US-Mexican war was potentially provoked during Polk’s presidency, as they were already annoyed by the annexation of Texas. He was also interested in purchasing Baja California and New Mexico, which was seen as an insult and the Mexicans felt disarmed by this new president and his choices (Brinkley, 443). Polk himself provoked the war, using the new Texas-Mexico border as justification. The US-Mexican war was another provocation towards disunion because many of those living in the Southern states and former Mexican territories were in support of the war, but those living in the north felt it to be unnecessary. Ulysses S. Grant felt the war to be immoral, which suggests the position of many of the Northern Whigs. At the time, there was mounting tension about a number of issues in the U.S. which eventually led to a break-up of the Union between 1848 and 1861. Slavery was a gro wing concern, with many slave-owning states being concerned about the lack of economic security that would come from abolition, and those in the north feeling slave ownership to be immoral. Millard Fillmore became the last Whig president. Fillmore hated slavery but enforced the new Fugitive Slave Law, which meant that many African Americans were being arrested and had to escape to Canada to escape slavery (Brinkley, 425). The Whig party was also affected by many of the developments at the time, as they felt offended by the compromise of 1850, and there was a divide in the presidential candidate backed by Southern Whigs and Northern Whigs. This dissent in the party ranks eventually led to the dissolution of the Whig party, and is the reason why Millard Fillmore was the last Whig president. Additionally, Pierce was elected President by the majority but is widely acknowledged to be one of the worst U.S. presidents in history (Brinkley, 424). He attempted to save the Union by backing pr o-slavery sentiments, which makes him unusual for a Yankee. He signed the Kansas-Nebraska Act drafted by Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas, allowing the people of all Western Territories to vote whether or not to permit slavery (Brinkley, 426). This meant that there could be a change in the divide between pro- and anti-slavery states in the United States, starting a period of intense turmoil. It is important to note that slavery was not the only important aspect of the break-up of the Union, but is a major contributing factor to a number of problems that were occurring across the new continental United States, which was growing in size. Part TWO: The Civil War: In what way did the Confederacy embody Calhoun’s version of Jeffersonianism? In what way did the Union under Lincoln embody the Whig/Republican version of Hamiltonianism? How did Lincoln turn the war into a Second American Revolution? Why were Antietam, Vicksburg, Gettysburg and the election of 1864 important? How and w hy did the Union eventually prevail? The Confederacy was born out of several states, started by South Carolina in 1860, declaring their independence from the United States as it was (Brinkley, 451). There were several issues that led to this disillusion, one of which being slavery. The Confederacy can be said to embody Calhoun’s version of Jeffersonianism by promoting minimal government, preventing the use of tariffs and funding public works. This is in stark contrast to Hamiltonianism and many of the elements of the United