1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx

1.
PART 2: Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal
questions thoughtfully and comprehensively.
Use the criteria headings on this outline as the headings
on your properly APA- formatted paper.
·
NAME: What is the name of the app? MEDSCAPE
·
AUTHOR: Who created, developed, or maintains the
app? Explain.
·
ENDORSEMENT: Is the app licensed by the Food and
Drug Administration, other government agency, or endorsed by
an academic institution or medical professional organization?
Explain.
·
OPERATION: Which platform (mobile or web-based) is
suitable for the app and why?
·
AESTHETICS: Is the information displayed in a way
that is easy to navigate? Is it easy to use? Can you use it
without instructions? Explain.
·
PURPOSE: What is the intended purpose or use of the
app?
·
CLINICAL DECISION MAKING: What influence does

the app have on clinical decision making? Explain.
·
SAFETY: Is there potential for patient harm? Explain.
·
PRIVACY/SECURITY: Does the app have privacy
statement or setting? Is there a clear privacy policy stating
information will be encrypted and not shared with third parties?
Does the app share information on social networks? Are users
notified in the event of a breach of privacy and health
information? Explain.
·
USER: For whom is the app intended (providers,
patients, or others)? Explain.
·
DISTRIBUTION: Is it designed for local use or wider
distribution? Explain.
·
CREDIBILITY: How credible are the sources of
information? How do you know? Explain.
·
RELEVANCE: How current is the information in the
app? When was the last update? Is the content consistent with
evidence-based literature or best practices/standards of care?
Explain.
3.
PART 3: Provide
oneexample of an appropriate patient or clinical
scenario for this app. The example should include the following
details:

· Patient Age-population (Pediatric, Adult, Geriatric)
· Clinical Setting (Hospital, Private Practice, Extended Living
Facility)
· History of Present Illness and Diagnosis or Condition
· Provide a detailed description of the app in your example.
When will the app be implemented (at the Point-of-care or
elsewhere)? Who will use the app? What potential impact will it
have on the scenario? Incorporate the critical appraisal
information from Part 2.
Provide one evidence-based scholarly article as a
reference to support clinical decision making.
4. This assignment will be graded on the quality of the
information, inclusion of one evidence-based scholarly
resource, use of citations, use of Standard English grammar, and
organization based on the required components (see the paper
headings and content details in Part 1).
5. The length of the paper is to be
between
1,000 and 1,500 words, excluding title page and
reference list
.
6. Create this assignment using Microsoft (MS) Word. You can
tell that the document is saved as a MS Word document because
it will end in ".docx."
7. APA format is required in this assignment, explicitly for in-
text citations and the reference list. Use 12-point Times New
Roman font with 1-inch margins and double spacing. See the
APA manual for details regarding proper citation. See resources
under Course Resources, "Guidelines for Writing Professional
Papers" for further clarification.
* Scholarly Sources: Only scholarly sources are acceptable for
citation and reference in this course. These include peer-
reviewed publications, government reports, or sources written

by a professional or scholar in the field. The textbooks and
lessons are
NOT considered to be outside scholarly sources. For the
threaded discussions and reflection posts, reputable internet
sources such as websites by government agencies (URL ends in
.gov) and respected organizations (often ends in .org) can be
counted as scholarly sources. The best outside scholarly source
to use is a peer-reviewed nursing journal. You are encouraged
to use the Chamberlain library and search one of the
available databases for a peer-reviewed journal article. The
following sources should not be used: Wikipedia, Wikis, or
blogs. These websites are not considered scholarly as anyone
can add to these. Please be aware that .com websites can vary in
scholarship and quality. For example, the American Heart
Association is a .com site with scholarship and quality. It is the
responsibility of the student to determine the scholarship and
quality of any .com site. Ask your instructor before using any
site if you are unsure. Points will be deducted from the rubric if
the site does not demonstrate scholarship or quality. Current
outside scholarly sources must be published with the last 5
years. Instructor permission must be obtained BEFORE the
assignment is due if using a source that is older than 5 years.
PADM 550
Research Paper Template

Your Paper Title
Your Name
Date
Class Name and Section
Dr. Kahlib Fischer
Abstract
Defining the ProblemOverview –
What is the problem, why is it a problem, how long has
it been a problem?
Root Causes –
According to the research, what is the root cause of the
problem? When and where did it start and what has been the
history of responses?
Competing Interpretations –
What are the various political perspectives?
Impacts –
What will happen if nothing is done? What are the
societal impacts?
Policy AlternativesLegislation Option 1 -
Change each of these headings to reflect the names of
the actual policy alternatives.
Legislation Option 2
May
The May, Can, should follows the same template and
instructions as with the Policy Brief Analysis Assignments
Biblical guidelines.

Constitutional guidelines.
Biblical guidelines.
Constitutional guidelines.
Can
Political feasibility.
Financial feasibility.
Practical feasibility.
Political feasibility.
Financial feasibility.
Practical feasibility.Should
Summary - Use this section to compare the efficacy of each of
the policies through compare.
References
List your sources in APA format below.
Defining Worldviews Part 1
3 worldviews spoke in each part Biblical, modern, or post-
modern
his course is introduce you to key ideas, principles, and

historical events related to the founding of America's
government. But now over 200 years later, it can be easy to
wonder if those same principles and ideas are relevant today.
We might wonder what the find fathers would have said about
today's times and situations. One of the ways we can learn about
the ideas that were so important to define fathers and the
founding of American government is compare their ideas to
current political ideologies and worldviews. Doing so might
also help us better understand how we are influenced by current
political and cultural ideologies, which are both unbelievable
and destructive of the freedoms and rights, are fine fathers held
so dearly. To understand those ideologies, we first have to
understand that political ideologies derive from particular
worldviews. Let's say that again, political ideologies derive
from particular worldviews. Therefore, in this presentation, we
will discuss the three major world views which have influenced
the American government in society since its founding. The
first is biblical Christianity, the second is modernism, and the
third is postmodernism. In turn, we will discuss some of the
new political ideologies which have arisen from those
worldviews. Marxism, progressivism, critical theory,
multiculturalism, feminism, and queer theory. We will learn
how these perspectives can be destructive in undermining of the
basic freedoms and liberties we enjoy in American society. As a
brief aside, some might be wondering why process philosophy
has not been mentioned in this list. This is because it has
different meanings for different philosophical perspectives.
Fortunately, the key ideas associated with the various forms of
process philosophy will be addressed in these presentations in
one way or another. So let's focus again these three major
worldviews. For instance, our founding fathers were largely
influenced by a Christian worldview, which in turn lead to a
political ideology of classical liberalism. But since that time,
America has been influenced by competing worldviews, which
have led to new and potentially destructive political ideologies.
To understand all this has happened, we first have to look at

how worldviews influence our approach to life. A worldview is
the intellectual, emotional, and even spiritual framework by
which we apprehend reality and assign meaning to life. A
worldview could be considered like a telescope or a magnifying
glass, because it helps us see the world. But it's more than that.
It's like a lens, or more accurately a framework that determines
how we make sense of life. God, truth values the meaning of
life or relationships with others. We interpret everything in life
with this worldview framework. And that is why a person's
particular worldview leads to what one believes about politics
and what government should be, and what it should do. And if
everyone has a worldview, that means that everyone else's
worldview is influencing our own personal worldview, whether
we know it or not. Just as individuals had a particular
worldview. Societies and people have collective worldviews,
which in turn leads to political ideologies. So to understand
these political ideologies, we have to look at the major
worldviews that have influence American society and
government since the founding era. To do so, we have to go
back in time to the Middle Ages with the Catholic Church was
the predominant social, cultural, and political force in Western
Europe. The influence of Catholic theology and Roman legal
custom led to the development of important concepts for
American government. One such impact is the belief in
inalienable rights. The notion behind inalienable rights is that
man is made in God's image, which of course is a key idea in
Christianity. So with this concept, we see how key worldview
idea imago Dei helped influence the American find political
ideology. But we know that the Catholic Church abuse its power
in stepped outside the confines of its biblically defined
authority. In response, the process of reformation arose in
attempt to restore the church to biblical Christianity. Further
ideas arose from the Reformation and influence American
government. Ideas like covenantal theology or Federalism,
limited government, rule by consent. In a biblical view of the
institutional separation of church and state. All of these ideas

poured into the worldview, the American founders, in influence
their political ideology. And we would consider those ideas as
part of a biblical Christian worldview. But as mentioned earlier,
other worldviews have sense influence American society,
government, and politics. The first worldview was modernism,
like a Protestant Reformation. It to arose as a response the
abuses of the Catholic Church. But in doing so, modernism
rejected any notion of God. Labeling belief in God is mere
superstition to be discarded in the name of logic. Rationality,
science and technology. The place of God, modernism put faith
in evolution as a guarantee of man's eventual progress and
victory over religious superstition and ignorance. With the
advent of the Enlightenment and then the Scientific Revolution,
the modern world, you argue that man was finally ready to
evolve in progress beyond old and backward ways of thinking.
Ironically, it is hard to have a logical foundation for life,
something the modern worldview supports. When one rejects a
logical, rational session starting point, that is God, specifically
the biblical God, which is something the modern worldview
rejects. It is perhaps this fatal flaw that led many to reject
modernism as a solution. Specifically the postmodern world use
the predominant worldview in society today. In it arose as a
rejection of modernism. It did so for a couple of reasons. First,
because modernism rejects any spiritual components of life, the
only outcomes that you and I are just physical beans with no
eternal purpose or meaning. We are nothing more than little bits
in a big machine. According to modernism. Postmodernism
rejects this determinism and meaninglessness. Secondly,
modernism espouse that science, technology, and reason were
enough to guarantee mankind's ultimate progress. But because
of numerous wars like World War One and two, and numerous
tyrannies where leaders use science and technology to kill and
control millions of lives. People became very suspicious of the
modern worldview. In people and turn it become very
suspicious of anyone who claims to know at all. Once everyone
else to live the same way they do. That's why today people tend

to reject any claim that there's absolute truth and tend to adopt a
whatever works attitude about life. This is part of what makes
up the postmodern world view. Whereas post-modernism rejects
naturalism and allows for people to have meaningful religious
expressions and experiences. It also tends to reject Biblical
Christianity because Christianity espouses an inherent sense of
right and wrong. And indeed that Jesus Christ is the only way to
God. The problem with the postmodern approach is that people
don't think very deeply or logically about their own worldviews.
Because in the name of rejecting modernism, people tend to
reject logic and rationalism. So in turn, they have no way of
knowing how solved their worldview is for enduring the storms
and trials of life. And it also means that any experiences, joys,
trials are victories we have, are entirely subjective and are
bereft of any ultimate meaning and purpose. But as this
presentation about worldviews relates ultimately to a discussion
of political ideology, It's interesting to note that whereas post-
modernism is supposedly a reaction to, in a rejection of
modernism. In reality, the two worldviews have much in
common. First, they both espouse that all of life came from a
starting point of meaninglessness. This is easy enough to see
with modernism because it says we have all through random
chance and emphasizes constant change. A starting point which
seems to undermine the notion of rules of logic and absolutes.
Postmodernism meanwhile, certainly allows for divine origin
and creator. But a de-emphasize the notion that this God would
communicate to us and logical ways based on absolute truth and
values. This in turn is why postmodernism tends to be more
comfortable with an Eastern mythical worldview in which any
gods or cosmic forces are silent about truth and values were at
least are all inclusive with less concerned about the prospect of
conflicting beliefs and values. For all practical purposes then
postmodernism also rejects the biblical notion of meaning and
values, just as modernism does. Just as modernism rejects Jesus
Christ claim to be the ultimate, an exclusive source of truth and
dies. So does postmodernism. And whereas modernism would

still claim to believe in values like caring for others, it has no
intellectual foundation for doing so. Just like postmodernism is
lacking. For modernism, the only source of values, the only
reason to be nice to others is based upon a rational calculation
that doing good to others is best for personal survival. But that
is a very subjective way of linking what is good for oneself with
what is good for the rest of society. It also requires and hopes
that people are always logical and rational and making value-
based decisions. Postmodernism would reject this perspective
and likewise value altruism. But since postmodernism tends to
devalue lacZ will absolutes, in turn, values and truth are
likewise subjective. Therefore, it is hard to see how it differs
much from modernism. Meanwhile, christianity stands alone in
its emphasis on an eternal personal, sentient creator being who
is both just and loving. This got not only created us in his own
image, but he also clearly communicate to us using truth, logic,
and reason through the word of God and the power of the Holy
Spirit. He further affirmed our existence and true values by
sending his own Son in our likeness to die for our sins and
restore a right relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. In
Christ, love, justice, and humanity. We're all a firm's
completely and perfectly true justice was affirmed because as a
human being, christ was punished for our sin. So in the end,
mankind was not spirit a just punishment for sin. Thus, God did
not compromise his own just standards in saving us. But love
was also a firm's because as fully God, Jesus Christ was perfect.
And therefore he was able to qualify as a substitute for the
punishment we deserved. Further because of Christ's
resurrection, the power of God enables us to say no to selfish
and sinful tendencies that hurt both us as individuals and those
around us. Therefore, biblical Christianity provides a
meaningful foundation for our existence in our lives. In, as
mentioned above, played a key role in influencing American
government through principles like separation of church and
state. Inalienable rights. Federalism, which derived from
covenantal theology, injustice.

Defining Worldviews Part 2
In the previous presentation, we cover the three main
worldviews that have impacted american Government and
Politics. Biblical Christianity, modernism, and postmodernism.
In this presentation, we will discuss the major political
ideologies that have arisen since the founding era. We can best
understand the ideas associated with these political ideologies
by discussing which worldview from which they arose. First,
let's start with the modern world. You remember that this
worldview rejects any belief and the spiritual or supernatural.
Religion is regarded as mere superstition and a major
impediment to progress and growth is seen as merely a physical
or material being, and therefore can be acted upon, changed,
and improved upon through physical means only. Naturalism,
science, technology, and reason are viewed as the major means
of success for mankind. There are two major political ideologies
which have resulted from the modern worldview. Marxism and
progressivism. Marxism arose at a protest for the major changes
in society that arose as the result of the Industrial Revolution.
As a result of this revolution, the small family farmer business
was largely replaced with a factory and mass production.
Further, more and more people moved from the countryside into
the city to work in those factories. Often for 12 or more hours a
day under harsh working conditions. And sometimes even
including child labor. Marx found these conditions to be
dehumanizing and argue that the worker was being exploited
because he no longer owned his own farm or his own business.
He was merely working for the capitalists. That is the people
who actually did in fact own the factory or business. One might
think that Marx was actually critiquing the modern worldview
by arguing that capitalism was inherently dehumanizing and
exploitive. However, as we shall see, his assumptions and
solutions were entirely based upon a modern worldview. First,
borrowing from Hegel's dialectic, he assumed that mankind was
evolving into higher and better economic systems, which will
ultimately lead to communism through a process of conflict and

then eventually symphysis. To understand this assumption
further, you will need to review Hegel's approach to dialectical
reasoning on your own time. In other words, Marx assume that
eventually society would have all passed capitalism into
something better, namely communism. And as we know,
Darwin's theory of evolution was and is a major tenant of the
modern worldview in so far as that. And to provide the sole
explanation for the presence of mankind in life in general. And
they'll, Hegel's dialectical approach tended to be more mystical
and spiritual. It too was based upon this assumption. So we can
see the influence of evolutionary ideas on marks as well.
Further, the solutions that march propose, we're also within a
modernist worldview framework because there are mainly
economic that is physical in nature. To solve the problems and
abuses of capitalism, Marx propose that private property owner
should be abolished, therefore, removing the potential for greed
and exploitation. Each according to his ability. Each according
to his need, was Marx's model. So in a spirit of cooperation,
society as a whole would own the means of production. And no
one entity would have all the power. In the spirit of
evolutionary progress. Marx assume this would happen naturally
as workers from all over the world united to overthrow their
capitalistic oppressors. Of course, this never really happened.
Tyrants like Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and others who
themselves borrowed from the modern worldview and cleaning
rational and scientific approaches to solving capitalistic
exploitation use political and military power to basically force
the countries into a communist mold. Not only do these efforts
fail in dramatic fashion, but millions upon millions of people
were beaten, imprisoned, and even killed in the name of
communism. Of course, Marx would likely never have approved
of such evil. But it's interesting to note that his so-called
solutions not account for all of reality. For starter marks, not
understand or knowledge of the problem of greed is not simply
the result of private property. The Bible tells us that greed and
other forms of covetousness and discontent are attributes of the

human heart and the very nature of sin itself. In turn, sin is
more than just bad behavior attitudes. It is a spiritual force that
confounds this and often controls as apart from God's saving
grace. Jesus Christ, any so-called solution to any human
problem which ignores this biblical truth will therefore be
flawed. Further, it seems that Marx overlooked the dignity and
inherent creativity of the human soul by devaluing private
property. While the Bible is clear that we should give freely
ensure flavor private property, it is also clear that private
property is a gift from God. And moreover, private property is
how we use our own unique, intellectual, physical, and spiritual
gifts to glorify God and care for others. A free market system
allows for this type of creative expression in ownership. But it
is not clear that a Marxist system would. You only evidence we
have of communism is when it was forced upon people in it
definitely stifle creativity and freedom and took the joy out of
work and labor in ways that Marx could not possibly have
imagined. We will discuss these issues further in a moment. But
for now, let's move on to the other modern political ideology.
The second etiology is known as Progressivism. Progressivism
developed in the early 1700s. It was driven by the notion that
the experts should be involved in all levels of decision-making.
And by default, it placed a greater emphasis on government and
bureaucracy as the means for allowing experts greater control
and authority. Like Marxism, progressivism was born out of the
concern of how big business in the rapid urbanization of
America was lead to exploitation and corporate greed. And like
Marxism, progressivism saw the solution in economic and
political terms. First by emphasizing a stronger presidency and
national government as a means of further regulating the
economy. And secondly, like Marxism, the progressive mindset
also tends to be more secular. So whereas a biblical approach to
dealing with a problem like poverty would emphasize some
form of church based intervention were spiritual issues can be
addressed. Progressive approach might devalue that well, only
emphasizing solutions generate by professional experts via

government programs. The more secular emphasis of
progressivism is in part due to the fact that while many
progressives rejected their fundamentalist Christian upbringing,
and instead embrace the social gospel approach where Christ
commandments to care for others, especially the poor
emphasized. However, his role as mankind, Savior and King are
de-emphasized. To be sure, there were Christians among the
progressive movement in people from different political parties.
But today the idea of progressivism tends to Standford, increase
national role in all things political, even at the city level, in a
devaluing of decentralized community-based politics. The
emphasis on the role of the national government to solve
problems by way of review is again, due to the belief that only
the national government is strong enough to overcome and
control powerful business and political interests. Secondly, as
mentioned earlier, progressivism espouses the importance of
having the best minds in the same room to solve the problems.
This lens to greater decentralization of decision-making in
control. Of course, from a biblical perspective, we knew that
man's sinful tendencies are best check with decentralization,
where power is shared among new resources and
accountabilities therefore increase. Now that we've discussed
two of the major political ideologies from the modern
worldview. It's time to focus on how the postman worldview has
contributed to various political ideologies. The postmodern
world view has brought forth for main political ideologies.
Critical theory, feminism, multiculturalism. In queer theory. As
we will see, all of these etiologies are related to one another.
Moreover, we will see that they are all some extension and
continuation of Marxism in one way or another. For instance,
critical theory is also concerned about how one group exploits
others. Rather than focusing on just economic exploitation,
control. Critical theory instead focuses on how words, customs,
and cultural norms are used by one group to control and exploit
others. Therefore, the economic exploitation that Marxism
focuses on is actually just a symptom of a much deeper

problem. Similarly, feminism focuses on how men exploit and
control women and to some extent, even the environment. That
is Mother Earth. Multiculturalism in turn focuses on how one
ethnic group, specifically Western Europe and America, have
exploited in control Third World nations in indigenous people
groups over the centuries from the age of colonization on to the
present. And of course, the classical Marxist description of how
Western nations have exploited these nations fits nicely with
multiculturalism. In keeping with the postmodern concern about
one group trying to force perception of truth and values and
others. Multiculturalism emphasizes that each cultural or social
group create its own norms and understanding of what is right
and wrong in there for other groups seem to respect those
norms. This of course raises a challenging question of 11 group
for culture's norms involve serious violations of the rights and
liberties of others. Finally, queer theory takes both critical
theory and feminism one step further. Examining the questions
of sexual and gender-based norms. Queer theory rejects any
perspective on sexuality that would just limit sexual activity in
expression to being either heterosexual or limited to the
confines of traditional marriage. This is because queer theory to
use such norms that chauvinistic, deterministic and by default,
oppressive. Interestingly, if matter is in constant motion and
changes perpetual as modernists and even many post-modernist
believe. And if matter is in fact the only reality. It is no surprise
that ensuring both modernist in post-modernists would reject
any types of sexual or gender based norms as rigid and
unhelpful. Each of these political ideologies, whether from a
modern or postmodern world view, can be connected with
certain policy outcomes. First, any government policy that
involves economic redistribution can be said to be linked to
Marxism. Sense of course, Marxism defines the problem of
injustice in terms of disenfranchised, exploited people groups.
The solutions to take money from the wealthy, that is, the
capitalists and share it with others. Now keep in mind that the
Bible requires the rich to care for the poor and for all the CILIP

radically with respect to how we spend our money. But it also
warns against the sinful tendencies of man, which are often
encouraged as government increases its power and control over
citizens. Focusing on how cultural norms, ideas, and even
speech can be used to control and exploit others. It could be
argued that critical theory is linked to hate speech legislation.
Further, feminism and multiculturalism could be linked to
affirmative action policies. Also, feminism is strongly in favor
of pro abortion, was that when the CDS laws is protecting the
freedoms that women have over their own body and free them
from the control of men who may have forced them into an
unwanted pregnancy. Queer theory can't be linked to the push to
legalize same-sex marriage and the attempts to normalize
homosexual activity in general. To understand the relationship
among all of these ideologies, we have to remember. Now
postmodernism is both opposed to in derivative of Modernism.
First, postmodernism is a postmodernism because the ladder is
set to leach reductionism, dehumanization and chauvinism.
Modernism is said to be reductionistic and dehumanizing
because it emphasizes naturalism and therefore reduces humans
to me or physical beans. In other words, smaller machine parts
which are controlled with a larger machine of the physical
universe. Modernism is viewed as chauvinistic because an
emphasizing logic and reason as the sole ways of learning and
knowing. It rejects more intuitive, emotional, and perhaps even
spiritual ways of learning and knowing. Further, modernism
encouraged conquest and control nature and ultimately weaker,
supposedly uninvolved people groups. This is all seen as being
very ethnocentric and chauvinistic. And those emphasizing
family values, as we saw, the religious right do particularly
during the Clinton administration, were accused of doing so to
ensure that men controlled women and children through the
family unit. And that is why postmodern political ideologies
focus on how exploitation and oppression can occur through
cultural and sexual norms and not just through economic means.
And that is in turn why we can do critical theory, feminism,

multiculturalism, inquiry theory as extensions of Marxism. In
other words, in the postmodern world view, it's a longer just
about rich people. Explain poor people. It's now about rich,
white Christian men exploiting and controlling everyone else as
a means of extending their power and control in society. So in
the end, when it comes to political ideologies, postmodernism
really has not led to much of a difference with respect to the
model worldview. Instead, it's just taken Marxism and applied it
to different points of emphasis. Further because modernism and
postmodernism both reject Biblical Christianity, they both end
up rejecting important ethical principles which are so vital for
preserving our freedoms. For instance, both worldviews d value
who we are as humans, though in different ways. Modernism
denies human individuality by positing that we are entirely
products of our physical environment. And even though
postmodernism allegedly allows for a spiritual component, it
undermines any belief in substandard of truth, such that
whatever we experience would feel become entirely subjective.
Postmodernism also undermines individual rights and liberties
by putting greater emphasis on group rights and norms instead
of individual rights. This again is the result of its emphasis
upon critical theory in multiculturalism. Since both highly value
group-based values and norms and seek to undermine the
oppressive nature of some societal norms which are created
through what people say and what they assume is true. As
mentioned earlier, hate speech legislation aims to prevent this
type of oppression. But this type of legislation can actually
limit freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. Because it
can actually put someone in violation of the law, not for what
they've done, but for what they might have said and what they
might have been thinking when they said it, rather than actual
wrongdoings committed. Most importantly, both modernism and
postmodernism deny that Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and
Lord of Lords, mankind, Savior, and our ultimate hope. That
denial in turn leads to political ideologies that defined problems
and solutions soul in economic, cultural and gender-based

terms. While the value in the role that both God's word and the
power of the Holy Spirit must play in solution to any personal,
political, or social problem. It is further no surprise that in turn,
both end up emphasizing a stronger role for government, often
at the expense of individual rights and liberties in the manner
which the values, the role of the church in conjunction with the
work of the Holy Spirit, serving and reforming society. The
challenge then for Christians is to both be sensitive to the
concerns about various forms of oppression that are at the root
of these political ideologies. While at the same time
championed the importance of limited government and
individual freedom, as well as the role of the church itself in
society being the salt and light. society being the salt and light.
Hopefully this presentation has helped you become more aware
of how to do so.
Worldview Implications for Policy Analysis
Hi, my name's Caleb Fisher. And in this module we're going to
talk about a worldview, perspective on public policy analysis.
And from Dean acres video you learned about the MAY can
should perspective. Well, this, this video in particular is about
really focusing on the MAY, the question, may government do
something? And that really comes down to how you view
whether or not government has the authority depends upon your
worldview. So this is an attempt to provide a biblical worldview
perspective on policy analysis. And the first perspective that we
need to consider just a very basic one is what does the Bible say
about decision-making in general? It's policy analysis or
whether it's something as simple as to buy a car, what restaurant
to go out to eat for. There's, there are some biblical guidelines
and that's where you see on the slide the two extremes to avoid
the paralysis of analysis and foolhardy decision-making. Those
are two extremes in both cases though they're allegedly
radically opposed to one another. In fact, they have, they should
have a key commonality that is self-absorption. Because in the
foolhardy decision-making, we're so confident we know what

the right decision is that we just rush into without really
considering the possible that we may be off track, that maybe
we need to reconsider some of our alternatives and assumptions.
That's, that's easy to say. Well, that's arrogant. But really from
a biblical perspective, so is the paralysis of analysis because in
that case, we're not trust in the Lord either were not Lena and
the understanding to get a solid perspective on what decision
should be made. We're so afraid of making the wrong decision
or so, were so convinced that it's up to us to accurately collect
all the data to make the decision that we stall. We haven't ha
because we don't feel confident in our own abilities. And the
reason that, that lack of confidence is so disturbing because we
don't have our trust in the Lord. And one of the things I've had
to learn over the years is that even when I'm doing my best to
hold the dosage with an open hand. It's not have idolatry or any
of my own selfish agendas at work. I'm really trying to honor
the Lord with a decision. I've had to learn that part of having
faith is that I need to make a decision at some point. And just
trust that if it's the wrong decision, The Lord will guide me and
helped me recover from that. And that a lot of times you learn
through the mistakes you make and that's part of God's plan for
you. So it's this real fine line of Scripture, honoring the Lord in
our decision-making. We don't rush into decisions, but we don't
overanalyze decisions through fear and self-absorption. So
that's the first. But now we need to get into a much more
philosophical perspective on a, with respect to policy analysis
in the political arena. Because if you're going to go out into the
political arena, whether it's criminal justice or business, or
certainly government. All of those, even the first two domains,
have political implications. You're supposed to be a leader that
is operating with wisdom and making wise decisions. And so
you have to understand that a lot of times we in society, in the
political arena, the public arena, are influenced by unspoken
assumptions that we all take for granted. And then we make bad
decisions because those assumptions in and of themselves are an
biblical. And what makes them so dangerous is that we don't

analyze them. We don't examine them. So it's because their
unspoken that they have a wreck so much damage because we're
not aware of those assumptions are influencing us. Those
assumptions are in the domain of worldview. So we need to
understand, well, what does the worldview it well, it's on the
next slide and intellectual, emotional, and spiritual framework
by which we interpret reality, make sense of life, assign values
to circumstances, events, and relationships in our lives. Now if
you go from there, the next slide, here's the point. Everybody
has a worldview. You can't help but have a worldview. You can
say, I don't have a worldview, but that's the result of a
particular worldview assumption that says that it's okay to not
be systematic and coherent in what you believe. So that's a fun
little journey for you if that's what your perspective is. If you
look at the next slide, you see all these different spheres, career
and work sense of purpose, what you believe about God,
perceptions of truth, politics, relationships. Hi Emily. So those
are just some examples of the type of worldview beliefs that we
have and how worldview beliefs lead to other parts, other more
concrete beliefs that we have about politics or what any part of
life. The problem for most of us, even as Christians, is that all
these circles, these domains of our worldview, perspective are
all jumbled up and we don't know how they work or how they
really influence one another. And thus, we are not able to make
sure that our worldview is biblical. It's our job in this
presentation to unpack our worldview and make sense of it so
we can make sure that when we do Mei, Mei Kan should
analysis that we're doing sound biblical analysis in the May
portion of that perspective. So let's go the next slide. And the
first step is we have to understand how worldview beliefs
should be ordered and what I'm about to share with you if you
look on this next slide, this is true of a christian, of any type of
person. What even an atheist. This is the, this is the
foundational presupposition. What you believe about God, even
if you're an atheist, determines everything else about your
worldview. So what you believe about God determines what you

believe about truth, what you believe about human free will and
purpose. I believe about things like values and values, purpose
and truth are kind of the, the main philosophical categories of
any worldview. So every worldview has these things then from
there, those three areas influence what you believe about Paul.
Sex relationships, create work every other part of your life. You
go the next slide, this notion of a worldview as a home in which
we live. The reason I've introduced that is because what you
believe about God is that foundational belief, which in turn
supports the framework of your worldview home. What you
believe about truth, values, and purpose. Now when you go to
somebody's house or even your own house, when you think
about that house, what do you think about? You think about the
aesthetics, the visible things. How many bedrooms are there?
What type of countertops do they have in the kitchen? What
type of carpeting, what paints do they put on the walls. But
none of those things have anything to do with the overall
soundness and security of that home. In fact, the things that are
most important to the soundness and security, the home, or the
things that are unseen, the foundation and the framework of that
home, isn't that the truth? But we'd ever think about those
things in our home. We just take it for granted. And so you
could have a beautiful home with all the latest amenities, a
wonderful flat screen, high-definition TV on the wall in every
bedroom. But if your foundation is banana pudding and if your
framework is vanilla wafers, I don't care how nice your home is.
That thing is not going to survive. So we have to examine the
building materials for our worldview home to make sure it all
makes sense and all is able to support your other belief systems.
So on the next slide, as it relates to the political arena and
policy analysis. Let's, here's the progression. What you believe
about God influences what you believe about truth. But your
sense of purpose and about values, which in turn determines
your view of government. And that's where that worldview,
perceptions of worldview differences first began to determine
how you're going to approach them may analysis what should

government be doing, determines on what you believe
government should be about from? And then there are key
differences there. Obviously from there, what's your view about
the role of government determines what you would say is a good
public policy outcome. Now we're going to get back to this, the
truth, free will and values question in a second. But first, I need
to introduce to you here in the West, there are three major
worldviews that are at work. Obviously Christianity is one that
they Judeo-Christian worldview. Then you've got to others,
modernism and post-modernism. And we could talk about Islam,
I think what we'll probably see that as a worldview in the
coming years. But I'm not going to focus on that so much at this
point. Basically modernism as a worldview kind of evolved out
of the Middle Ages. At here are the Catholic Church has all this
power. Along with the kings. There's a lot of corruption because
religion, the church is in bed with the kings. It's very ungodly.
It's a very much an abuse of power. And we have this kind of
revival of learning and scarlet scholasticism and so forth,
scholarly work and research. It burst the Enlightenment and the
Renaissance. We have this greater emphasis upon science, logic,
and rationalism. So we're beginning to see this while we're
discovering so many new things. The age of discovery,
Scientific Revolution. And again, i'm, I'm thrown historical
events, putting them very close together. And there was more
separation, but they're all related to this modern worldview that
says all we need is science, technology, logic, and reason. We
can solve all our problems. And so the intellectual person began
to reject God. There are plenty of Christians during that time,
whether in the Protestant Reformation or even scientists at the
time who were very comfortable with their belief in Christ as an
actual true follower of Christ and their intellectual pursuits. But
some people began to say, you know, religion is the problem. If
we could just get rid of religion, we could really see a flowering
of true development and progress in society through science,
technology, logic, and reason. You're familiar with this
perspective. And there's a sense, there's this assumption. You

have Darwin and his, his arguments about evolution being
introduced around this period of time. So there's assumption we
are evolving pass a belief in religion and superstition. We're
moving on so we can just assume and hope that the evolutionary
progress continues. And so obviously it's a naturalistic physical
framework. There's no spiritual component there. And that was
the motors have worldview. Now here you have this lofty idea
about the progress of mankind through science and technology
and reason. And then you have problems with that vision. One,
you have technology being used in World War One and World
War II. Millions of lives are being slaughtered because of
technology. So maybe science and technology in and of
themselves are not the full solution. 2, you have all these people
that had these big grandiose ideas and certainly not the modern
world views about big grandiose ideas and utopian schemes to
change mankind forever. And it was people with big ideas that
whether it was stellar Mao say tongue that, that, that
slaughtered millions of people are in prison and brutally
tortured billions of people. It was the same people that went not
the same, but the same perspective. Big ideas we in the West
are superior to these other parts of the world that were
colonizing and discovery new. So we're enslaving the
indigenous people groups. Many times we're killing them.
Because we think we're better than them. So there's a lot of
racism at a foot with this, this big idea perspective. And there's
also another concern people realize if there is no God, if we're
just spiritual beings were totally a product of our physical
environment. So there's really no free will because I'm just
being controlled by the things around me. And that felt very
deterministic. So some people, rather than going back to the
biblical God who affirms all these wonderful things about who
we are as human beings. Some people reacted by the 19 sixties
and fifties, reacted to the modern worldview and went into what
we call post modernism. And post-modernism, as I said, is a
rejection of this deterministic naturalistic framework. And said,
You know what, we do have this spiritual personal meaning.

We're not going to really try to define it because we reject
metanarratives. In other words, we reject any claim of
overarching truth because it's this belief, an overarching truth is
this belief in logic that has led to all these wars and all this
mistreatment of indigenous people, groups and so forth and all
this intolerance. And you know, the postmodern rule of you
because you hear things like there are no absolutes there. It's
not right for you to judge me and I have to do what's right for
me. And you do what's right for you that speaks to a rejection of
absolute truth and therefore puts an emphasis on personal
meanings. So you do what works for you, as I said, and I'll do
what works for me. And it's all very subjective and all very, it's
supposed to be bring value to you and I as human beings. It also
puts an emphasis on what is called social constructionism,
which basically says we create meaning together, we create
values together. We make sense of life together. And that's how
we avoid being intolerant UNI, through shared experiences
create meaning and truth, which sounds really nice until you
realize that, well, if that's all there is, there is no absolute right
and wrong. So if one people group wants to kill people or
mistreat women in their pupil group. That we can't judge that
because we can't go against what they socially constructed. See
there's problems here. And I think in the postmodern world
view, There's also this emphasis on evolutionary consciousness
that we, as a collective whole were being or becoming part of
the cosmic one, we're evolving to a higher spiritual state. And
my point in comparing postmodernism was a reaction to
modernism. But what's really ironic is that in the end, because
they have the same starting point, they end up being the same
thing. It's just that postmodern, postmodernism is more of us
has spiritual terminology to it, but it's not much different in the
end. And we can see this if we go to the next slide, we look at
these three worldviews, modernism, Christianity,
postmodernism, and take a look as we go down the row. What
do these perspectives believe about God? Well, modernism
rejects any belief in God because it's just a physical only

universe that kind of was brought into existence through random
chance. Postmodernism, Yes, we'll believe in some sort of
cosmic other. But it's very vague. It's very impersonal. Only the
God of the Bible believed in a personal, eternal, infinite being
who loves us and communicates to us in meaningful ways. Even
the Islamic worldview has a hard time with the notion that we,
as Christians would say, that were made in God's image. They're
offended by that. It seems very presumptuous, but that's what
scripture tells us were made in God's image. That allows us
therefore to be able to experience true love and justice and
beauty and make individual important sentient decisions. Look
at the nature of truth. The modern worldview rejects any belief
in absolute truth because everything is in, there is only a
physical universe and everything is in a constant state of change
in flux so you can have absolute truth there. Likewise, the post-
modernist rejects absolute truth. There's really no difference.
You go back to values. The only reason from the modern
naturalistic framework that you and I love one another. It's
herself survival that we have found that this hormonal secretion
that leads us to love others actually better for personal survival.
In the postmodern world view, the only way you get values is
by creating meaning with one another. Social constructionism.
In the modernistic review, human purpose, there is no free will.
We're just cogs in the wheel, we're just robots were totally
controlled by our external physical environment. In fact, there's
no difference between us and the external physical environment.
The postmodern Worldview believes in free will, but it's very
subjective. It's, well, yeah, this makes sense for me. I can
explain that logically. I can explain why the decisions I make
are important. It just feels important to me. I have a real hard
time with that. I don't care what I feel. I want my feelings be
based upon truth. Otherwise my feelings are invalidated.
Biblical worldview we have what is known as participatory free
will, mean that you and I can make decisions. God is ultimately
in control, got initiates everything we participate with what he
initiates, whether its decisions we make in life, whether it's the

very fact that we were born, even sanctification, we participate
with God moving us to him, join us to Him and repentance and
sanctification. So we participate with how he's made us. And
yes, there are constraints and our free will, but at least there's
free will in the Biblical worldview. Certainly to biblical
worldview, we believe in eternal truth. Jesus Christ, the living
eternal Word of God, came and dwelt among us, certainly
because Jesus Christ became. Fletcher on human flesh, fully
man and fully got our free will. Our unique identities are
affirmed. Certainly Jesus Christ on the cross, being fully God
and fully man affirms God's eternal sense of justice and his
eternal sense of love. Because a perfectly good God cannot
tolerate any evil. So he couldn't let any of us off the hook,
otherwise you'd be less than good. But that same perfectly good
God could not tolerate our eternal destruction because then his
perfect love would be compromised. So you see Jesus Christ is
fully God and fully man, taking our sin on the cross. And in so
doing, man was punished because Christ is fully man. But also
man was saved in the cross because Jesus that was fully God
was also perfect. He didn't have his own sinful issues. If I run
the courtroom before Eternal God trying to take your
punishment. I couldn't and I wouldn't because I'm just I
wouldn't do that. Sorry. But I couldn't because I have my own
sinful issues, but Christ could be the perfect sacrifice. And he
took the punishment that we deserved on the cross. And so in
Christ's love and justice are perfectly fulfilled. What's so
beautiful about that is the Christian worldview is logically,
internally consistent. So when you are moved to tears because
of what Christ has done for you in the cross. You know, it's
logically valid to do so. It's not just a subjective whimsical
filling in the moment. Now as we move into a view of
government, we see that in the modern world view, it tends to
favor a more expansive role for government. Now there's
atheists out there who are libertarian and conservative as I grant
that. But in general, because the, the typical naturalistic
framework believes in evolution, there's this hope that you get

the best and brightest in the room that the intellectuals, the
progressives, they, they can solve our problems, let them
rationally, without any bias, solve our problems. So you need to
give them the authority to do so. So you're more in favor of big
government. You're more in favor of you in the Constitution is a
living document that kinda evolves with the needs of society.
The postmodern world, I think, would favor that too. Yes,
sometimes it leads, it tends to go into more individualism,
libertarianism, the point of chaos if it's not careful and
advocation of social responsibility. But it also, because it also
believes in evolution to some extent, those more spiritual, it
still will tend to favor big government. In a biblical worldview,
we believe in limited government because we do not trust
human beings to be perfectly rational. Yes, were made in God's
image. But we had this notion that confounds us and controls is
known as sin. So pride and arrogance must always be factored
in. So we believe in limited government. And furthermore, as
Christians, we believe in the ability to master sin through the
power of God, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the
Word of God to change us. That is about self-government. So a
self-governing individual does not want to be pampered and
controlled and perfectly cared for by big government. Because
we believe being made in God's image, we have responsibility
and the freedom to take care of our lives is very important. As
we move forward. Now I'm going to get into some more specific
sure, that both the postmodern worldview and the modern
worldview. But I wanted to show you that screen here to show
how similar those two are. In the end, as Solomon said, there's
nothing new under the sun. You can't escape certain boundaries
if you don't believe in a personal infinite creator been. So let's
look at the naturalistic worldview. And you have two major
political movements that come from that. One is Marxism and
the other one is progressivism. Marxism rejected the alleged
abuses of capitalism. He was concerned about the abuses that
were being seen in the Industrial Revolution. And it began to
censored, rejected any spiritual component to what causes greed

and injustice. The only solution, therefore, what would, could
only be an economic one? Redistribution of wealth and so forth.
Progressivism, the belief that you get the best and brightest in
the room. They can get rid of the, the Yoko locals and get rid of
this religious superstition. Let us solve the problems together
that also kinda lead to a rejection of any spiritual component,
any problem. And it led to big government solutions. So you see
as a result, on the next slide implications, you see emphasis on
economic and political solutions only. No sense of addressing
the spiritual component of any problem. Ucfs on a redistribution
of wealth and behavior modification. Not really dealing with
human beings made in God's image who also have the potential
for greed and laziness and selfishness. Okay? And if you look at
the postmodern world view, what we really see is we see those
same things with a slightly different twist. Look at this next
slide. You see feminism, critical theory, and queer theory. And
really those three are kind of the postmodern equivalent of
Marxism. They all kinda come from the Marxist perspective.
And Marxism, it was the rich man, the rich person exploiting
the poor. In the postmodern world view, it's the rich male.
Explain everybody else. Feminism focused on chauvinistic
abuses. Critical theory focuses on any way that power is used
through words, through social custom, structures and processes
to exploit and imprison people and keep the haves and more
power. And queer theory further says, Listen, it's not right for
men to exploit women. It's not, it's not right for there to be
gender-based exploitation or sexual norms that leads to
exploitation. So queer theory is all about, it's not even about
Nestle first and foremost being pro gay, it's first and foremost,
but you shouldn't even make a big deal about sexual distinctions
if someone wants to be gay and heterosexual the same time.
That's none of your business. Let them do what they want to do.
And my concern that even with that, there's this other issue with
queer theory. If there is no male, female distinctions and sexual
roles, is there going to be any distinction between adults and
children when it comes to sexual activity. And you're starting to

see some so-called intellectuals make the case that no, it is not
wrong for an adult to pursue sexual relationships with the child.
And I think we'll see more of that in the coming years that, that
of course concerns me. There's another emphasis here in the
postmodern world view as we wrap up this presentation, known
as satisficing and bounded rationality. In the modern
worldview, the assumption was if your logical enough, if you
collect enough data, if you just give me just a matter of time,
we can make the right decision. I think then it kinda sound like
meanwhile, back in the real world, they'll never be enough time
to collect enough information to make a sound decision. We
will never have access to all the information we need to define
the problem. Now in the canon should part of the May kinda
should analysis. We had the policy analysis process where you
define the problem, you identify the alternatives and you
establish criteria and so forth. The whole assumption there was
that you can properly define the problem. You can properly gain
enough information to do that. But the post-modern perspective
says, Wow, you just do the best you can. You satisfice you. It's
a combination of sufficient. In satisfactory, you do the best you
can with the time constraints you have, the budgetary
constraints you have to make the best decision you possibly can.
And that's what this means. Bounded rationality is another
reflection. You never have unlimited rationale. And I think
there's a lot of biblical truth today. I think there's a lot we can
take away from that perspective. And so in the postmodern
world, you, the implications for policy analysis, again,
satisficing bounded rationality, we see rejection of absolute
truth. Everything is inconstant flashes this today. Today it
might be wrong to do this tomorrow. It might be okay to do it.
Okay. Just so there's really no difference between that and the
mothership framework. We see a continued emphasis on
problems being defined as exploitation based upon gender, class
and ethnicity. Now, exploitation based upon gender class.
Ethnicity does certainly occur all the time. But we have to
understand from scripture that there's also a personal

component. A personal spiritual component, or personal
responsibility is also a key part of that. You can either be a
victim of evil and exploitation or you can be a survivor of the
exploitation. And furthermore, you can aid your own
exploitation. You can participate with destructive tendencies in
your life and further victimize yourself. And the Bible tells us
that we should not do that. And through the power of Christ, we
don't, we need not do that. So in conclusion, the final slide was
some biblical perspectives to wrap this all up. One, be aware of
those and biblical assumptions from naturalism, from
modernism, postmodernism, be aware how they influence your
understanding of public policy and the role of government to
understand holistic solutions. There is a place for government,
but there's also a place for other factors and composes a society
to get involved like churches, like families, you and I develop
in relation of the people to preach the gospel to them, to help
them give the freedom and the power of God to change their
lives. This final point relates to that in a perspective that you'll
hear a lot about this in this class, covenant and sphere
sovereignty basically says, we're all in this together. It's not
about any one source having all the power. We all have certain
power and therefore responsibly from God to impact the
solutions and society for the better. So churches, businesses,
non-profits, in cooperation with governments, sometimes
independent of government, should be attack, should be
attacking these problems politically in our communities, in
solving them. And a lot of times we can serves, I'll conclude
with this. A lot of times we conservatives say, well, government
should not be doing this or that, okay? Then what should, then
who should be solving that problem? Because somebody is
called to distend the gap and solve that problem. And I hope in
this class when you start talking about problems, you're not just
say no, big government shouldn't is not the answer. I hope you
are beginning to think, well then what is the answer? Hopefully
this presentation begins to get you to think along the right lines
of answering that question. Thank you for your time.

Progressivism and Public Analysis: The Promises of
Progressivism and the Consolation of Conservatism
This presentation is progressivism and policy analysis. And a
little subheading here, the promises of progressivism in the
constellation of conservativism. The point is to show, yeah,
there are some benefits, progressivism, but there's also some
limitations. And you might be asked, Well, why are we even
talking about progressivism? This course is on government
regulation. And the reason we are is because government
regulation is ultimately the result of public policy. So
bureaucrats, legislators, executives make policy upon the policy
analysis process, they define the problem, they generate
solutions and implement solutions that in turn, in some form or
the other, leads to government regulation. Now, obviously, the
policy analysis process should be even handed, objective and
rational. And thus regulation you would think would also be
intelligent, appropriate, and efficient. And that's why I had that
disclaimer. No way is this video meant to be humorous or
satirical. Because when you and I both know that government
regulation often is anything but efficient and practical and
realistic. So why is that? Now, to set the foundation,
progressivism is this notion that we should get that x best
experts in the room to generate policy solutions, to make
recommendations and solve that problem. Before we get into all
those key stipulations of progressivism, let's talk about the
worldview of the progressive approach. And I would make the
case that much like Marxism is kind of coming from a
naturalistic solution perspective. Insofar as it assumes only
secular, only physical, only empirical components to problems,
and therefore only secular only empirical only physical
solutions to problems. So much like Marxism would define the
problem of poverty as exploitation in the solution would
therefore only be redistribution of wealth. Progressivism
likewise, assumes that your best solutions are going to become
from physical solutions, from government. It's going to not
really acknowledge spiritual or holistic solutions, or certainly

the causes, the spiritual causes of problems as well. So with that
being said, let me, let me talk about what we would call the
promises of progressivism first, it's that trained impartial elites
who conduct analysis and let the research Dr. recommendations
are in control of making those introducing those solutions. So
they're, they're supposed to be smart. They're supposed to know,
they're sad, they're supposed to be experts in their field. Makes
sense. They're supposed to be able to, to make impartial
recommendations that would hopefully in turn lead to holistic
centralized solutions of problems. The reason that centralization
is important is that hopefully if you're centralizing, you can
solve all the problem. And once if you can get, give the people,
the decision-makers enough authority to, to, to solve the
problem that need that by default requires centralization. And
that makes sense on some level. It also assumes scientific
rationalism. Rationalism, in other words, that people are smart.
They're coming out from a scientific approach, not from a knee
jerk approach where they've got their own biases and
assumptions that are clouding the approach to policy analysis.
And therefore regulation. Allegedly, progressivism was all
about avoiding superstition, narrow mindedness and
disorganization allegedly. Okay, that's the promise of
progressives and that's what we're hoping is going to happen.
But there are some pitfalls that we're going to discuss in the
next few slides. First of all, having to a degree by your name
doesn't mean that your rational, rational. I ever interviewed by
my name. And sadly I'm not always rational and the frail human
being in need of a Savior, in need of God's wisdom. Political
constraints secondly, can deny the full possibility of rational
policy analysis. And this is where we begin to see why
government regulations themselves are often irrational and a
poor fit to the problem and the solution. So that's just the reality
of the political world. There's a lot of constraints, was a lot of
different actors and so forth. We'll discuss that in a second.
Elitism can further undermine holistic analysis, including
spiritual components. If you're, if you consider yourself to be an

expert in your impressed with your expertise, and you believe
that people that don't have your expertise are therefore dumb
and they shouldn't have any say. You might fall prey to pride
and arrogance and therefore elitism and therefore narrow
minded solutions. If you're coming out a problem with a secular
only perspective, you're going to therefore overlook entirely the
spiritual dimension of most political problems is going to lead
to an impartial, an incomplete solution, often an entirely
misguided solution. Because if you don't define the problem
properly in the policy analysis process, it doesn't matter how
good your solutions are. There going to be off base. They're not
going to be able to solve the problem because you haven't
properly define the problem from the get-go. Here's some more
pitfalls of progressivism, something that the progressive spirit
never really would have accounted for. Because their
assumption is that you get the elites, you get the experts in
government, they're going to be impartial, are going to make all
the right solutions. Bureaucracy creep. In other words, the more
you to find the problem, the more you try to solve the problem
the agency created to regulate and implement the solution is
going to be more concerned about its own survival and its own.
Authority, so it's going to grow, and that's what happens with
your typical government bureaucracy. It seems to grow over
time. It's related agencies, survival. Agencies, survival comes at
the expense of constituent care, are more concerned about
making the next budget gain approval from Congress or what
have you, the mayor, the governor for that, for that next budget.
And so that becomes more important the constituent care. And
tactically that even gets worse as you get more actors, more
agencies involved in quotes solving the problem. Then you get
top-down solutions. Again in the name of centralization, you
doing centralization, the name of, of getting a much more
comprehensive solution of the problem. But as a result, you're
more top-down, you more hierarchical. Thus, your solutions,
they're out of touch with the local contact, local context, and
the personal spiritual dimensions of the problem. And that's

why a lot of times you get, you get, you know, federal solutions
that do not work in a local context, right? Because they are too
rigid. By default, regulations are too rigid and they're often,
they miss local personal context. That's why typically we as
conservatives in the House will have government recommend
local solutions to local problems, to say nothing of how that
ensures more freedom for you and I. And then you have this
problem which is anything but rational, but it is just the reality
of government mismanagement of funding, spending other
people's money on other people's problems. You know, when
you spend your money on yourself, you're very particular and
how you spend it, even if you wasted your very particular on
how you waste your money on yourself, you know exactly what
you're doing. Typically, you take a bureaucrat that doesn't know
you and doesn't know the person trying to help. All of a sudden,
that money in fiscal restraint becomes a lot less important. And
you take a bunch of lawmakers making a budget on a yearly
basis, or allegedly supposedly suppose you'd have to do that
hasn't been happening lately. And you don't have discipline
spending. It is a direct refutation of the alleged elitism and
rationals when professionalism that the progressive movement
was founded upon, lawmakers in bureaucrats do not spend
money well, they wasted on pork. Marx, all these things in
agencies waste the money as well and the name preserving the
budget. As for each year. I'm not anti-government. Clearly the
bible's an anti-government, but we have to take these realities
into account. And often they are not. So what does the Bible say
about these things? And I think it's important to look not only at
the Bible, but also just some, some did the whole philosophical
traditions. The constellation of conservativism from Edmund
Burke is that your Edmund Burke, the father of conservativism,
said Beware the daydreams of intellectuals. In other words, just
because an idea sounds good up here, you get a smart person. I
can articulate an idea. And this idea for what government
should do to solve our problems. It may make sense, very, fairly
fairy world, but it may not make sense in the real world. And so

it's important to note that distinction in what Edmund Burke
says, that often the common sense of common people trumps the
schemes of the elites. Progressivism said that the problem with
most policy solutions back in the day was that you had a bunch
of local people. They didn't the local locals who didn't know
what they're doing. They're too parochial there, too
unprofessional. They didn't know their stuff. And certainly that
was a problem that exists that we have to be aware of that. But
Edmund Burke reminds us that many times there is a thing
called common sense that people just the real life experiences
of day-to-day living have much more contact sometimes than
the intellectuals do up a capitol Hill. And so their solutions are
much more in touch with reality that's important to remember.
And I think this is where we start transitioning into biblical
truth. The bright idea is the sages should be in line with the
wisdom of the ages. Some of those ideas, what does the woods
with the ages in terms of a biblical perspective, we're talking
about things like inalienable rights, natural law, The inherent
need to limit government, even if government could generate
the solution doesn't mean it should, if it comes at the expense of
your rights and my rights and freedoms right, we have to have a
balanced approach to this. Elitism often means arrogance, that
often means abuse of power. We have to guard against that.
Now if we go to the Book of Proverbs in the Bible, we see some
major themes that are relevant for any approach to policy
analysis and regulation. In Scripture, wisdom and justice are
intertwined in progress mean that it's not just haven't had
smarts, It's about being a good person. It's about caring for
people is about ensuring true justice. In the Bible, justice is
more than just coming from a judge. It's a holistic approach to
life. Everything is good and just and fair. People are cared for.
There is peace, there is fairness across the board. People, the
poor cared for, the individual rights are protected. This holistic
approach, we have to remember that we can't have a narrow
vision. Justice words, just redistribution of wealth, where it's
just taking from one group and given to another. There may be a

time and place for that. Certainly the Bible calls you and I to
share our wealth with those that don't have it. Certainly recall to
fight against oppressive structures in society. The wisdom
certainly is based upon humility. You don't get to pat yourself
on the back for being an elitist. So you don't get to pat yourself
on the back for having a degree. We're here to serve people in a
care for them. And sometimes government misses that fact
because they get out of touch with the people whose money they
are spending. And that's really sad, but it happens all the time.
So this presentation is not meant to be a total rebuke of
progressivism because wisdom in scripture like progressivism.
Encourages a rational and an intelligent approach to policy
analysis and regulation. But wisdom, often, unlike
progressivism, takes into account human arrogance and
depravity, and therefore provide some checks and balances. If
you have a naive assumption that a government official who has
his PhD is going to be rational and elite it in an objective. I
think that's not a biblical truth. I don't think that's a biblical
reality. Then we have one more thought from Scripture, this
idea of covenant, where you and I aren't, we're all in this
together. We're accountable to one another. If God would make
a covenant with us, ultimately fulfilling that covenantal
relationship with God through Jesus Christ. And what he did for
us on the cross. He would do that for us. Was he if he would say
come into a company with me, you make the choice to enter into
relation with me, and I'll bless you and I'll be accountable to
you and I will fulfill my end of the bargain. I'll go beyond the
letter of the law to fulfill my promise to you. And ultimately,
that's what he did. Jesus Christ ultimately went the extra mile.
Didn't he? Taking the sacrifice of sin that we should have had
the punishment of sin, which we should have had. He took that
on the cross, he became the punishment. He became our
sacrifice if he would do that for us. And what should we do for
one another in terms of the covenant, the vehicle notion of
covenant is relayed to the biblical notion of justice. We all are
accountable to one another. No one should have all the power.

No one should hoard power and BD elite, we need one another.
As a result, we have this idea. You read guys like Abraham
Cooper, known as sphere sovereignty, which is that power is
shared among various entities in society. The federal
government, the state governments and local governments,
churches, businesses, communities, non-profits, UNI families.
We all have a piece to play in problems that need to be solved
in our communities in so we're all involved in that. And you
don't have therefore a federal government that's top-heavy
giving all these regulations and mandates and telling states and
localities what to do. And you don't have a view to solving
social problems that ignores the role of the church, the role
faith-based non-profits and so forth. The covenantal approach
encourages personal accountability, which conservatives love,
and it encourages social justice. Well, how do you balances to
you bounce them through having not just the federal
government involved. We have churches, localities, faith-based
non-profits that CAN, who have the context of how to care for
people who also know those people well enough to, to hold
them accountable in a loving way. Case in point, my churches
involved with a network of churches in my area. And they know
people that really generally need help from churches. And those
people that are just gaming the system and trying to take
advantage, take advantage of the kind of churches with respect
to financial resources. That's cooperation, that's a localized
solutions are caring for the poor. Finally, a covenantal biblical
approach to policy analysis and regulation acknowledges the
inherent spiritual dimension of most problems. Government
regulations are inherently anti spiritual because they don't
typically allow for a spiritual component because that's an
alleged violation of the separation of church and state. But we
know that if we're going to really solve problems in society, we
have to allow for that spiritual problem. It's not just a spiritual
problem, right? It's not just the result of a lack of personal
choices. If you read scripture, what causes poverty? Yes, it
points to wastefulness and a lack of personal responsibility, but

it points to a lot of other things too, like oppressive rulers and
oppressive structures that take advantage of the widows,
widows and the fatherless. So we have to be aware of that too,
and it blends those together. And I think that's very important as
we talk about government regulations class. Thank you for your
time.
Public Policy 7th Edition
Kraft, Michael E.,Furlong, Scott R (7TH EDITION)
COPYRITTEN 2021)
CHAPTER 12 Foreign Policy and Homeland Security
National security and citizen rights. Facebook CEO Mark
Zuckerberg (center) testifies at a joint hearing of the Senate
Judiciary and Commerce Committees on Capitol Hill in
Washington, D.C., on April 10, 2018. Zuckerberg told Congress
in his written testimony that he is “responsible for” not
preventing the social media platform from being used for harm,
including fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate
speech.
PAGE 413 Throughout 2013, the nation was gripped by news of
the National Security Agency’s (NSA) extensive and secretive
domestic surveillance operations that far exceeded what the
public and policymakers thought was taking place. Most
Americans recognize the need to keep close tabs on potential
terrorists at home or abroad, particularly in the aftermath of the
September 11, 2001, attacks and more recent incidents. These
include the assault in San Bernardino, California, in 2015 in
which fourteen people were killed, and the mass shooting by a
man who also was a self-described supporter of ISIS at a
nightclub in Orlando, Florida, in 2016 that killed forty-nine
people. In early 2019, federal officials arrested a forty-nine-
year-old Coast Guard officer who described himself as a white
nationalist and a domestic terrorist; he had amassed a large

cache of weapons and was planning to attack prominent cable
news journalists and Democratic Party officials. Such cases are
increasingly a focus of law enforcement. A report by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in March 2019 found that
such domestic terrorism arrests—for example, for threats from
far-right extremists—now exceed those for international
terrorism.1
Whether the suspects are international or domestic terrorists,
how much authority should the NSA and other law enforcement
offices have to gather information about ordinary Americans in
its search for telling patterns that might alert the agency to such
threats? Should all phone calls and all email messages be
monitored for such patterns? What about web browsing and
postings to sites such as Facebook and Twitter, especially given
use of those social media by Russian intelligence agencies in
their effort to affect the 2016 presidential election campaign?
At what point does such government surveillance cross the line
and become an invasion of privacy or even a violation of federal
laws that are designed to protect citizens’ civil liberties even as
the nation pursues its national security goals? Increasingly,
Americans are concerned about their personal privacy as they
learn more about the vast amounts of personal data that Google,
Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, Oracle, Apple, and
other big technology companies are collecting or using in their
routine business operations. Should government agencies be
held to an even higher standard for protection of personal
privacy?2
Many of the news stories in 2013 followed the release of
thousands of classified documents by Edward J. Snowden, a
then twenty-nine-year-old former NSA contractor who worked

for the consulting company Booz Allen Hamilton. By one recent
estimate, more than four million federal employees and
contractors hold security clearances, making it difficult to
oversee their actions. Snowden and his supporters say that he
released classified data to journalists because he had no
confidence that the NSA itself would act against what he viewed
as excessive and illegal domestic surveillance operations. In
effect, they said he became a whistle-blower, hoping that by
releasing evidence of NSA’s mass collection of phone records
and internet use he would help to end the practices. They
viewed him as a hero.
Snowden’s detractors offered a much less positive
interpretation. They said that he was not a whistle-blower at all,
but a traitor, and that his release of classified documents did
enormous damage to the ability of the NSA and other
intelligence agencies to do their jobs and protect the nation
from terrorism. Reflecting those views, the U.S. government
charged Snowden with violation of the Espionage Act for
unauthorized communication of classified material and theft of
government property. In 2013, Russia granted him political
asylum, which it extended until at least 2020.
PAGE 414 n yet another twist in the story, in April 2014, two of
the newspapers that published stories based on the NSA
documents that Snowden provided to them, the Washington Post
and the Guardian, won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for Public
Service. At the height of the controversy, both newspapers were
strongly criticized by the American and British governments for
the harm they were said to have inflicted on national security by
publishing the information. Yet the Pulitzer committee
indicated that it gave the award because of the papers’
“revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National
Security Agency, marked by authoritative and insightful reports
that helped the public understand how the disclosures fit into
the larger framework of national security.”3

The sharply varying assessments of Snowden’s release of
classified documents and of the NSA’s massive domestic
surveillance operations illustrate well the contemporary
challenge of providing for the nation’s security. As many
observers noted in the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist
attacks, “the world has changed.” As a result, the goals of U.S.
foreign policy, national defense, and homeland security need
fresh and critical examination. Policy tools that were widely
used in the past, from diplomacy and international economic
assistance to weapons procurement and military intervention
abroad, need to be rethought as well. At the same time, use of
new policy tools, including the NSA’s elaborate electronic
surveillance programs, clearly calls for careful analysis and
reassessment, and that process is under way in Congress and the
administration as well as in organizations outside of the
government.
PAGE 415 Similarly, government agencies and offices
responsible for foreign and defense policy, such as the
Departments of State and Defense, the Central Intelligence
Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
created through an executive agency reorganization in the
aftermath of the 2001 attacks, need to be thoroughly examined
to make sure they are as capable as they can be of carrying out
U.S. policy and protecting the nation from security threats.4
Aside from capacity to do their jobs well, it is imperative that
these agencies be able to weigh and balance their missions
against long-standing concern for the rights of citizens. As we
will see at the end of the chapter, critics have questioned the
trade-offs between security and liberty in debates over the USA
PATRIOT Act, both at the time of its adoption in 2001, just a
few weeks after the terrorist attacks, and during its renewal by
Congress in later years. The box “Steps to Analysis: The
National Security Agency and Domestic Surveillance” explores

some of these concerns.
Because of the scope of the topic, this chapter is organized
differently from those that precede it. Instead of the major
policies and programs, we emphasize key issues in foreign
policy and homeland security and address questions about the
effectiveness of new policies adopted in the years following the
terrorist attacks of 2001. We also place those policies within the
larger context of new and complex global challenges that
confront the United States in the twenty-first century, including
national security threats posed by the growth of international
terrorism, often defined as the unconventional use of violence
for political gain. In addition, we provide a brief historical
overview of U.S. foreign and defense policy since the end of
World War II in 1945 that helps to explain the changing policy
agenda in recent years, particularly following the collapse of
the Soviet Union in 1991 and the end of the Cold War that
dominated U.S. thinking about foreign policy for decades.
PAGE 416 We emphasize as well that policy analysis can help
in understanding contemporary challenges in foreign policy and
homeland security, much as it can in domestic policy areas such
as education, the environment, and health care. Analysts and
policymakers need to be alert to the available policy tools and
think about which are most likely to be effective, which are
justifiable in terms of economic costs and efficiency, and which
are likely to be fair or acceptable on ethical grounds. There is
an obvious need to think clearly and imaginatively about such
questions, yet much of the current political debate over foreign
policy and homeland security continues to be grounded in
simplistic assessments of the situation faced. If this pattern
continues, it will serve the nation poorly in the years ahead.

Background and Policy Evolution
We start this section with some basic definitions. Foreign policy
refers to the collection of government actions that affect or
attempt to affect U.S. national security as well as the economic
and political goals associated with it. Foreign policy can deal
with matters as diverse as international trade, economic
assistance to poor nations, immigration to the United States,
building of political alliances with other nations, action on
human rights abuses around the world, global environmental
and energy issues such as climate change, and strategic military
actions abroad. As the list of topics suggests, foreign policy
involves a great diversity of policy actors, among the most
important of which are the president, the secretary of state, the
president’s national security adviser, the National Security
Council (see below), and key congressional committees. Among
the most commonly used policy tools are diplomacy (high-level
communication among policymakers), economic relations (such
as imposing trade restraints or providing economic assistance),
and threats of military intervention. Foreign policymaking also
has some distinctive qualities, among them a greater need than
in other policy areas for secrecy or a lack of transparency, more
of a reliance on policy professionals (for example, in the State
Department and in intelligence and defense agencies),
considerably less opportunity for public input, greater
involvement by foreign policy actors, and dominance by the
president over Congress.
Defense policy, considered part of foreign policy, refers to the
goals set (usually by civilian policymakers in the White House
and Congress) and the actions taken by government officials
directed at the conduct of military affairs. Here too the issues

are diverse, ranging from decisions to build and deploy a
variety of strategic weapons systems such as nuclear missiles,
manned bombers, and aircraft carriers to the maintenance of
suitable military force levels, domestically and abroad, and the
planning and conduct of military operations such as the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
Among the major policy actors in defense decisions are the
secretary of defense, other members of the National Security
Council, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (representing the military
services). The National Security Council (NSC) is chaired by
the president, and the regular attendees (both statutory and
nonstatutory) include the vice president, secretary of state,
secretary of the Treasury, secretary of defense, and assistant to
the president for national security affairs (also called the
president’s national security adviser). The chair of the joint
chiefs by statute is the military adviser to the council, and the
director of national intelligence is the intelligence adviser. The
Obama administration altered the NSC substantially by
extending its scope beyond traditional foreign policy issues (for
example, to climate change and energy(PAGE 417) concerns)
and including other agencies in its work. Members of Congress
who serve on defense-related committees also are influential
policy players.5
Although it is something of a simplification, the chief purpose
of U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II can be
described as the promotion of national security through a
diversified economic, political, and military strategy. The
United States emerged from the war in 1945 as one of the
world’s leading military and economic powers, and it sought to
ensure that the security it won at such a high price in World

War II would not be lost. For most of the postwar era, that goal
was associated with five essential activities: (1) the rebuilding
of a war-devastated Europe through the Marshall Plan and the
formation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
(2) the formation of and support for the United Nations, (3) a
military buildup to ensure adequate capacity to deal with
potential enemies, (4) the development and growth of the
nation’s intelligence agencies to provide reliable knowledge
about security threats, and (5) the initiation of economic and
military assistance to other nations for humanitarian and
strategic purposes. We briefly review each of these in turn.
The Marshall Plan, NATO, and the Cold War
The Marshall Plan, named after Secretary of State George
Marshall, was authorized by the Economic Cooperation Act of
1948 to help rebuild Europe after the defeat of Nazi Germany
by the Allied forces, which included the United States and the
Soviet Union. Europe continued to suffer greatly from the
effects of the prolonged war, which had caused unprecedented
loss of life and destruction across the continent. The plan was to
offer humanitarian aid to assist in Europe’s recovery and to
encourage nations in Europe to work together to improve
economically. This was an early form of economic cooperation
that led decades later to the European Union. The United States
offered up to $20 billion in aid, and by 1953, it had spent some
$13 billion, enough to put Europe back on its feet.6 The United
States also was aware that a stronger Europe could help to block
the expansion of communism from the East as well as stimulate
the U.S. economy, because so much of what European nations
bought was made in the United States. The plan was one of the
first clear demonstrations after the war that foreign policy could
reflect idealistic goals but also be grounded in realpolitik, a
hardheaded or practical appraisal of national interests that

emphasizes competition among nation-states.
By 1949, in response to the threat of aggression by the Soviet
Union, the United States and Western European nations created
a formal alliance to pursue their security interests
cooperatively: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
also called the North Atlantic Alliance or the Western Alliance,
which was signed in Washington, D.C., in April. By 1955,
NATO welcomed West Germany to the pact, but East Germany
remained under the domination of the Soviet Union. The divided
Germany would come to symbolize the deep ideological and
political differences between NATO nations and the Soviet
Union and its satellite states, the communist nations of Central
and Eastern Europe. In response to West Germany’s entry into
NATO, and with Soviet concern about a “remilitarized” West
Germany, in 1955, these nations formally established their
counterpart, called the Warsaw Pact. The two collections of
nations, West and East, were on opposing sides during the rest
of the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact itself was formally dissolved
in 1991 with the end of the Soviet Union (the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics, or USSR).
PAGE 418 The Cold War was so named because the conflicts
between the United States and the Soviet Union never emerged
into direct military confrontation between the two, or a “hot”
war. Rather, the conflicts that were fought were between
surrogate nations, such as North and South Korea in the early
1950s and North and South Vietnam in the 1960s and early
1970s. This is not to say there was an absence of real warlike
activities. In place of military engagement between the two
superpowers, the Cold War relied on a variety of other policy
tools. These included diplomatic actions, communication
strategies (propaganda), economic and military aid to nations to
secure their support, and covert intelligence and military
operations in advance of each nation’s interests. The Cold War

lasted from 1947 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
(Gaddis 2006).
The United Nations and Globalization
At the end of World War II, the United States and its European
allies concluded that future conflicts might be resolved without
war through the establishment of an international organization.
In 1945, the United States and fifty other nations formed the
United Nations (UN), headquartered in New York City and
governed under the United Nations Charter, its constitution.
Today, the UN is often described as a “global association of
governments facilitating cooperation in international law,
international security, economic development, and social
equity.”7 In 2019, the UN consisted of 193 member states, all
nations in the world except for Kosovo, Palestine, and the
Vatican City. It has a vast array of agencies and programs to
further its purposes, such as the World Health Organization, the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the United
Nations international conferences on issues of special
importance.
Several affiliated organizations work toward goals similar to
those of the UN, especially economic development of poor
nations. Most prominent among them are the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund, which are controlled by
leading developed nations, such as the United States. The World
Bank was created at about the same time as the UN, in 1945,
and loans money to developing nations for certain kinds of
development projects. As is the case with the UN itself, these
organizations often are criticized for a variety of reasons. Some
argue that they impose Western political and economic values
on developing nations, such as a demand for democratic

institutions and free-market economic systems that do not
necessarily benefit the people of those nations. Others complain
that they have worsened environmental conditions by fostering
wasteful and damaging projects, such as the construction of
large hydroelectric dams. There is no question, however, that
the World Bank remains a highly regarded financial institution
with an enormous impact on world economic development
strategies. The same could be said of its related financial
institutions.
As we discussed in chapter 7, one of the most important
economic aspects of foreign policy, though not restricted to
work through the United Nations, is an attempt to manage the
effects of globalization, defined here as the growing
interrelationship of all nations through global trade and other
kinds of interaction and communication. Increasingly, national
barriers to trade, such as tariffs (customs duties or taxes
imposed on imports), have been lowered, facilitating the
development of an international marketplace in what one
journalist has called an increasingly (PAGE419)“flat” or
connected world (Friedman 2006, 2008). Yet the nations that
compete in this marketplace do so with greatly varied economic
circumstances, particularly their cost of labor and reliance on
different national health, safety, and environmental regulations.
These variations can lead to conflicts over what is considered to
be fair trade, which became a major issue in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election.
The subject of trade with other nations also was prominent in
Donald Trump’s presidency as his administration sought to
renegotiate or terminate many long-standing trade agreements
that it argued were no longer in the nation’s interests. Among
the effects in 2018 were heightened economic uncertainty
among American businesses and the agricultural community.
Moreover, despite the administration’s concern that a large

trade deficit needed to be lowered through such new trade
arrangements, 2018 ended with the largest U.S. trade deficit in
history. Analysts suggested that no administration finds it easy
to alter international economic changes or, for that matter, to
steer the U.S. economy as it would like.8
For decades, such conflicts have been presented to the World
Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO was established in 1995
and administers trade agreements among 164 nations (as of
2017), representing about 97 percent of the world’s population,
to settle conflicts over trade disputes, such as imposing
unreasonable restrictions on other nations’ trade with the United
States. Its very existence testifies to the global marketplace of
the twenty-first century, the effects of which sometimes become
topics of intense debate. One example is the United States’
increasing reliance on importation of Chinese-made goods,
which are ubiquitous in discount department stores across the
nation such as Walmart and Target. Concerns have been raised
about issues as disparate as China’s record on human rights
abuses; its lax environmental, health, and safety protection; and
the economic impact on the United States when importation of
goods greatly exceeds purchase of U.S.-made products in China
and other nations (thus contributing to the United States’ trade
deficit).
The membership of the UN Security Council—the most
important of the UN policymaking bodies—reflects the history
of the UN’s formation. The council has a rotating membership
of ten nations selected from the UN General Assembly (which
consists of all member states) in addition to five permanent
members: China, France, the Russian Federation (Russia,
replacing the former Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, and

1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx

1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a 1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx

Semelhante a 1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx (20)

Mais de durantheseldine

Mais de durantheseldine (20)

Último

Último (20)

1. PART 2 Answer the Medical App Critical Appraisal.docx