Nurses often become motivated to change aspects within the larger health care system based on their real-world experience. As such, many nurses take on an advocacy role to influence a change in regulations, policies, and laws that govern the larger health care system.
Assuming that you are an RN working in the state of Maryland, identify a problem or concern in your state, community, or organization (Long-term care facility) that has the capacity for advocacy through legislation. Research the issue and use the “Advocacy Through Legislation” template to complete this assignment.
Sample Solution
India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round of Agreement, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the âsubstantial transformationâ rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which world confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In Indiaâs view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United Statesâ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements. Initially the Dispute Settlement Body deferred the establishment of panel. Further to a second request by India, the DSB established a panel. The panel requested for extension of time since the dispute involved complex matter and that it needed more than 6 months â time period. The panel concluded hearing of the dispute and circulated the report to the members. The panel found that India failed to establish that the United States had violated the GATT agreement. It is said that this is the only case wherein the interpretation of the W>
India requested consultations with the United States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round of Agreement, Section 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 and customs regulations implementing these provisions. India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles and apparel products was the âsubstantial transformationâ rule. India considered that Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which world confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products. In Indiaâs view, these changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were incompatible with the United Statesâ obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements. Initially the Dispute Settlement Body deferred the establishment of panel. Further to a second request by India, the DSB established a panel. The panel requested for extension of time since the dispute involved complex matter and that it needed more than 6 months â time period. The panel concluded hearing of the dispute and circulated the report to the members. The panel found that India failed to establish that the United States had violated the GATT agreement. It is said that this is the only case wherein the interpretation of the W>
