Adult Separation Anxiety A Psychological Condition

Adult Separation Anxiety: A Possible Link to a Missed Step in Development DeAndre Bright Evan Smith-Finney Amber Depew Brandon Eastwood CCBC Catonsville Psychology 103 April 3, 2015 Adult Separation Anxiety Disorder Separation anxiety disorder is â€Å"a psychological condition in which an individual has excessive anxiety regarding separation from places or people to whom the individual has a strong emotional attachment† (anxietypanichealth.com 2008). Individuals with this disorder typically become debilitating distressed when they are faced with actual or perceived separation from major attachment figures. Vijaya Manicavasagar of the psychiatry research and teaching unit of Liverpool Hospital in New South Wales in Australia†¦show more content†¦ASAD and its signs, symptoms, and treatment Adult Separation Anxiety Disorder â€Å"involves excessive and often disabling distress when faced with actual or perceived separation from major attachments.†(anxietypanichealth.com, 2008). This type of anxiety usually goes undiagnosed or neglected as a diagnosis due to there not being much research being done on the disorder. Adult separation anxiety puts individuals who are left alone and cannot attach to someone are put into a state of fear and extreme anxiety. As a result they are not able to adapt to being alone. Signs and symptoms of adult separation anxiety can vary in combinations and in intensity. Adult separation anxiety disorder symptoms may include â€Å"refusal to sleep outside of the home, dependence on significant other, refusal to go to work or school because of fear of separation, extreme worry about the well-being of attachment figures, anxiety that is developmentally inappropriate regarding separation, sexual dysfunction, body function disturbances, fear, physical complaints when faced with possible separation† (Falcon 2012). As seen with other anxiety disorders, there are a number of treatments for the disorder different types and for the symptoms that are associated with them. Although with this particular disorder, there is no standard treatment for this disorder. However, there was one psychiatrist who was capable to successfully treat a case

The War On Drugs Is It Time For Switch Strategies

Abstract The War on Drugs that the United States has been fighting since the 1880’s has taken a toll on our society like no other issue. It has affected us on all fronts of social issues; immigration, imprisonment, poverty and resource draining costs. The question is then is it still worth it to fight it or move on to a new strategy. The War on Drugs: Is it time to switch strategies. Introduction The war on drugs in America has been fought since the 1880s when the Chinese Exclusion Act was first passed by congress. Several pieces of legislation have followed this initial volley in this war up to present day. Statistics from 2011 showed there where 1.6 million state and federal prisoners (Guerino, Harrison, Sabol, 2011) according†¦show more content†¦Statistics like this force you to ask whether the cost of our drug prohibition has really been and is worth it. Legislative History The War on Drugs, although not officially not named so until around 1971, began in the 1880s with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The main focus on this act was the immigration of Chinese people, but it was also attempting to curb the flow of opium and opiates into the United States. This act was renewed for the next 80 years or so until in the Immigration Act of 1965 was passed. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 required all physicians to accurately label medicines, but opium and coca where not outlawed. It was estimated that the passage of this law decreased the sale of medications with opiates by almost 33%. The next and really first act of legislation specifically aimed at drugs, was the Harrison Narcotic Act of 1914. The act restricted the manufacture and sale of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and morphine. The act was aggressively enforced resulting in physicians, who were prescribing drugs to addicts on â€Å"maintenance† programs, being harshly punished. Between 1915 and 1938, more than 5,000 physicians were convicted and fined or jailed (Trebach, 1982, p. 125). In 1919, the Supreme Court ruled against the maintenance of addicts as a legitimate form of treatment in Webb et al. v. United States. Clearly, America’s

Andrew Jackson Dbq the Democratic President Behaves Like...

According to his enemies, Andrew Jackson behaved more like a dictator/king than a democratic president. Jackson and his followers became the basis of the Democratic-Republican party, later known as the Democratic party. He believed in the spoils system, supported the common man, and equality for all people regardless of their social class. Although he had such positive features, he had some negatives as well. Jackson removed Native Americans from their homeland by signing the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which created the â€Å"Trail of Tears,† vetoed the National Bank (B.U.S), and was pro-slavery. Although a common man himself, Jackson became successful as president. This was one of his biggest motives to support the common man, rather than the†¦show more content†¦In the span of 20 years, 42 states elected by the people, and 27 states elected by the legislature. (Document 1). The election of Jackson was considered a â€Å"revolution,† because of its peaceful t ransfer of power. This revolution was different from any other, because it was achieved by ballots rather than bullets. Jacksonians cried, â€Å"Shall the people rule?† and the answer was, â€Å"The people shall rule!† Andrew Jackson was so notable that people have come 500 miles to see him and think that the country is rescued from some dreadful danger. It is said Jackson’s victory accelerated the transfer of national power from the country-house to the farmhouse, from the East to the West, and from the snobs to the mobs. If Jackson was a hero of the gentleman farmer, he was surely a hero of the dirt farmer. Jackson was democratic because he granted all men equal rights, and believed that the common man is just as good as the wealthy. This is how he got all his support, most of which came from the common man. We must also consider that he was a common man who became successful as president. He disagreed with the wealthy, who tried to empower the common man/farm ers, and was a large supporter of wester farmers, low tariffs, and pet banks, rather than a national bank. (Document 2). Jackson also encouraged the spoils system, which gave jobs in public office to the supporters of the successful political party. Was this democratic of him? As

Difference between Utilitarianism and Kant theories

Question: Discuss about the Difference between Utilitarianism and Kant theories. Answer: Utilitarianism theory governs a perspective, which analyses an action based on its outcomes. If the consequence is right then the action is right or vice-versa (West, 2013). However, Kant theory believes in a perspective, which analyses the action prior to its consequences. Further, it does not focus on the outcomes; it rather governs the action based on psychological aspects (Ameriks, 2014). The Utilitarianism theory believes in the consequence of an action, it never cares the nature of work (Conway Gawronski, 2013). Moreover, it is clearly evident that a consequence outcome of an action is of utmost important in the Utilitarianism theory. This belief is extremely effective in bringing out the desired consequences. However, in doing so, it often becomes an ignorant body to the human life (Gray Schein, 2012). The particular theory does not find a strong foothold in organizations across the globe for its hard core nature to the human sentiments. Human sentiments have no values for a utilitarian approach. Nonetheless, the adherence of this theory in organizations would affect the morale of their working (Conway Gawronski, 2013). They would feel demoralized, which can also affect their respective responsibilities in organizations. Applying hard core rules to the organizational behaviour might find certain favours but that does not hold any guarantee of a sublime commitmen t from employees (Gray Schein, 2012). The support of some employees might have occurred because of the fact that they do not have sufficient guts to protest the organizational obligations. However, these kinds of employees are less in number across the organizations in the globe. Moreover, the probable situation, which could arise in organizations with the adherence of the Utilitarianism theory, might destroy the fundamental organizational practice, which is indeed extremely important for its successful operations (Conway Gawronski, 2013). Kants ethics respect the moral values of human behaviour in organizational practices. The theory though respects the organizational hard core nature towards the job responsibility of employees. However, it does not believe in such a hard core rules obligations to employees, which could attract suicide cases in case of not meeting with the organizational requirement (West, 2013). The theory mainly focuses on human values and keeps it above all the organizational fundamentals. Moreover, it believes that if human values are kept secured, it would result in a better performance. As per the Kant theory, some of the suicide cases happen because of the compulsions, which organizations impose on employees (Ameriks, 2014). Motivation is an important characteristic of employees, which is driven by certain factors that acts as a catalyst in promoting the beliefs in employees. A half-hearted dedication might not produce the desired result for an organization as it affects the functionalities of morale behaviour. Nevertheless, an entire motivation is not possible in organizational practices. However, the maximum practising of it is only possibly if the Kant theory finds its obligations across the organizations in the globe (Conway Gawronski, 2013). The Kant theory is highly effective in enhancing the moral values of employees in organizations. However, the Utilitarianism approach merely supports any human values apart from its hard core rules obligations. It rather supports the productive nature of an action, which is not favourable for employees in most of the cases. Due to the moral values of the Kant theory, which it imparts to its followers, the theory finds a foothold in organizational practices. References: Ameriks, K. (2014). Kant's moral and legal philosophy. Conway, P., Gawronski, B. (2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach.Journal of personality and social psychology,104(2), 216. Gray, K., Schein, C. (2012). Two minds vs. two philosophies: Mind perception defines morality and dissolves the debate between deontology and utilitarianism.Review of Philosophy and Psychology,3(3), 405-423. West, H. R. (2013). Utilitarianism.The international encyclopedia of ethics.