Chinese Culture and Modern Therapy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

Chinese Culture and Modern Therapy - Essay Example Representatives of different cultures have diverse values, demonstrate varying behaviors, adopt different perspectives, and in some cases even varied susceptibility to diseases. Cultural differences are more profound than individual variations due to patient illness, social class, economic status, or educational background. A popular view among health professionals is that showing respect is the key to resolving absolute majority of cultural problems. Unfortunately, this simple recipe is not always effective: the profound differences between Chinese and American cultures presented below demonstrate that respect is only one aspect of cultural competence. Chinese culture is characterized by specific attitude toward self. Thus, American Peter Hessler claims this to be the biggest difference between the West and what he observed while teaching literature in one of the Chinese provinces: "the sense of self seemed largely external; you were identified by the way that others viewed you" (Hessler 2001: 282). This difference is also reflected on the famous Geert Hofstede's model of cultural value orientation. The model consists of five dimensions, one of which is individualism. This dimension reveals the degree to which the society reinforces individual or collective achievement. In case the IDV index is high, individuality and individual rights are emphasized by the society: citizens in such societies rely primarily upon themselves, and form a little number of closer relationships. If the IDV is low, the society is characterized by high degree of collectivism and closer relationships between individuals: such societies reinforce extended families and collectives with responsibility being shared between all members. The difference between the United States and China is literally striking on this dimension: the U.S. ranks at 91 on Hofstede's scale (100 points is maximum) while China - at only 15, which is the lowest score (Hofstede, 2003). The high ranking for the United States indicates a society with a more individualistic attitude and relatively loose bonds with others. Self-reliance is the most distinctive feature of such society. The low ranking of Chine indicates and absolutely different system of attitudes toward self and implies much closer bonds with others. Consequently, American health practitioners adopt more patient-centered approach putting emphasis on autonomy of the patients and their "right to know" precisely because American culture paying relatively little attention to social groups (including families) they belong to. This attitude is not common in Chinese health care because it contradicts the cultural orientation toward collectivism. The custom in Chinese culture is to first inform a patient's family about a prognosis, especially when the prognosis is bad. After that the family makes a decision about the information the patient himself should receive. Members of Chinese and other similar cultural groups may feel that it would be wrong and insensitive to inform the patient about the risks associated with his illness: "this would only cause the patient great stress and even hasten death by destroying hope" (Galanti, 2000:335). Treatment decisions made by Chinese patients are strongly influenced by the family or social groups t hey are affiliated with. Therefore, involvement of family members in the process of treatment is likely to make the therapy

UK Corporate Governance Code Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

UK Corporate Governance Code - Essay Example As a result, the board of directors of a company, which is the ultimate decision making authority of a company, has been forced to become more accountable to the shareholders. However, the present Combined Code on Corporate Governance has been more of a reaction to worldwide business scandals rather than being a pro-active measure that ensures business legitimacy (Porter, 2009). Notwithstanding this fact, there has been a considerable amount of progress made in the direction of ensuring accountability and transparency, especially in Britain. It started with the formation of the Corporate Governance Code in the early 1990s. Hence, in the below sections we study the Code and the legislative framework in its present form and determine its effectiveness in the face of modern scandals and financial debacles. UK Corporate Governance Code Since the 1970s, there has been an increased amount of focus on corporate governance. This may largely be attributed to the development of big multi-natio nal companies; however, the process is still in motion. As a consequence, some of the board of directors of listed companies, who form the most powerful body in the company, of the US and UK are required to be non-executive. The CEO is no longer the sole head of the company and shares responsibilities with the non-executive directors. The idea of creating an independent atmosphere where all perspectives can be included has been extended through a number of measures as a "force for good" in the economy. The "comply or explain" principle which is one of the main features of the Code has its roots in the Cadbury Committee or the Committee on the Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance report of 1992. Originally setup to come up with recommendations for financial auditing and other financial matters due to the scandals involving the Polly Peck and Robert Maxwell companies, the Cadbury Committee headed by Sir Adrian Cadbury made four important recommendations. These were with respect t o the board of directors, non - executive directors, executive directors and reporting and control mechanisms. However, these were not mandatory and the companies were free to follow their own course since it was determined that a legalistic approach would result in compliance only to a minimum basic level that negated the main aims of the Code. It was also felt that a "one size fits all" formula must not be adopted and that companies must be allowed the option to choose their own course that satisfies their unique requirements. Subsequently there was the Greenbury Report of 1998 that dealt with the remuneration of directors issue (Barker, 2008). The Code underwent a significant review in 1998 when Sir Ronnie Hampel was charged with the duty of validating the effectiveness of the existent Code. It was recommended that there was no need for radical or revolutionary changes, instead the principles needed to be extended to detailed measures for the listed companies to implement. This w as called the Combined Code on Corporate Governance which contained two levels of prescriptive practices, one of which was a set of detailed provisions and the other was a set of open - ended principles. The companies were similarly required to present a two level declaration of the compliance of the above measures in their annual report. The Code underwent another review in 2003 following the Higgs and Smith report which added another layer of compliance norms to the existing Code. It was made up of high – level main principles, mid –