Analysis of the Principle of Subsidiarity

Analysis of the Principle of Subsidiarity Introduction The principle of subsidiarity has been in existence for a long time. It was introduced in the Maastricht Treaty. According to the European commissions 18th report it stated what subsidiarity meant which is Subsidiarity is a guiding principle for defining the boundary between Member State and EU responsibilities that is, who should act? If the Union has exclusive competence in a particular area, then clearly it is the Union which should act. If the Union and the Member States share competence, the principle establishes a presumption in favor of the Member States taking action. The Union should only act if Member States cannot achieve the objectives sufficiently and if, by reason of the scale or effects, the Union can achieve them better Subsidiarity serves as a restraining factor for exercising the competence. It may be that the EU has the power to act but can it do it any better? It doesnt deal with powers but rather the question of if it should act? it should if they can do a better job than individual member states. It has strong political significance. This essay shall talk about what the term subsidiarity implies , it would then go forward and discuss where it is found in the treaty, then a brief history of how subsidiarity came to being shall be examined. After which this paper will argue that the principle of subsidiarity has not been effective. At that point the paper will proceed onward to the Lisbon treaty and discuss how the Lisbon Treaty has given more power to the principle of subsidiarity Subsidiarity is the standard which decides when the European Union may make a move if the reason cant be accomplished at the nearby, territorial, national level or if part states makes the move it would have an impact on the points of the European Union. It has been defined by various authors and I will make use of two. Vause argues that subsidiarity is a guideline for contemporary power-sharing between the relatively new institutions of the EU and the constituent Member States that formed the Union.[1], G.A Bermann is of the opinion that subsidiarity expresses a preference for governance at the most local level consistent with achieving governments stated purposes.[2] The principle of subsidiarity is found in article 5(3) of treaty on European Union, It was earlier found in the Maastricht Treaty, Then again, the Single European Act (1987) had officially joined a subsidiarity model into natural arrangement, though without alluding to it unequivocally accordingly.[3] The treaty states that Under the principle of subsidiarity, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.[4] In other words, it means that the European Union shall not act unless it is under their area of competence level. The principle of subsidiarity intends to have closer relationship between the EU and its citizens therefore allowing actions to be upheld at the local level where paramount.[5] This is a mechanism to promote higher efficiency and transparency of political decisions and respond to demands for accommodation of historically developed traditions.[6] Not long after the treaty of Maastritcht, the treaty of Amsterdam was introduced which gave more significance to the principle of subsidiarity. This was achieved through the Protocol on the Application of the Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality which was created in 1999. The protocol required that; The reasons for preferring Community action must be substantiated by the Commission using both qualitative and quantitative indicators; forms of legislation that leave the Member States the greatest room for manoeuvre are to be favored over more restrictive forms of action; The Commission must consult more widely and endeavor to explain more clearly how its proposals comply with the demands of subsidiarity; The Commission must submit an annual report on the application of Article 5 EC.[7] This later became a self-governing principle of the law as seen in Article 5[8]. subsidiarity was initially brought into the EU legal order in the region of environment, in the Single European Act which entered into power in 1987. The Treaty expressed that the Community shall take action relating to the environment to the extent to which [its] objectives [] can be attained better at Community level than at the level of the individual Member States.[9] The principal of subsidiarity came into existence due to the problem of the lost sovereignty in which member states had to give up when they joined the EU. The member states lose some of their independence when they decide to join the community. This therefore brought about disagreements between the member states and the Union, reason being that there was no clear division on the areas which the member state had competence and the areas which the union had competence. The failure of the EU and EC treaty in creating a division between the areas which the union or the member states has competence has caused problems this is due to the fact that both parties always tend to claim regulatory powers.[10] Another problem which arises as a result of subsidiarity is that it assumes the primacy of the central goal and allows no mechanism for questioning whether or not it is desirable, in the light of other interests, to fully pursue this.[11] What this means is that once the community decides to take action, there is no room for member states to question their action because the court usually justifies the actions of the community based on the political notion of the principle of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is said to be a farthest point on how EUs law practices administrative fitness as in it disallows the Union to abuse its energy subsequently permitting the part states to hold some of its power. Member states have the chance to administer on laws concerning them. It could likewise be contended that the purpose behind the making of the guideline of subsidiarity was to make a restriction on the execution of choice making at the National level for the purpose of the member states. The principle of subsidiarity has it been effective? Subsidiarity is believe to act as a protective measure on the member states to protect their right to still be able to take actions concerning matters which concern them. Although they have the ability to take up task, they do not have a voice. This is said because under the treaty, there is no specification on how to prove how to go about in establishing that the member state will not be able to take up the task. This thereby makes it easy for the community to claim competence.. Gareth Davis argues that subsidiarity has not been in full swing[12] citing scenarios whereby the community took actions determining sports [13]and language[14] which would have been best attended to at national level. This paper will now choose, if the guideline of subsidiarity before the presentation of the Lisbon treaty has been successful. The principle of subsidiarity has been argued that it has not been a success as a legal principle, and is more of a political or policy-based theory, reminiscent of the moral nature of the principle in Catholic social theory, that is aspired to, but difficult to enforce in reality[ Michelle Evans. 2013]. Another motivation behind why the standard of subsidiarity has not been successful is the way that there have been lesser cases and the court of justice of the EU has not struck down any enactment, for the break of the rule.[15] also bearing in mind that most of the cases on subsidiarity, has been won by the commission, The court always found that they had exclusive competence in the areas which they undertook work . As indicated by Estella, this is because of the way that the model subsidiarity case is that in which a Member State is outvoted [in the Council] and thus brings an activity of cancellation against that measure on the ground of subsidiarity[16].Professor Wyatt offered three conceivable motivations to clarify why subsidiarity may so far have neglected to experience its guarantee: Subsidiarity is a principle ill-designed to achieve the objective of ensuring that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen. There is political lack of interest towards the rule or antipathy on the part of the Community institutions and some Member States. There is constitutional indifference or antipathy on the part of the Court of Justice.[17] Professor Weatherill additionally felt that subsidiarity has done little to curb an institutional tendency at EU level to err on the side of centralization rather than preservation of local autonomy. In his perspective, subsidiarity has not so far been a sufficiently capable guideline to battle what he sees as the concentrating propensities of the EU foundations.[18] The Lisbon treaty The Lisbon Treaty has reinforced the part of both the national parliaments and the Court of Justice in checking consistence with the guideline of subsidiarity. The Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) included Protocol (No 2) (of equivalent lawful status to the Arrangement) on the use of the standards of subsidiarity and proportionality. The Protocol set out that any proposed Community enactment ought to be legitimized as to subsidiarity (and proportionality), and determined criteria to be considered when judging whether Community activity is legitimized, including that the issue under thought ought to have transnational angles; that an absence of Community activity or that Member States acting alone would clash with Treaty targets; and that activity at a Community level would deliver clear advantages (over activity at Member State level) by reason of its scale or effect.[ European Council, Treaty Establishing the European Community Protocol 2, 1999.]. The innovation brought by the Lisbon, is the Protocol on the utilization of the standards of subsidiarity and proportionality, which contains a lawful system for a fortified control of the standard of subsidiarity. It opens up the entrance to European law-making process for national parliaments which are given the part of controlling the conformity of authoritative recommendations with the rule of subsidiarity. [19] The Lisbon Treaty came into existence in December 2009[20] and it sets down standards on the results of contemplated sentiments, in light of the quantity of votes originating from national parliaments. Over specific limits, these are generally alluded to as yellow and orange cards. Jean Monnet argues that it opens up the entrance to European law-production process for national parliaments which are given the part of controlling the agreeability of authoritative recommendations with the rule of subsidiarity[21]. She argued further that the ex ante security of subsidiarity was left to the legislatures and their capacity to guard the national administrative skills. The new structure accommodates an ex stake part for the national parliaments. The Treaty of Lisbon improves by partner national Parliaments nearly with the checking of the standard of subsidiarity. It could be argued that the National Parliaments now practices twofold observing, they have a privilege to question when enactment is drafted. They can in this way reject an authoritative proposition before the Commission on the off chance that they consider that the standard of subsidiarity has been breached. Through their Member State, they may challenge an authoritative demonstration under the watchful eye of the Court of Justice of the EU on the off chance that they consider that the standard of subsidiarity has not been watched.[22] This could therefore show that the National Parliament has been given a reasonable amount of power to control the level of intervention from the community which may not be needed. Lisbon Treaty reinforce the national parliaments part and may additionally constitute a generous achievement for regional parliaments with authoritative forces on the off chance that they get to be really aware of the significance of satisfactory investigation of authoritative recommendations. Regarding Subsidiarity within the EU Institutional Framework?]. Under the treaty of Lisbon, Member States or the Committee of the Regions may challenge legislation if they feel it is not in line with the principle of subsidiarity. This is possible under Art 263 TFEU.[23] Conclusion The Lisbon treaty, brought about more awareness of the principle of subsidiarity, this is shown because before an act is enacted, it is required that a draft is sent to all national parliament to see if it fits under the subsidiarity principle. Although, it states that this is not required if there is a state of emergency, Therefore, this essay is of the opinion that the community could easily claim that most of its act is done under a state of emergency . This could however limit the scrutiny process. The Lisbon treaty also introduces the participation of Regional and local parties in the mission for a more united Europe together with a strengthened guideline of subsidiarity and an expanding part allowed to the national parliaments. The improved principle of subsidiarity only focuses on the scrutiny done by the national parliament, it does not solve the problem of EU competence. The EU still mostly gets a higher advantage over the member states when dealing with taking up tasks. In the sense that the national parliaments only serves an advisory role.[24] Therefore it could be argued that there is still much reform to be done to put more effect to the role of national parliaments and also the principle of subsidiarity itself. REFERENCES Case C-415/93, Bosman,[1995] ECR I-4921. Case C-379/87,Groener,[1989] ECR 3967. W Gary Vause, The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law American Federalism Compared [1995] Western Reserve Journal of International Law 61, 62. Bermann, G. A.: Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States. Columbia Law Review, 1994, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 339 344. Petr Novak, The principle of subsidiarity (europa.eu 2014) accessed 12 April 2015 TEU art 5(3) Christoph Ritzer, Marc Ruttloff and Karin Linhar, How to Sharpen a Dull Sword The Principle of Subsidiarity and its Control [2006] German law journal 733, 736 Single European Act, Article 130r.4. 1986 A von Bogdandy, J Bast, The European Unions Vertical Order of Competences: the Current Law and proposals for its Reform (2002) 39 CML Rev 227-68. G Davies, Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, In the wrong place, At the wrong time [2006] Common market law review 63, 78 G Davies, Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, In the wrong place, At the wrong time [2006] Common market law review 63, 73 call for evidence on the governments review of balance of competences between the united kingdom and the European union. chapter 2: exploring subsidiarity (parliament.uk 2005) accessed 12 April 2015 Jean Monnet seminar Advanced Issues of European Law Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union 6th session, Dubrovnik, April 20-27, 2008 [1] W Gary Vause, The Subsidiarity Principle in European Union Law American Federalism Compared [1995] Western Reserve Journal of International Law 61, 62 [2] Bermann, G. A.: Taking Subsidiarity Seriously: Federalism in the European Community and the United States. Columbia Law Review, 1994, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 339 344. [3] Petr Novak, The principle of subsidiarity (europa.eu 2014) accessed 12 April 2015 [4] TEU art 5(3) [5] IBID [6] Christoph Ritzer, Marc Ruttloff and Karin Linhar, How to Sharpen a Dull Sword The Principle of Subsidiarity and its Control [2006] German law journal 733, 736 [7] IBID [8] Christoph Ritzer, Marc Ruttloff and Karin Linhar, How to Sharpen a Dull Sword The Principle of Subsidiarity and its Control [2006] German law journal 733, 736 [9] Single European Act, Article 130r.4. 1986 [10] A von Bogdandy, J Bast, The European Unions Vertical Order of Competences: the Current Law and proposals for its Reform (2002) 39 CML Rev 227-68. [11] G Davies, Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, In the wrong place, At the wrong time [2006] Common market law review 63, 78. [12] G Davies, Subsidiarity: The wrong idea, In the wrong place, At the wrong time [2006] Common market law review 63, 73 [13] Case C-415/93, Bosman,[1995] ECR I-4921. [14] Case C-379/87,Groener,[1989] ECR 3967. [15] call for evidence on the governments review of balance of competences between the united kingdom and the European union. [16] Jean Monnet seminar Advanced Issues of European Law Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union 6th session, Dubrovnik, April 20-27, 2008. [17] chapter 2: exploring subsidiarity (parliament.uk 2005) accessed 12 April 2015 [18] IBID. [19] Jean Monnet seminar Advanced Issues of European Law Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union 6th session, Dubrovnik, April 20-27, 2008. [20] Vaughne Miller , National Parliaments and EU law-making: how is the yellow card system working? (parliament.uk 2012) accessed 12 April 2015. [21] IBID. [22] Petr Novak, The principle of subsidiarity (europa.eu 2014) accessed 12 April 2015. [23] TFEU Art 263 [24] Jean Monnet seminar Advanced Issues of European Law Re-thinking the European Constitution in an Enlarged European Union 6th session, Dubrovnik, April 20-27, 2008.

Multifactorial Model of Health Psychology

The multifactorial model in health psychology is a leading paradigm that recognizes the multi-faceted nature of illnesses. It is not a clear-cut, simple case that a disease is caused by a singular factor. The fact is that decades if not over a century of modern research has led to the recognition that a host of factors, as well as their interactions, function in illness and health determination (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). These varied factors that the multifactorial model indicates to be the range of possible influences or causes of diseases cover the psychological, sociocultural, environmental, and stressors. This broad range of factors, which include both those within and without one's control, determine an individual's health and his/her level of susceptibility to health problems (Nevid & Rathus, p. 127). Psychological or personality and behavior factors figure in quite a large number of health problems. Such is seen in the large number of preventable deaths that occur yearly in the United States. For one, smoking leads to way over 400,000 annual deaths from cancer, diseases of the heart and lungs, and stroke. Some 300,000 year deaths stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes can actually be prevented with good diet and proper exercise. Immunizations, moderation or control of alcohol drinking, and abstinence or safe sex practices could also help prevent deaths from infectious diseases, vehicular and other accidents/injuries, and sexually transmitted diseases, respectively (Nevid & Rathus, p. 128). It should be well noted that depression and other negative psychological states could actually render an impaired immune system functioning (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). The reason for this is that, contrary to popular thinking, the mental and the physical are not entirely separate domains but, rather intertwined (Nevid & Rathus, p. 131). Biological factors include age, gender, genetics, as well as injuries, exposure to pathogens and inoculations. One's genetic make-up, while beyond an individual's capacity to be altered, tend to make certain people falsely assume that their health is doomed by, say, a family history of diabetes. Having a family history of a disease can make some people think fatalistically that nothing they do can improve their chances of overcoming or escaping a disease. Dr. Robert N. Hoover of the National Cancer Institute, however, says that many cases of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and others merely give rise to predispositions, not really certainties (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). Environmental factors include pollution, water quality, hygiene from solid waster treatment and sanitation, natural disasters, and even global warming and depletion of the ozone layer. Personal stressors cover a wide range of situations such as daily hassles at home, co-workers, time pressure, and financial insecurity; frustrations; major life changes; workplace situation; and isolation or rejection by peers (Nevid & Rathus, p. 27). Thus, in the diagnosis of illnesses, the multifactorial model considers the possible roles played by psychological, biological, environmental/cultural factors, along with their interactions (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). In the United States, the application of the psychological health model can be seen in studies that attempt to explain the phenomenon of black Americans seemingly suffering from health problems more compared to the European Americans. The ethnicity consideration has led to studies showing that African-Americans may indeed be genetically predisposed to hypertension but, at the same time, poor diet, stress and smoking contribute to the development of the disease. Such consideration has also led to findings that the tendency of Afro-Americans to have lower access level to quality health care help explain, for instance, why they are less prone to receive surgeries for hip and knee replacements (Nevid & Rathus, p. 128). Use of Psychology in Understanding Illnesses Diagnosing, understanding and managing headaches have been helped a lot with the use of psychology. The multifactorial model views headaches, migraine headaches in particular, as being triggered by multiple factors that include fluctuations in hormonal levels/balance, stress, barometric pressure changes, exposure to very bright lights, certain drug use, certain chemical ingestion, and certain foods, among others (Nevid & Rathus, p. 132). Said factors, of course, involve biological and environmental factors, but also psychological ones which are more the concern of health psychology—how psychological factors interact with physical health problems, including in terms of triggering, preventing, or treating diseases (Nevid & Rathus, p. 18). Health psychology studies have shown that stress figures in migraine headaches. The causal mechanisms that underlie migraines have been described to be complex and not well understood—with neurotransmitter serotonin imbalance and resulting blood flow changes in the brain appearing to be related somehow. The psychological perspective ha s identified stress and glaring lights exposure, among others, as possible triggers for migraine headaches. As well, this branch of psychology has indicated that behavioral coping responses may help people deal with headaches. While evidence collated in a study showing that women suffering from regular migraines tend to be more self-critical, likely to make a big thing of life's stresses, and less likely to look for social support during periods of stress, is only correlation, the study does suggest that people's behavior may inadvertently be leading them into a vicious cycle. Psychology shows that with recurrent headaches such as migraine, certain behaviors help trigger the illness as much as how the refusal to avail of social support may further aggravate emotional distress and pain from migraines (Nevid & Rathus, p. 32). With advances in health science in general, headaches today are better managed, with its triggers even being avoided. Psychology has helpe understand and cope with migraines also by way of advising people, women in particular, not to accept such an illness as â€Å"normal† and, instead, advise them to be more assertive with their doctors who limit migraine treatments to only one approach (Nevid & Rathus, p. 133). The importance of health psychology is, perhaps, more apparent in the case of coronary heart disease or CHD. This is because this leading cause of mortality in the US clearly lists several types of psychological factors as triggers: diet patterns; anger and hostility; Type A behavior that markedly consists of hostility; job strain; chronic emotional strain and fatigue; sudden stressors; and an inactive lifestyle (Nevid & Rathus, p. 135-137). Health psychology science has established how consumption patterns such as overeating, heavy alcohol drinking, smoking, and high-cholesterol diet lead to coronary heart ailments. It is also worth noting that the science has also identified that a minimal amount of alcohol appears to be beneficial to the heart. The psychological perspective also makes the suggestion that a modest association between coronary heart disease and Type A behavior exists, particularly among white, middle-aged-to-older men. Hostility and anger are closely linked with increased CHD risk and are even thought of to be a stronger predictor of CHD compared to genetics, obesity, or smoking (Nevid & Rathus, p. 35). With regards work-related psychological factor, the job-strain health psychology model helps understand how highly demanding jobs and jobs that gives workers little control lead to increased risk of heart-related illnesses (Nevid & Rathus, p. 136). The multifactorial health psychology perspective has also led to the understanding of how sudden life stressors, chronic fatigue/emotional strain and a physically inactive lifestyle figure in the development of heart disease and occurr ence of heart attacks. The multifactorial model in health psychology is a leading paradigm that recognizes the multi-faceted nature of illnesses. It is not a clear-cut, simple case that a disease is caused by a singular factor. The fact is that decades if not over a century of modern research has led to the recognition that a host of factors, as well as their interactions, function in illness and health determination (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). These varied factors that the multifactorial model indicates to be the range of possible influences or causes of diseases cover the psychological, ociocultural, environmental, and stressors. This broad range of factors, which include both those within and without one's control, determine an individual's health and his/her level of susceptibility to health problems (Nevid & Rathus, p. 127). Psychological or personality and behavior factors figure in quite a large number of health problems. Such is seen in the large number of preventable deaths that occur yearly in the United States. For one, smoking leads to way over 400,000 annual deaths from cancer, diseases of the heart and lungs, and stroke. Some 300,000 year deaths stroke, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes can actually be prevented with good diet and proper exercise. Immunizations, moderation or control of alcohol drinking, and abstinence or safe sex practices could also help prevent deaths from infectious diseases, vehicular and other accidents/injuries, and sexually transmitted diseases, respectively (Nevid & Rathus, p. 128). It should be well noted that depression and other negative psychological states could actually render an impaired immune system functioning (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). The reason for this is that, contrary to popular thinking, the mental and the physical are not entirely separate domains but, rather intertwined (Nevid & Rathus, p. 131). Biological factors include age, gender, genetics, as well as injuries, exposure to pathogens and inoculations. One's genetic make-up, while beyond an individual's capacity to be altered, tend to make certain people falsely assume that their health is doomed by, say, a family history of diabetes. Having a family history of a disease can make some people think fatalistically that nothing they do can improve their chances of overcoming or escaping a disease. Dr. Robert N. Hoover of the National Cancer Institute, however, says that many cases of cancer, cardiovascular diseases and others merely give rise to predispositions, not really certainties (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). Environmental factors include pollution, water quality, hygiene from solid waster treatment and sanitation, natural disasters, and even global warming and depletion of the ozone layer. Personal stressors cover a wide range of situations such as daily hassles at home, co-workers, time pressure, and financial insecurity; frustrations; major life changes; workplace situation; and isolation or rejection by peers (Nevid & Rathus, p. 27). Thus, in the diagnosis of illnesses, the multifactorial model considers the possible roles played by psychological, biological, environmental/cultural factors, along with their interactions (Nevid & Rathus, p. 126). In the United States, the application of the psychological health model can be seen in studies that attempt to explain the phenomenon of black Americans seemingly suffering from health problems more compared to the European Americans. The ethnicity consideration has led to studies showing that African-Americans may indeed be genetically predisposed to hypertension but, at the same time, poor diet, stress and smoking contribute to the development of the disease. Such consideration has also led to findings that the tendency of Afro-Americans to have lower access level to quality health care help explain, for instance, why they are less prone to receive surgeries for hip and knee replacements (Nevid & Rathus, p. 128). Use of Psychology in Understanding Illnesses Diagnosing, understanding and managing headaches have been helped a lot with the use of psychology. The multifactorial model views headaches, migraine headaches in particular, as being triggered by multiple factors that include fluctuations in hormonal levels/balance, stress, barometric pressure changes, exposure to very bright lights, certain drug use, certain chemical ingestion, and certain foods, among others (Nevid & Rathus, p. 132). Said factors, of course, involve biological and environmental factors, but also psychological ones which are more the concern of health psychology—how psychological factors interact with physical health problems, including in terms of triggering, preventing, or treating diseases (Nevid & Rathus, p. 18). Health psychology studies have shown that stress figures in migraine headaches. The causal mechanisms that underlie migraines have been described to be complex and not well understood—with neurotransmitter serotonin imbalance and resulting blood flow changes in the brain appearing to be related somehow. The psychological perspective ha s identified stress and glaring lights exposure, among others, as possible triggers for migraine headaches. As well, this branch of psychology has indicated that behavioral coping responses may help people deal with headaches. While evidence collated in a study showing that women suffering from regular migraines tend to be more self-critical, likely to make a big thing of life's stresses, and less likely to look for social support during periods of stress, is only correlation, the study does suggest that people's behavior may inadvertently be leading them into a vicious cycle. Psychology shows that with recurrent headaches such as migraine, certain behaviors help trigger the illness as much as how the refusal to avail of social support may further aggravate emotional distress and pain from migraines (Nevid & Rathus, p. 32). With advances in health science in general, headaches today are better managed, with its triggers even being avoided. Psychology has helpe understand and cope with migraines also by way of advising people, women in particular, not to accept such an illness as â€Å"normal† and, instead, advise them to be more assertive with their doctors who limit migraine treatments to only one approach (Nevid & Rathus, p. 133). The importance of health psychology is, perhaps, more apparent in the case of coronary heart disease or CHD. This is because this leading cause of mortality in the US clearly lists several types of psychological factors as triggers: diet patterns; anger and hostility; Type A behavior that markedly consists of hostility; job strain; chronic emotional strain and fatigue; sudden stressors; and an inactive lifestyle (Nevid & Rathus, p. 135-137). Health psychology science has established how consumption patterns such as overeating, heavy alcohol drinking, smoking, and high-cholesterol diet lead to coronary heart ailments. It is also worth noting that the science has also identified that a minimal amount of alcohol appears to be beneficial to the heart. The psychological perspective also makes the suggestion that a modest association between coronary heart disease and Type A behavior exists, particularly among white, middle-aged-to-older men. Hostility and anger are closely linked with increased CHD risk and are even thought of to be a stronger predictor of CHD compared to genetics, obesity, or smoking (Nevid & Rathus, p. 135). With regards work-related psychological factor, the job-strain health psychology model helps understand how highly demanding jobs and jobs that gives workers little control lead to increased risk of heart-related illnesses (Nevid & Rathus, p. 136). The multifactorial health psychology perspective has also led to the understanding of how sudden life stressors, chronic fatigue/emotional strain and a physically inactive lifestyle figure in the development of heart disease and occurrence of heart attacks. Reference Nevid, J. S. and Rathus, S. A. (2000). Psychology and the challenges of life. John Wiley & Sons.

!0 Mary Street Short Analysis

10 Mary Street Analysis 10 Mary Street is a poem by Peter Skrzynecki, appearing in Migrant Chronicle. The poem discusses family, connection to place and the impacts of Peter’s own migrant experience. Skrzynecki details richly impassioned recounts told in snippets of symbolism, imagery and throwbacks to the pre-war European environment Skrzynecki’s family belonged in. * The first stanza depicts the habitual routine of Skrzynecki’s family, as indicated by the use of the phrase â€Å"Each morning† in the third line. This helps evoke a clear sense of normal practice and routine in the lives of the Skrzynecki family.Additionally through the use of industrial imagery; â€Å"rusty bucket†, â€Å"bridge†, â€Å"factory† the audience can see a sense of comfort and connection to their humble surrounds. * The second stanza presents the strong connection that Peter’s parents share with their garden. But while Skrzynecki’s parents tak e fulfilment in nurturing and fostering the garden (Tended roses and camellias/ Like adopted children), Skrzynecki himself didn’t hold the same values as his parents (I’d ravage the backyard garden/ Like a hungry bird).This contrasting use of simile accurately depicts the sort of cultural background Skrzynecki feels he doesn’t belong to. * The third stanza discusses the connection to the 10 Mary Street address that his family holds. The use of personification in the first line; â€Å"The house stands† highlights the human value of the house and establishes a strong sense of belonging to the house. Additionally, the use of Cumulative listing lines in 13-17 helps to reinforce the family’s strong connection to their European heritage. The final stanza presents a contrasting view of belonging whereby Peter feels his family â€Å"became citizens of the soil/ That was feeding us† and indicates a sense of comfort and acceptance of the Australian wa y of life. The last 3 lines: â€Å"Inheritors of a key/ That’ll open no house/ When this one is pulled down. † Re-establishes what the house symbolised for them and the notion that the sort of connection 10 Mary Street had to their new lives in Australia will be a challenge to recreate.

A Predetermined Fate The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by...

The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare depicts the dictatorship of a powerful Roman emperor in 44 B.C. This play consists of various elements some of which are historical events, people and places, which disclose the conspiracy to overthrow Julius Caesar. The fates of the characters are predetermined although they attempt to avoid and ultimately change their own fate, which attributes to the humanity each character possesses giving a predetermined fate that is unavoidable and uncontrollable. Individual perception of omens and superstitions controls characters fates. The omens and superstitions shown throughout the novel ultimately determine a person’s fate which can be tied directly to Julius Caesar. Caesar’s neglect of other people’s warnings and omens leads to his demise. One example of this is that he ignores a soothsayers warning to â€Å"Beware the ides of March† (line 1.2.21). Caesar does not take this superstition seriously, as his arro gance forbids him to see his fate and ultimately leads to his impending doom. Other examples can be shown in Caesar’s misinterpretation of the priest’s reading, Caesar orders the priests to present a sacrifice to the gods and inform Caesar of the outcome, which they did â€Å"not find a heart within the beast† (2.2.43). Caesar disregards the outcome of the sacrifice, chooses not to stay at home, and ultimately asserts his own fate of death. After Caesar dies, Antony declares the fate of his enemies and seeks for revenge. As AntonyShow MoreRelatedWilliam Shakespeare s Julius Caesar Essay1833 Words   |  8 Pages INTRODUCTION The seemingly straightforward simplicity of â€Å"Julius Caesar† has made it a perennial favourite for almost 400 years. Despite its simplicity, almost Roman in nature, the play is rich both dramatically and thematically, and every generation since Shakespeare’s time has been able to identify with some political aspect of the play. The Victorians found a stoic, sympathetic character in Brutus and found Caesar unforgivably weak and tyrannical. As we move into the twenty-first century, audiences