Scenario/Summary
Manuel loved the outdoors and loved playing softball. There was no better way to spend a weekend than on the diamond hitting the ball and cooking burgers on the park grill.
“Hey Jose, great game this afternoon,” Manuel said to his friend.
“Yep,” Jose replied. “I loved how you hit the ball over that right fielder’s head. I think he is still running after it.”
“That was a lucky hit. I couldn’t do that again if I tried,” said Manuel.
“When is soup on? I’m getting hungry for one of your ¾ pound hamburgers with all of the fixings,” asked Jose.
“Soon brother, real soon,” said Manuel. “Can you hand me my Coke can on the bench other there?”
“Sure thing amigo,” replied Jose while handing the Coke can to Manuel.
“Yikes!” exclaimed Manuel after he spit out the Coke. “There was a bee in the can and it stung the roof of my mouth.”
Within a few minutes, Manuel developed generalized hives on his face and upper body and experienced shortness of breath and chest pains. The paramedics were called and quickly transported Manuel to the local emergency room where he was treated with epinephrine.
Deliverables
Answer the following questions and save your responses in a Microsoft Word document. Provide a scholarly resource to support your answers.
Manuel is experiencing a hypersensitivity reaction. What are hypersensitivity reactions?
Briefly describe the different types of hypersensitivity reactions.
What type of hypersensitivity reaction is Manuel likely experiencing and how do you know?
Is this an antibody or T-cell mediated response? What class of antibodies or type of T-cells are involved?
Why was epinephrine administered and how does epinephrine work in this case?
Sample Solution
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittolaâs first proposition. This is widely accepted as âall people have a right not to be killedâ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by ânon-combatant immunityâ (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: âcare must be taken where evil doesnât outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).â This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill âto shelter the innocent from harmâ¦punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (>
GET ANSWER
First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittolaâs first proposition. This is widely accepted as âall people have a right not to be killedâ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by ânon-combatant immunityâ (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: âcare must be taken where evil doesnât outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).â This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill âto shelter the innocent from harmâ¦punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (>
