Solution-Discuss the findings of bph and prostate cancer

Discuss the findings of BPH and prostate cancer. How would the presentation differ? What is the significance of the PSA testing in these patients? How would you differentiate between BPH and prostate cancer? What would your treatment plan be for each? Needs to be at least 2 pages in APA format with at least 2 references within the last 5 years, can not cite from web md, Wikipedia, medline plus. Reference must be cited after each use!

Summarize the various reasons the Weimar Republic was an emergency solution disliked by large segments of the German population.

Lesson 3: The Decline of the Weimar Republic and the Rise of the Nazi Party
Lesson Essay
When you can accomplish the learning objectives for this lesson, you should begin work on the lesson essay described below. You may use any assigned readings, your notes, and other course-related materials to complete this assignment. Be sure to reread theessay grading criteria on the Grades and Assessments page.
This essay should be about 750 words long, typed double space with one-inch margins on each side. It is worth 100 points and should aIDress the following:
What does General Ludendorff’s notion of a “stab-in-the-back” refer to? Discuss the political implications of this theory for the newly founded Weimar Republic in 1919. You should take into account both the relationship between civil government and the military command and the public’s perception of the republic and the lost war.

Learning Objectives
After completing this lesson, you should be able to do the following:
Define crucial terms and events such as the stab-in-the-back legend, Kapp-Putsch, NSDAP, SA, SS, Night of the Long Knives, andErmächtigungsgesetz.
Provide a brief summary of the Treaty of Versailles.
Summarize the various reasons the Weimar Republic was an emergency solution disliked by large segments of the German population.
Broadly discuss the genesis of the NSDAP and its development until 1933.
Enumerate the major political goals of Hitler and the NSDAP.
Provide an account of how Hitler established a totalitarian regime within the first six months of his being voted chancellor.
Commentary
The First World War
We have already briefly touched upon the multiple factors that led to the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. Chief among them was the widespread imperialist ambitions of the major European nations at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. Since Germany developed its industrial power relatively late, it felt left behind in comparison with the other powers, notably France and Britain, which had already built huge imperialist empires in Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Americas. Demanding its own “place under the sun,” as the German Emperor Wilhelm II put it, Germany rapidly increased its military and economic presence in other parts of the world and established colonies in southwest Africa, China, and the Pacific islands, among others. Compared with the strong sense of competition among European powers around 1914, the assassination of Grand Duke Franz Ferdinand and his wife in Serbia, generally considered the “actual” cause of the war, was merely the final straw that unleashed the storm that had been building for decades.
The war itself was enthusiastically embraced by most peoples in Europe, with only a few critical voices in the beginning. This changed later on, particularly after it had become clear in 1916 that the war could not be won as easily as each nation had hoped. The central powers (comprising Germany and Austria together with Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire) made quick advances against Russia and the Serbs in the east. Most importantly, Germany succeeded in smuggling the great revolutionary Lenin into czarist Russia in 1916, and thus helped unleash the Bolshevik October Revolution in Russia in 1917. After the revolution, Germany secured a gain of territory (including Finland, Poland, the Ukraine, and some regions in the Caucasus) by signing the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.
In the west, however, things looked completely different. Germany had violated Belgian neutrality when it followed the so-calledSchliefenplan (worked out by General Schliefen). The basic idea had been to attack France from the north in order to avoid the strong French fortifications along Germany’s western border. To do so, however, required German troops to march through neutral Belgium, and this, in turn, caused Great Britain to join the war against the central powers. In 1917, Germany would again commit a similar error by declaring unrestricted submarine warfare. This policy was directly responsible for the destruction of the American luxury linerLusitania, causing the Americans to join the war on the Allied side as well.
After some initial advances into France, the Germans were stopped in eastern France and bogged down in trench warfare that led to a complete stalemate lasting almost three years. At home, the pressure on the German High Military Command (Oberste Heeresleitung) consisting of the two leading generals, Ludendorff and von Hindenburg, grew stronger, particularly after the bad harvest in 1916 and 1917 led to a famine in many parts of Germany. The social democrats in particular were pushing for peace initiatives, yet von Hindenburg and Ludendorff successfully ruled over both the emperor and the German parliament. Insisting on continuing the fight, Ludendorff and von Hindenburg also helped block an initiative from the Pope to end the war. The only hope was to force a decision prior to arrival of American troops in 1918. Hence, Ludendorff ordered another huge offensive against French and British troops in March of 1918. The Germans reached the Marne River, yet lost half a million soldiers before they were pushed back by an Allied counterattack in the summer. In September of 1918, von Hindenburg finally admitted that the war was lost. Austria collapsed as well. The German emperor abdicated and fled the country, living the remainder of his life in Holland. The military ceded control back to the civil government, and a socialist revolution was proclaimed in various parts of Germany (Kiel, Munich, and Berlin) in November of 1918.
The Founding of the Weimar Republic
The time immediately after the war was characterized by socio-political chaos throughout Germany, which slowly dissipated with the creation of the Weimar Republic. Elections were held on January 19, 1919, and the socialists emerged as the biggest party amidst a plethora of smaller ones. The socialist Friedrich Ebert was declared president of the Reich (Reichspräsident) and hence had to represent Germany on the international scene. The Treaty of Versailles, which Germany was not invited to draft but had to sign in totoin June of 1919, led to a significant reduction of Germany’s territory and the demilitarization of the Rhineland. Allied troops were to occupy many areas. Since Germany was considered solely responsible for the war, it had to pay enormous war reparations to the winning parties (thirty-three billion dollars in war reparations and indemnities over a period of seventy years). The treaty was enormously unpopular in Germany, in no small part because it impinged extensively on internal German sovereignty. Moreover, it was drafted and signed in the same Hall of Mirrors in Versailles (France) where several decades earlier the Second German Reich had been pronounced after the successful war against France in 1871. This symbolic humiliation of Germany remained a considerable burden of the newly founded republic throughout its short existence (until 1933), particularly because the military, having been solely responsible for losing the war, was quick to blame the republic for what they called Germany’s “dishonor.”
In his famous “stab-in-the-back” theory (Dolchstosslegende), General Ludendorff claimed that the German army had been defeated not by the enemy but by the revolutionary forces inside Germany who crept up and killed them from behind. (One must not forget that at the time of Germany’s surrender, its troops were still stationed in Belgium and France; none of the fighting had taken place on German soil.) Although this was a complete fabrication, it proved to be an enormously powerful myth that allowed Germans to maintain their illusions of grandeur by blaming the disliked republic for all that had gone wrong with the war and its aftermath.
Because the Weimar Republic was born out of chaos, it remained an emergency solution rather than a desired political development. It represented an impossible compromise between reactionary and revolutionary forces in Germany, between those who criticized private ownership and those who defended it, between detractors and advocates of the church, between forces who argued for a strong central government and those who supported the federalist tradition of Germany. There simply had not been enough time to work out a compromise and to allow the population to identify with the democratic principles of the new republic. Rather, Germany remained steeped in undemocratic traditions and structures in the areas of administration, economy, and education.
Given this constellation of forces, it was hardly surprising to see the Weimar Republic attacked from all sides. When the communist Spartacus movement rose up again in Berlin in January of 1919, President Ebert did not hesitate to crush the revolt with the help of the official German army, a policy he repeated again later in April of that year against the proclamation of a communist government in Bavaria. One year later, Ebert had to defend the republic again, this time against forces from the right during the so-called Kapp-Putsch in March 1920. The East Prussian landowner Wolfgang Kapp, founder of the Vaterlandspartei (Homeland-Party), and his associates Hermann Ehrhardt, leader of the powerful Ehrhard Freicorps (“marine brigade”—a quasi-private, para-military group), and General Ludendorff, who had returned from his Swedish exile, marched together into Berlin, demanding new elections and resistance against the Versailles Treaty. The putsch ultimately failed because of the refusal of the Reichswehr to cooperate and because of a general labor strike called by German trade unions and the government.
Things continued to deteriorate in the early years of the republic. Several members of the government were murdered by reactionary forces (Erzberger in 1921 and Rathenau in 1922), and although Germany had been able to stop paying reparations to Russia after signing the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922, it could not keep up its payments to France and Great Britain. In January of 1923, French forces occupied the Ruhrgebiet (the mineral-rich western area of Germany) in an effort to control production and increase payments. Although the French did not succeed because of the passive resistance and non-cooperation policy of German workers, they remained in the Rhineland until July of 1925. Due to reparations, the devaluation of German currency started in 1922 and increased drastically until a new currency was introduced in November of 1923.
The years between 1924 and 1929, by contrast, inaugurated a time of economic and political recovery and led to what has become known as the period of “the roaring twenties.” This period was marked by a cultural blossoming in literature and the arts along with the advance of American culture, above all in the areas of music (jazz) and sports. Economically, this stabilization was made possible by the Dawes Plan brokered by the American finance expert Charles Dawes. The plan both lowered German payments and provided significant credits so that Germany could pay its war reparations. The Treaty of Locarno, in 1925, secured the western borders of Germany, and the gradual process of reintegrating Germany into the world community led to the withdrawal of the international occupation forces in the Rhine area and to Germany’s admission into the newly founded League of Nations (the equivalent of today’s United Nations) in 1926. However, this time of relative stability did not last long. It ended abruptly with the stock-market crash of 1929 and the increasing internal destabilization of Germany until Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933.
The Rise of the Nazi Party
Adolf Hitler experienced the end of World War I as a common soldier in a hospital recovering from his wounds. Although a decorated war veteran, he was not able to join the reestablished German army after the war, whose size had been limited by the Treaty of Versailles to only 100,000 soldiers. Instead, he worked as an undercover informant for the army in Munich. There, he began his political career as a gifted speaker in the various beer halls and, with six other members, formed the German Workers’ Party (or DAP, Deutsche Arbeiter Partei) in 1920. At the time, the DAP was only one of many right-wing groups in Weimar that promoted a voelkisch, national-socialist agenda. Hitler was the propaganda chairman of the party due to his considerable skill as a public speaker. During the inaugural meeting of the DAP, Hitler was able to attract and excite several thousand people with a twenty-five point program that lashed out against capitalism, democracy, and the Jews in particular. The name of the party was later changed to NSDAP (National-Socialist German Workers’ Party) to emphasize both its national and socialist program.
Repeatedly threatening to withdraw from the party, Hitler was able to reorganize the program and establish himself as the party’s leader in 1921. That same year, the NSDAP also formed the SA (Sturmabteilung or Storm Troops). Originally conceived as a sports group of the party, the SA was soon increasingly used as a quasi-military gang charged with providing security during the party’s meetings and Hitler’s speeches. One must aID that other parties (notably the communists, but also the more liberal or centrist parties) likewise featured their own private corps, a result of the limited size of the official German army and the lack of civil jobs and other forms of employment in the post-war years. Nonetheless, the SA soon emerged as one of the most brutal and powerful military forces in the Weimar Republic. Already in 1923, it included 15,000 members; by 1929, it had a strength of 100,000 men and was thus as big as the official German army; in 1932, it had grown to 400,000 members. Membership in the NSDAP grew just as quickly, from 2,000 in 1920 to 55,000 in 1923, 180,000 in 1929, and 450,000 in 1932, making the NSDAP the strongest party in the election of July 1932.
The social make-up of the NSDAP during the early 1920s, including the SA, was mixed. In spite of its reference to the socialist working members, only about thirty-six percent of the party included workers, which were thus underrepresented, because workers represented more than forty percent of the total German population. By contrast, the upper class with twelve percent membership was overrepresented in comparison with the three percent it constituted nationwide. Likewise overrepresented was the lower miIDle class at fifty-two percent (consisting of small businessmen, small-town and rural merchants, craftsmen, office clerks, and lower civil servants and civil employees), who comprised forty-three percent of the population nationwide. The latter group in particular was attracted by the party’s anti-Semitism, because they blamed the Jews for their own private business problems and the economic woes of Germany at large.
The Beer-Hall-Putsch and Mein Kampf
By 1923, Hitler had become head of the “fight group” (Kampfbund), an organization for right-wing military groups such as the SA. From then on, he sought to rally support for an overthrow of the republic, and when conflicts escalated between the social-democratic government in Berlin and the local Bavarian right-wing government in Munich in November of 1923, he thought the time had come to declare a state of emergency in a beer hall in Munich. The so-called “Beer-Hall-Putsch,” however, was short-lived, mainly because the Bavarian leaders and the Bavarian military ultimately decided against supporting the coup. Thus, Hitler was left to march through Munich with only Ludendorff and a few other supporters. When they encountered Bavarian police, Hitler fled, but he was later arrested, tried, and sentenced to five years in prison. He served less than a year of that sentence.
During his time in prison (1924–1925), Hitler wrote his infamous book Mein Kampf, a copy of which would later, during the Nazi reign, be given to almost every German at any possible occasion (birth, weIDing, burial, etc.). In this book, Hitler drew the political and propagandistic conclusions from the failed Beer-Hall-Putsch. Among others, he recognized that he needed the support of the army if he were to seize power in Germany. Since there were still many Jews in high military position, this meant that he had to tone down his anti-Semitic and anti-capitalist rhetoric and instead appear more neutral—at least in his public speeches. He also concluded that he needed to proceed legally within the framework of the Weimar political system. On the other hand, the book also spelled out Hitler’s ideology very clearly to his followers. On many pages, he developed his anti-bolshevist, anti-Semitic, nationalist, social-Darwinist theories coupled with the necessity to gain more Lebensraum (habitable space) for the superior Aryan race, particularly in Eastern Europe and Asia.
The Nazis’ Rise to Power
When Hitler was released in 1925, the NSDAP was in shambles, and he had to spend considerable effort to rebuild the party and establish himself once again as its leader. In 1926, a special sub-group was formed within the SA, called the SS (Schutz-Staffel or Protection Squad). This organization would become increasingly important throughout the 1920s and remained a major source of power for Hitler after the NSDAP seized power in 1933. Using the new SS together with the SA, the Nazis developed an urban plan to win the masses in the cities away from the socialists and the communists. This led to an increase in street fighting among the various parties.
This was only one of the many reasons the Weimar Republic became increasingly unstable toward the end of the 1920s. In 1925, Friedrich Ebert, the socialist president, had died, and the former Field Marshall von Hindenburg had been confirmed as the new president of the Republic. This was the source of many problems, because von Hindenburg made no secret of his profound dislike for the republic. It represented everything he—an aristocrat and firm believer in monarchic principles—despised about the plebeian, democratic spirit of the modern world, and he used his powerful position to further undermine the already weak republic. Since he had been directly elected by the people for seven years, he had considerable powers at his disposal: according to the Weimar constitution, the president was the commander in chief of the armed forces. Under Article 48, he could suspend the fundamental rights otherwise guaranteed by the constitution and rule by emergency degrees. He could not only invoke a public referendum against particular decisions of the Reichstag, he could also dissolve the Reichstag and then rule in the interim period until a new government had been formed (usually through new elections). Von Hindenburg made frequent use of these powers, particularly after the crash of the stock market, in October 1929, and the tumultuous times that followed.
In March of 1930, von Hindenburg charged the young Heinrich Brüning with building a new government. Yet Brüning could not find sufficient votes in the Reichstag to support his policies, and von Hindenburg decided once again to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections in September. In the meantime, Hitler and the Nazis had begun to collaborate with other conservative and nationalist forces to increase their strength. In particular, they secured the support of Alfred Hugenberg, a wealthy industrialist, who was a strong opponent of Brüning’s efforts to save the republic. In the September elections, the Nazis increased their mandates in the German parliament (the Reichstag) from 12 to 107 and thus represented the second largest faction behind the socialists. Although Brüning remained chancellor, he was still unable to form a strong majority and was soon thereafter replaced, first by von Papen (June 1932), then by von Schleicher (November 1932), and finally, in January 1933, by Adolf Hitler, whose NSDAP had grown to become the largest party in Germany at the time.
It must be emphasized at this point that the Nazis did not really “seize power” in a revolutionary manner, as their propaganda continued to imply. Rather, they were voted into power by the German people, confirmed by the German President von Hindenburg, and supported by a loose coalition of conservative and nationalist forces who fatally underestimated Hitler, hoping to instrumentalize his popularity to achieve their own goals. In fact, however, Hitler used them for his own purposes.
Once chancellor, Hitler did not waste any time in erecting his absolutist rule. He asked von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections in March of 1933. Although the Nazis won only 288 seats (43.9 percent) and thus not an absolute majority, Hitler’s dictatorship had already begun by that time. He had legalized the SA and SS, both of which had been banned for almost a year before he took office. Although Hitler’s government featured only three Nazi ministers, Hitler used his SA and SS effectively to suppress opposition both within and outside of the Reichstag. Ruling by presidential decree with the help of the totally clueless von Hindenburg, Hitler first curtailed the freedom of the press and then put pressure on the civil administration to support his policies. He also took charge of the official police force in Prussia and began to disseminate mass propaganda through the use of radio, posters, and other print media. When, on February 27, 1933, the German Reichstag suIDenly stood in flames—the mentally disturbed Dutch Marinus van der Lubbe was later tried and sentenced for arson—Hitler immediately used the ensuing crisis to harass other parties (particularly the communists) under the pretext of trying to establish peace and security.
After the elections in March, Hitler, with the help of most liberal-centrist parties (yet against the will of the socialists) passed the Enabling Act on March 23 (Ermächtigungsgesetz), which stated that a two-thirds majority in the Reichstag sufficed to change the constitution and grant the government aIDitional emergency powers. Hitler argued that he needed this power to issue laws quickly and effectively without the cumbersome deliberation process of the Reichstag, and he promised to limit the duration of this law to only four years—the period necessary, he argued, to clear up the current mess and strengthen the country. By supporting this law and the aIDitional powers it granted Hitler, the German Reichstag effectively voted itself out of power.
The Enabling Act officially ended the parliamentary system in Germany and spelled out the death of the Weimar Republic. It was immediately followed by the Gleichschaltung in the spring and summer of 1933, which included the establishment of a single-party regime; the elimination or nazification of the major social and political institutions all over Germany, including the trade unions; the concomitant purging from the courts, universities, and other administrative bodies of communists, Jews, and anti-Nazi personnel; the crushing of the trade unions after May 1; and the outlawing of the socialists in June, followed by the prohibition of other parties soon thereafter. Neither President von Hindenburg nor the official German army resisted Hitler’s policies in any way. Quite the contrary, they seemed content to witness the demise of the republic and supported Hitler’s promise of a resurrected Germany.
One of the few problems remaining for Hitler was his SA, which posed a considerable threat for the official German army in terms of its size and political orientation. Moreover, while the leaders of the army were nationalist-conservative, the SA consisted largely of the socialist component of the NSDAP and hence pushed for large-scale economic and political reforms in Germany. Von Hindenburg strongly resisted the replacement of the army by the SA (which numbered 2.5 million soldiers at the time), and Hitler, who needed the support of the wealthy industrialists and the conservatives in order to strengthen Germany’s economic and military power, became increasingly hostile to the revolutionary rhetoric of the SA and its leader Ernst Röhm. On June 30, 1934, Hitler used the SS under the command of Heinrich Himmler to execute the entire SA leadership during their annual meeting in Bad Wiessee in Bavaria. The so-called “Night of Long Knives” was followed by the death of von Hindenburg on August 2, which allowed Hitler to assume the role of president as well. Calling himself the Führer of the German Reich and People, he had the German army swear obedience to him personally as their supreme leader.
Study Questions
To test your knowledge, answer the following study questions and click on the “Show Answer(s)” link to check your answers.
Why was the Weimar Republic so much disliked by the German population?
The civil government of the Weimar Republic had to pick up the pieces left behind by the Second Reich and its militarist leadership. They had to sign the Treaty of Versailles, which took away large territories from Germany and assigned it the sole responsibility of the war. The treaty also demanded huge payments of war reparations and was specifically designed to symbolize the defeat of Germany. By signing the treaty, Ebert and his fellow politicians became associated with the German “shame,” particularly since the aristocratic-nationalist circles refused to accept any responsibility for the lost war and blamed the republic instead. Moreover, there had been no democratic tradition in Germany to build on, and the population was not ready to engage in the long process of political compromise necessary to sustain a democracy. Finally, the economic and political turmoil during much of its fourteen years of existence branded the republic as an unstable form of government that left many people in dire straits.
What does the acronym NSDAP stand for?
It stands for National-Sozialistische-Deutsche-Arbeiter-Partei (National Socialist German Workers’ Party). The emphasis is on both the socialist (i.e., worker oriented) and the German-nationalist orientation. It was originally founded as the DAP (Deutsche Arbeiter Partei—German Workers’ Party) in 1920 and later changed its name to NSDAP.
What made the Weimar Republic so unstable, apart from the lack of support by the German population?
First, the Allied victors of World War I did not provide enough economic, political, or educational support for the new republic, but instead undermined it by insisting on their extremely high demands for reparations and acceptance of “guilt.” Second, the Weimar constitution had severe flaws, such as admitting too many parties into the political process or giving the Reichs-President too many powers—particularly in light of the fact that this position was later occupied by an explicit opponent of the republic (i.e., von Hindenburg).
How was Hitler able to establish his dictatorship in less than six months after being elected chancellor?
First, he used the Enabling Act (Ermaechtigungsgesetz) to grant himself vast emergency powers. Second, he relied on the SS and SA to spread terror and to intimidate his opponents. Finally, during the so-called Gleichschaltung in spring and summer of 1933, he effectively established a single-party regime; crushed the trade unions; purged the courts, universities, and other administrative bodies from communists, Jews, and anti-Nazi personnel; outlawed the socialists; and developed an effective and huge propaganda machine through the use of print-media, radio, film, and gigantic mass spectacles.
Bibliography and Further Reading
There is an abundance of literature on the decline of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazi Party, and it would be impossible to provide even a limited overview. At this point I can only mention a few titles:
Evans, David, and Jane Jenkins. Years of the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. London: HoIDer Arnold, 1999.
Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power, 1933–1939. New York: Penguin, 2006.
Peukert, Detlev J. K. The Weimar Republic. New York: Hill & Wang, 1993.
Shirer, William L. Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990

Pricing and Concept Methods with a Focus on Tobacco Companies

Pricing and Concept Methods with a Focus on Tobacco Companies

Introduction
Price is the value got for the exchange of business transactions. This is achieved by an exchange of a product or service from a producer or seller for a monetary value that customer offers. Markets have never presented to companies a stable market in terms of prices in favor of the business entities (Smith, 2011). The difference’s market and different market controls present have both positive and negative impacts to the growth of these businesses. Pricing methods are defined as the use of information on prices to represent the evolution of price index compilation. Thus, the method used defines the price that the product will be sold to a consumer (Diewert, Greenlees, & Hulten, 2009). In selling its products to consumers, the company considers the manufacturing costs, market position, market conditions, brand, and the quality of the as important factors to the product they sell. An in depth look at the tobacco industry is to provide a better understanding of the result of the pricing and concept techniques that affects different businesses. Therefore, this paper looks into the pricing and concept methods in the tobacco industry.
Tobacco Industry
Elasticity is defined as the ability of the product in the market to change according to the results of the market forces that a product is exposed. The increase in the prices affects the need of the product in a market (Diewert, Greenlees, & Hulten, 2009). Tobacco industry faces many challenges compared to other businesses in its operation, in the business. Even in the case of an increase of tits prices due to legislative changes enforced by the government, the need for tobacco never declines. In a normal situation, a slight increase of prices of a product results in a decrease of the demand in any market. The inelasticity of tobacco makes it a different product in the market segments. Health wise, tobacco is considered harmful to the users, but a large segment of the customers still cannot survive without it. The different changes that the state and legal systems have imposed on the different market products have also led to the different adaptations for the production in the different industries. Better brands have been made, to attract more customers and wider market compared to the time before the changed were implemented (Smith, 2011). Considering the target market, a cost pricing strategy is developed to help identify a specific product that the target market needs for a given satisfaction. Since the inception of the tobacco industry, different inventions have been instituted to create a bigger, wider market for the products. Demand based pricing that assumes the elasticity of the product in the market has enabled the continued existence of the tobacco industry (Smith, 2011). Since it is never affected by the changes in the prices with about the customers’ demands, tobacco industry has continued to gain more market and customers. Competition based pricing is also a sector that the tobacco industry is dependent on though, the tobacco industry has fewer competitor industries.
Conclusion
The tobacco industry is less affected by the pricing changes that the government and legal systems pose to the market. With considerations of the different pricing strategies, tobacco industry has continued to gain a vast market. The ever changing brands cost pricing, demand based pricing, competition based pricing have enabled continued existence and market the tobacco industry enjoys compared to other companies.

References
Diewert, W., Greenlees, J., & Hulten, C. (2009). Durables and. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Smith, T. (2011). Pricing Strategy: Setting Price Levels, Managing Price Discounts and Establishing Price Structures. Ohio: Cengage Learning.

Corporate Responsibility

Corporate Responsibility

Aim: Students are to demonstrate a sound understanding of the three viewpoints on corporate responsibility: the classical economic view (exemplified by Milton Friedman), the socio-economic view (the duty to prevent harm within the Kew Garden Principles) and the broad social view (the duty to contribute to society within the KGP). Students should also demonstrate knowledge of the literature on corporate responsibility (including the required readings for this topic shown in the Companion) and its application to business practice.

Question Notes :Read the case study, Drug Company Monopolies and Profits (see below).
Firstly, what do the three viewpoints of corporate responsibility (CR) imply with respect to the ethical obligations of the pharmaceutical companies and the extent to which they met these obligations?

Secondly, review the website of the pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, (http://www.pfizer.com/home/) or Johnson & Johnson http://www.jnj.com/responsibility/esg and comment on Pfizer’s or Johnson & Johnson’s initiatives regarding corporate responsibility. Your comments should be of an analytical nature, not descriptive. There are no marks for simply re-tying passages from the website. Your analysis should consider how well Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson meet the responsibilities advocated by the three viewpoints (and literature) on CR through their corporate ethics programs as advocated in their corporate responsibility reports and websites.

Finally, given your review of the literature and analysis of the case, what do you think is the social responsibility of business?

Notes:
Your application of theory to business practice must demonstrate strong skills in analysis. Application requires more than simply describing an example.
you must use references in your essay and you must cite those references both in the text and in an end reference list. Please use the author-date method. Be sure to express the ideas you read about in your own words, but acknowledge their source by citing the reference.
Your essay should have a brief introduction (an introduction should be more than a summary in the future tense) and a solid conclusion (note a conclusion is not a summary in the past tense). The conclusion can relate back to the introduction.
Be sure to read the required readings for the topic of CSR/CR and to make use of the recommended reading as well as the numerous articles as well as the numerous journal articles

 

Case study:
Drug Company Monopolies and Profits
Sources:
Velasquez, M.G. 2012. Business Ethics: Concepts & Cases (7th ed.). Pearson Education Inc., Upper SaIDle River, N.J. (p212).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/nov/14/internationalaidanIDevelopment.medicineandhealth (accessed January 17, 2013).
Drug companies in the United States are granted a patent on any new pharmaceutical drug they develop, which gives them a monopoly on that drug for 20 years. Not surprisingly, high monopoly profits (i.e., profits well beyond the average rate of profits in other industries) are characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry. In a 2003 study entitled The Other Drug War II, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch noted that during the 1970s and 1980s, drug companies in the Fortune 500 had average profit rates (as a percent of revenues) that were double the average for all other industries in the Fortune 500. During the 1990s, drug company profit rates averaged 4 times the average profit rates of all other industries, and during the first years of the twenty-first century, drug company profit rates were about 3 times the rates of other industries.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Quarterly Financial Reports, in the first quarter of 2007 and 2008, average drug company profit rates were about 3 times the average for all other manufacturing companies. In the first quarter of 2009, average drug company profit rates were close to 7 times the average for all other manufacturing companies, and in the first quarter of 2010, they averaged close to 3 times the average of other manufacturing companies. In 2010, Johnson & Johnson made a profit of $13.3 billion, the highest in the U.s. pharmaceutical industry.
Drug companies say they need these profits to cover the costs of research for new drugs. But while drug companies put only 14 percent of their revenues into research, they siphon off 17 percent of their revenues into dividends they hand out to shareholders and plow 31 percent into advertising and administration.
A study of drug manufacturing costs (see www.rense.com/general54/preco.htm) found that prescription drugs have mark-ups of 5,000 percent, 30,000 percent and 500,000 percent over the cost of their ingredients. The ingredients in 100 tablets of Norvasc, which sold for $220, cost 14 cents; of Prozac, which sold for $247. 11 cents; of Tenormin, which sold for $104, 13 cents; of Xanax, which sold for $136, 3 cents and so on.
The UK Guardian newspaper reported that people in developing countries are needlessly dying because drug companies and the governments of rich countries are blocking the developing world from obtaining affordable medicines. The reports states that Indian generics firms make most of the cheap drug cocktails that are now being rolled out to people with HIV in Africa and are keeping more than a million people alive. They brought the price of a basic three-drug cocktail down from $10,000 (£5,250) a year to less than $150 (£79). However, new Aids drugs will soon be needed because the virus will become resistant to the basic ones now in use €“ as has happened in the EU and the US. Those newer Aids drugs, together with drugs for cancer and diabetes, are under patent.
The US has pursued its own free trade agreements with developing countries, tying them into tight observance of patent rights. A report by Oxfam says that, the US has also pressured countries for greater patent protection through threats of trade sanctions and that drug firms are fighting to have patents observed. For example, Pfizer is challenging the Philippines government in a bid to extend its monopoly on Norvasc, a drug pressure drug. Novartis is engaged in litigation in India to enforce a patent for Glivec, a cancer drug, which could save many lives if it were available at generic prices and three-quarters of HIV drugs are still under monopoly and unaffordable in poor countries. Oxfam also reported that more than 75% of those who need HIV treatment urgently in developing countries, are still not getting it. Only 8% of children with HIV are on drugs, which cost four times more than those for adults.

Analyze the culture of an organization and consider how this relates to achieving goals related to quality improvement.

Discussion: Analyzing Organizational Culture

A company’s culture is often buried so deeply inside rituals, assumptions, attitudes, and values that it becomes transparent to an organization’s members only when, for some reason it changes.

 

—Rob Goffee

 

Culture is embeIDed within every organization. Yet, because culture is woven throughout the everyday interactions and atmosphere of an organization, it can be difficult to assess and explain how the culture influences the inner workings of the organization.

As a nurse leader-manager, developing a sound understanding of an organization’s culture can help you to achieve quality improvement initiatives and identify strategies for enacting sustainable change.

For this Discussion, you analyze the culture of an organization and consider how this relates to achieving goals related to quality improvement. You may wish to focus on the same organization that you have selected for your Course Project.

 

To prepare:

 

Review the information on organizational culture in this week’s Learning Resources.

Reflect on the culture of an organization with which you are familiar. Consider the following:

What elements of the organization’s culture seem most prominent or significant to you?

What beliefs, dispositions, and/or actions seem to be most valued? Why do you think so?

What do you notice about the expectations, assumptions, and more demonstrated among people within the organization?

What artifacts provide clues about the culture?

How do these cultural elements contribute to or detract from the organization’s ability to meet prominent goals and objectives?

Consider how you, as a nurse leader-manager, could apply your knowledge of this culture to facilitate quality improvement initiatives within this organization. How would you leverage the strengths of the culture, and aIDress limitations or obstacles that may arise within it?

 

 

Post an analysis of the culture of the organization that you selected. Explain how you think this particular culture contributes to or detracts from the organization’s ability to meet goals. Explain how you, as a nurse leader-manager, could utilize your knowledge of this culture to facilitate quality improvement initiatives within this organization.

 

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days using one or more of the following approaches:

Analyze similarities and differences between your colleague’s organizational culture and the organization that you selected.

Ask a probing question, substantiated with aIDitional background information or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Suggest leadership strategies that your colleague could use to overcome obstacles in the organization’s culture to facilitate quality improvement initiatives.

 

Required Readings

 

Hickey, J. V., & Brosnan, C. A. (2017). Evaluation  of health care quality in for DNPs (2nd  ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.

Chapter 10, “Evaluation of Patient Care Standards, Guidelines, and Protocols” (pp. 207-226)

Chapter 12, “Evaluating Populations and Population Health” (pp. 265-280)

Chapter 10 reviews methods for using national, local, and organizational standards to evaluate the quality of health care practices. Chapter 12 examines strategies for identifying quality issues through the evaluation of populations.

Sadeghi, S., Barzi, A., Mikhail, O., & Shabot, M. M. (2013). Integrating quality and strategy in health care organizations, Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

Chapter 3, “General Concepts in Quality” (pp. 45–82)

See the six aims for quality proposed by the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

Bellot, J. (2011). Defining and assessing organizational culture. Nursing Forum, 46(1), 29–37.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

Bellot reviews the definition of organizational culture, methods for evaluating organizational culture, and the application of Schein’s framework to defining the culture of health care organizations.

Dixon, M. A., & Dougherty, D. S. (2010). Managing the multiple meanings of organizational culture in interdisciplinary collaboration and consulting. Journal of Business Communication, 47(1), 3–19.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

This article demonstrates the importance of not only understanding the culture of an organization, but also how these dynamics affect workplace performance and retention of employees.

Dorgham, S. R. (2012). Relationship between organization work climate & staff nurses organizational commitment. Nature and Science, 10(5), 80–91. Retrieved from http://www.sciencepub.net/nature/ns1005/009_9000ns1005_80_91.pdf

 

The correlation between organizational climate and commitment and its effect on an organization is evaluated in this study.

Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(4), 677–694.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

This article presents a study on the relationship between culture types and organizational effectiveness. The authors apply specific values frameworks to determine the relationships while also assessing the competing values framework.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38(1), 9–20.

Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

 

Essays

Matrix table for psychotherapy Develop a table with columns (up and down) labeled for behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and psycho dynamic therapy. Label your rows as the summary of the therapeutic approach, and three disorders appropriate for treatment with this therapy. • Fill in the table cells with at least three bullet points that summarize […]