Previous Article Law and Ethical Reasoning Name of Student Institutional Affiliation Law and Ethical Reasoning Living a will provide people with the opportunity to state their preferences about the type of medical treatment they can receive if they are unable to give informed consent (Rao, 2000). The living wills are useful in any case where the patient cannot state their medical choices. In a large number of states, pregnant women do not have equal right as other people to create and adhere to a living will. The justification for the exclusion of pregnant women is that they may not have considered the effects of their choices during pregnancy. These statutes claim to protect women who would be devastated to find out that the doctor continued with a life-ending treatment while in fact, she would have chosen to continue with life-sustaining treatment to give the fetus an opportunity to grow. Living wills for pregnant women are heavily influenced by the politics surrounding abortion. Most state legislatures have a clause to sidestep the living will as it is only logical to protect the life of the unborn baby by giving the incapacitated pregnant woman life-sustaining treatment. However, this decision does not consider that forcing medical care on the pregnant patient violates her autonomy as a woman. The pregnancy exemption laws impermissibly restrict the woman’s right to refuse unwanted medical intervention as well as their right to abortion. These exemptions also infringe on the pregnant woman’s ability to control their end of life healthcare, more commonly known as the “right to die” (Villarreal, 2018). In most cases, the illness or accident that incapacitates a pregnant woman also jeopardizes the health and survival of the fetus. Therefore, continuing the pregnancy is often futile. Maintaining a woman on life support is harmful to the fetus because ventilators and catheters often cause an infection that further jeopardizes the development of the fetus. The exemption of a pregnant woman from the right to enact a living will do not allow for the consideration of the pregnant woman’s pain, the growth of the unborn baby or the prognosis of the unborn baby (Villarreal, 2018). Pregnancy exemptions to living wills are unconstitutional, not only because they create an undue burden on the woman’s right to have an abortion before the fetus is viable but also because the state’s interest in the prospective life of the unborn baby cannot overrule a woman’s right to refuse medical care. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court stated that women maintained the right to terminate a pregnancy before it was viable (Villarreal, 2018). However, the state’s interest in life would be allowed to proceed only if the restriction on the woman’s right to choose does not place an undue burden on the woman. If the woman is incapacitated due to injury or illness, continuing the pregnancy infringes on their right to choose by placing an undue burden on the woman (Epstein & Walker, 2013). Most states with the exemptions on pregnancy women coerce women into accepting unwanted medical care if it is possible that the fetus will grow to pave way for “live birth”; a standard that is vague and medically uncertain and therefore places an undue burden on the rights of women to abortion. In In re Quinlan, the court ruled that the individual’s right to privacy also includes the right to decline from unwanted medical care as well as the right to abortion (Rao, 2000). The ruling found that the state cannot compel unwanted medical care on people that have expressed their wish to stop life-sustaining medical care to medical professionals and others through the healthcare power of an attorney. This ruling should take precedence when a pregnant woman is incapacitated. The state’s interest in human life should not outweigh the person’s right to refuse unwanted medical care. Therefore, the state’s interest should not justify the violation of a woman’s bodily autonomy notwithstanding how far along she is in the pregnancy (Epstein & Walker, 2013). In my opinion, society should choose to maintain the woman’s autonomy over her body, above all else. If the patient is incapacitated with no signs of recovery, I will opt to discontinue treatment. Continuing to put a woman such as nancy under medical care would place a burden on her dying body to support a fetus. It would also lengthen the suffering of the patient. The purpose of medical care is to alleviate suffering not to increase it. Also, continuing to give medical care does not guarantee the survival of the fetus. It may also lead to the birth of an infant with severe defects. This infant would then begin a life with difficulties, and the chances of their survival would be minimized due to the lack of a mother. Continuing medical care also places financial stress on the family as well as the healthcare providers. Even though theoretically, the patients financial status should not determine the level of care they receive, in reality, it is among the most crucial factors in determining a patient’s access to healthcare. Therefore, society should consider the financial implications too. References Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2013). Constitutional Law: Rights. Sage. Rao, R. (2000). Property, privacy, and the human body. BUL rev., 80, 359. Villarreal, E. (2018). Pregnancy and Living Wills: A Behavioral Economic Analysis. Yale LJF, 128, 1052.
Next Article Non-Profit Fundraising Name Institution Affiliation Fundraising Klein (2009) describes the concept of conversion rate and he describes it as the proportion of first-time donors who provide a donation for the second time. According to the author the ideal conversion rate is roughly 40%. To have a higher conversion rate organization should ensure that they personalize their thank-you notes, spell donors’ names accurately, send them annual report, newsletter or any other kind of correspondence between sending them a money request. Also, the overall retention rate of major donors should be roughly 66%. Klein (2009) also describes the concept of fulfillment cost and this is what it costs an organization to keep a donor. Klein recommends that this cost should be roughly $3 and 10 yearly for every donor. Organizations should frequently go through their mailing list to ensure they do not keep records of people who cannot donate again. Notably, organizations aim to develop a donor base because it is the most unswerving way to sustain their operations overtime and also because foundation funding has turned out to be scarcer in the economy. Klein (2009) emphasizes that the lifeblood of stable and successful social change nonprofits is loyal donors. Klein’s article is related to nonprofit fundraising careers as it discusses various concepts related to fundraising such as how to attract and retain donors, and sources of money such as community funding. The book also describes who can be potential donors; that is people who believe in your organization’s work. Thus, the book deliberates on effective fundraising strategies such as reaching out to people who deeply care about the organization and those who support its mission as well as segmenting donors to establish appropriate relationships with them. Klein (2009) indicates that donors should be segmented based on their longevity of giving, frequency of giving and size of gift. Furthermore, the book is related to nonprofit fundraising careers as it describes how organizations should build relationships with donors though knowing them personally and approaching them to request for funds face-to-face and not just by communicating with them through e-mail or phone. Giving USA (2018) provides a synopsis of giving in 2017. As stated in the article total 2017 contributions were $410.02 billion of which 70% was provided by individuals, 16% by foundations, 9% by bequests and 5% by corporations. The recipients of these contributions by category were religion, education, human services, foundations, health, public society benefit, humanities, art and culture, international affairs as well as animals/environment. The article is related to nonprofit fundraising careers as it describes the major sources of donations and the factors that influence the amount these donors give. For instance, increase in corporate donations has been attributed to a 4.1% rise in corporate pre-tax profits. Jonker, Meehan & Iseminger (2014) states that money is important to nonprofits but their leaders often find it uncomfortable or challenging to request for it from people. Many extraordinary and bold nonprofits fail to assume bold fundraising efforts. Raising money is not easy, however, nonprofit leaders who want to see their organizations succeed must be committed to fundraising. Jonker, Meehan & Iseminger (2014) summarizes three proved principles that are followed by effective fundraisers; the first one is spend money to get money. Secondly, nonprofit leaders should go where there is money, for instance money is with individuals and not foundations; thus, nonprofits should target them. Thirdly, nonprofit leaders should overcome their fear/ discomfort of talking about finances by thinking in terms of their mission which is to change the world as opposed to just asking for money. The article is related to nonprofit fundraising careers as it discusses effective strategies of raising money such as planning for the top prospects through understanding their passion and interests as well as thanking donors to set stage for another gift. The authors also recommend that to attract funds easily, non-profit leaders should be good stewards of the offered donations. Foster, Kim & Christiansen (2009) describe their ten funding models based on three parameters; decision makers motivations, types of decision makers and source of funds. The ten funding models are heartfelt connector, beneficiary builder, member motivator, big bettor, public provider, public innovator, beneficiary broker, resource recycler, market maker and local nationalizer. The first three models; member motivator, beneficiary builder, and heartfelt connector are financed by individual donors. While big bettor is financed mostly by foundations, one or a few individuals. The beneficiary broker, policy innovator and public provider are mainly funded by the government. The resource recycler model is supported mostly by corporate funding while the local nationalizer and market maker have mixed funders. The article is related to nonprofit fundraising careers as it describes the various funding models and in return, fundraisers will get to the funding model that works best for their organization because different nonprofits take varying funding paths. Bassoff & Chandler (2001) describes the myths related no nonprofit fundraising and the reality shift associated with the myths. The article is related to non-profit fundraising career as it explains the reality behind some myths that may discourage fundraisers from seeking funds to support their mission. For instance, the myth that money comes from huge companies can mislead fundraisers by making them to target and spend on big companies while individuals are also major donors, yet if this myth is taken into consideration individuals may be ignored. References Bassoff, M., & Chandler, S. (2001). Notes from Relationshift: Revolutionary Fundraising. Author’s Choice Publishing. Foster, W. L., Kim, P., & Christiansen, B. (2009). Ten nonprofit funding models. Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring 2009 Giving USA (2018). An Overview of Giving in 2017. Jonker, K., Meehan III, W. F., & Iseminger, E. (2014). Fundraising Is Fundamental (If Not Always Fun). Stanford Social Innovation Review Klein, K. (2009). Reliable fundraising in unreliable times: What good causes need to know to survive and thrive (Vol. 33). John Wiley & Sons.
