Critically appraise the relevance of general principles of EU Law, Essay

Critically appraise the relevance of general principles of EU Law, such as the principles of proportionality or non-discriminati - Essay Example Defining General Principles The general principle of law is identified as a overall proposition of law of some prominence from which concrete rubrics are derived. The term ‘general’ in overall principles of law discusses, first, the fact that the particular standard of law is inherent in a sequence of unlimited applications of the law1. Accordingly, it is this particular characteristic that is the inconclusiveness in respect to the quality and capacity of the cases upon which the respective principle can be applied, which differentiates a general principle of law from an ordinary principle of law. Contrastingly, the general principle of law bears a more general nature, and is applicable to a wider range of different legal proceedings2. Second, the term ‘general’ also denotes the fact that the corresponding principle of law should be perceived as containing some universal mission. In other words, what characterises a general or universal principle of law in t he framework of EU law is the notion that the respective principle of law is also existent in other national or legal international systems. For instance, when the ECJ3 identifies the proportionality principle as a general principle of law, it supposes that the proportionality principle is also fundamental in other legal systems of law and, it respectfully surpasses the fateful obstacles established between them. Case in point, the ECJ has derived backing for its proposal that proportionality is a general principle of law with specific reference to select EC Member States’ legal systems. Accordingly, the proportionality principle is thereby also existent in the German constitutional and administrative law and French administrative law. General principles of law can be expressly specified such as in constitutional texts or deduced by a procedure of interpretation with regard to legislative texts, the existing legislative objectives, or the fundamental values of the legal syste m. Accordingly, in areas where general principles of law are referred to as sources of law in domestic or international legal systems, such reference usually indicates the principles derived by those courts from explicit rule or the entire legal systems and which exist further than that written law4. In essence, principles offer justification for existing rules. According to Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, a ‘principle’ of law, is defined to be a rule inherent in the implication of a rule-of-law, which epitomises an ideal of reason and/or of justice, and which is thought to constitute the foundation of the actual institution of law5. Indeed, the principle provides an answer to the question â€Å"why† as compared to the rule which only answers the question of â€Å"what†. Further, a principle of law is different from procedural rules since it is more explicitly defined in the facts of a court’s decision6. Notably, according to Dworkin, the overtness of the p rinciple of law indicates that it is formed as a part of the thought process of a court decision, also referred as the ratio decidendi. Consequently, principles are public, which also implies that they can establish the basis of expectations regarding the manner in which a court will resolve identical cases in future. Indeed, the precedent

Etanercept Essay Example for Free

Etanercept Essay Although it is known that etanercept is a recombinant human soluble tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF? ) receptor fusion protein that decreases its role in disorders that involves excess inflammation in animals, mainly in humans, including autoimmune diseases such as ankylosing spondylitis, psoriasis, hepatitis C, rheumatoid and psoriatic arthritis, it obviously shows that the effect of this fusion protein depends on the genes of the patient relative to his or her reaction to this protein. Citing the 60 year old male patient who was involved of being treated with etanercept, again, it manifests that there are different cases for different sets of specimens. Presumably, it is not wise to jump to conclusions that etanercept is not that beneficial in treating psoriasis or hepatitis C or both. One must take into consideration the genial pattern of the patient. Furthermore, etanercept is protein, which as we all know, comprises the basic genial structure of each cell of the body. In order for such protein to react or perform smoothly and beneficially, the subject should be focused more on protein â€Å"match-up† rather than citing several cases from the past or other occurrences involving etanercept.

Meningitis and Encephalitis :: Biology Medical Biomedical

Meningitis and Encephalitis Meningitis and encephalitis are two debilitating infections. They cause the inflammation of the meninges and the brain, respectively. Both of these infections are more common than the public believes them to be. Almost any bacteria or viruses can cause a form of this infection and any person of any age can contract this illness. In the United States many cases of meningitis and encephalitis are reported yearly. These two illnesses are often confused and considered by the general public to be one illness. But that is a myth. Meningitis and encephalitis are related, however, since encephalitis usually stems from the former. But meningitis causes inflammation of the meninges, or the lining of the brain, while encephalitis inflames the brain itself. Both of these inflammations have two forms: viral and bacterial. There are many different viruses that cause meningitis, such as mumps virus, echovirus, human entroviruses, HIV, arborviruses, west nile viruses, and many others. Mumps virus and Enteroviruses are the most common viruses that cause this infection. Viral meningitis tends to be more prevalent during the winter months. It is more likely to be found in adolescents or adults. Bacterial meningitis, like viral meningitis, is caused by many different organisms. Fifty percent of bacterial meningitis is caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, and fifteen percent are caused by Neisseria meningitides. The rest is caused by different Streptococcus and Listeria bacteria. Bacterial meningitis is contagious through direct contact with the oral fluids of the effected person. Therefore, the significant other and household contacts are often a likely candidate to contract bacterial meningitis. Eighty percent of cases are in people under the age of 16 and the majority of that group is under 5-years old. Haemophilus influenzae are gram-negative rods and it is commonly found in the United States. Their cell has a polysaccharide capsule with outer-membrane proteins. It is also non-motile. This bacterium prefers a carbon dioxide rich atmosphere though some strains do not need it to survive. An unusual trait of this bacteria is that when it is cultured for a long time, it loses its capsule and then dies. H. influenzae causes most cases of meningitis that occur in children between the ages of 2 months to four years, although-the mortality rate is a low three percent. Neisseria meningitides is a gram-negative diplococci, or a cocci that travels in pairs. This species is one of two Neisseria that are harmful to people. It is a spherical bacterium with a polysaccharides capsules.

Trouble with Television

The trouble with television My viewpoints on the book written by Marie Winn â€Å"The Trouble with Television† which talks about how television has a negative effects on children and family. I’ve read the book and I agreed with everything author Marie Winn wrote, so I have decided to argue for her on the major points of the book.My first argument for the book will be about the family, it talks about how â€Å"TV Keeps Families From Doing Other Things†, which it explains how a child that spends too much time watching TVs will miss out on a very important part of their learning development, because in the home its where much of the child learns an if the child is watching TV and not learning and bonding with their family, the television will turn off the process that transforms children into people.My second argument will be about TVs is a hidden competitor for all other activities   this topic is about how TVs takes most of your time so you don't have time to do anything else ,TVs is competing with every activities an TVs is the one of the reason why some activities people never get to doThe book also says â€Å"That TVs takes the place of physical fitness and play†, I totally agree with that statement because too many kids are just watching TV, not doing any physical activities at all, studies are showing that people are watching more TVs an getting more obese due to a lack of physical activities, to me after finding that out too much TVs has such a negative effect on physical health, I’ve decide to cut down on the number of hours I spend watching TVs.TV has such a negative effect on school achievement ,that was one of the main points in The Trouble with Television book ,it explains how excessive TVs watching directly negatively affects the brain ,in other words   turns the brain into mush due to more watching TVs and less studying. In my opinion I agree with everything author Marie Winn wrote in The Trouble with Televisio n book.I agree that too TVs is a big problem . I once use to watch TVs so much and never studied I was failing in school, and when I finally turned off the TVs and picked up a book, my grades an my life became so much better, when you turn off the TVs you come back to reality an so some world that wastes your time

Modified food Essay

â€Å"Genetically Engineered foods, also known as GM and GMO’s is the manipulation of DNA by humans to change the essential makeup of plants and animals. The technology inserts genetic material from one species into another to give it a new quality, such as the ability to produce a pesticide, or to include genetic material from Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt); a natural bacterium found in soil. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. Scientists have been undergoing experimentation of this method for over forty years, in hopes of perfecting GM’s which they foresee will positively enhance the overall well being of humanity nutritionally and environmentally. Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"Two techniques dominate the the GM farming industry: Some crops have been modified to be able to survive the weed- killer glyphosate, commonly sold under Monsanto’s Roundup brand. Roundup Ready crops purpose is objection is to decrease the need to till before planting, saving farmers time and money and reducing erosion and loss of soil moisture. Gylphosate is among the least toxic herbicides that can kill a broad spectrum of weeds, and thus is suppose to be safer for farmworkers and less environmentally damaging. The second technique is the introduction of genes from the soil bacterium Bacillis thurengiensis (Bt) produces a substance toxic to many pests but harmless to humans, wildlife and most beneficial insects, such as bees. While Bt has long been used by organic farmers, scientists have produced GM crops that manufacture their own Bt in the part of the plant susceptible to attack from pests- such as corn-plant roots prone to root- worm attack. †Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 What was once fairly quiet contention over the controversy of whether genetically engineered foods were safe or beneficial for human consumption and environmental preservation, has now spiraled into a social and political frenzy. People are now starting to demand for a food democracy. Currently, consistent negative findings of toxins, endangerment to human consumption, and environmental hazards have substantiated involving GMO’s; overturning the initial positive scientific and GM biotech producers projections. Government, FDA, GMO and GMO seed monopolizing company Monsanto have been accused of collaborating in order to keep GMO’s understudied, in consumer markets, and unlabeled. GM manufactures claim that GM’s are for the greater good of the world, stating that GM can end world hunger, stop climate change, reduce pesticide use, and increase crop yields. Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p If such a feat had been achieved, people would be rejoicing, but evidence has proven contrary. The main controversial arguments are; GM has not improved world hunger, GM has actually increased climate change, GM has doubled pesticide usage and now pest insects have developed an immunity to the pesticides, and GM has decreased crop yields. Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p GM is dangerous for human and animal consumption, and is an overall risk to our health and environment. â€Å"Lab animals forced to eat GM foods showed damage to virtually every system studied. They had stunted growth, bleeding stomachs, abnormal and potentially pre- cancerous cell growth in the intestines, impaired blood cell development, misshapen cell structures in the liver, pancreas and testicles, altered gene expression and ceil metabolism, liver and kidney lesions, partially atrophied livers, inflamed kidneys, less developed brains and testicles, enlarged livers, pancreases and intestines, reduced digestive enzymes, higher blood sugar levels, increased death rates, higher offspring mortality and immune system dysfunction. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Two dozen farmers reported that the GM corn varieties caused thousand of pigs to become sterile. Some also reported sterility among cows and bulls. German farmers link cow deaths to one variety of GM corn, while Filipinos link another variety to death among water buffaloes, chickens and horses. When 71 Indian shepherds let their sheep grace on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within 5 to 7 days 25 percent had died. The 2006 death rate for the region is estimated at 10,000 sheep. Since then more deaths were identified and toxins were also found in Bt cotton fields, investigators concluded that evidence strongly suggests the sheep death was caused by toxins, most probably Bt- toxin. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Three French scientists analyzed the raw data from three 2009 Monsanto studies on rats and found that three GM corn varieties caused liver and kidney toxicity and other kinds of organ damage. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"Organic farmers fear that their non- GM crops could become contaminated by the spread of genetically modified traits by wind and insect cross-pollination. Once those traits are in the agricultural gene pool, there’s no way to remove it. This is pollination with a life of its own, it spreads forever. †Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35. â€Å"Another environmental concern is Roundup ends up in wetlands because of runoff and inadvertent spraying, and Roundup damages soil,† according to Rick Relyea, University of Pittsburgh assistant Professor. Two Purdue scientists, Professor Emeritus Don Huber and G. s. Johal, said in a paper published in 2009 that the widespread use of glyphosate can significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defenses to pathogens and disease, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients, rendering them unavailable for plant use. The pair warn that â€Å"ignoring potential non- target side effects may have dire consequences for agriculture such as rendering the soil infertile, crops nonproductive and plants less nutritious. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"In 1992, the first Bush Administration sped up the GM process hoping it would increase exports and US dominance of food markets. The opposite ensued and the US government spent up to 5-billion-taxpayer-dollars a year in subsidies to prop up prices on the GM crop that many countries at the time rejected to adopt. Following other countries refusal of GM, the US government went on to try and force other countries to accept GM, â€Å"resorting to World Trade Organization Lawsuits against the European Union, GM food aid for famine- stricken nations, even threats to withdraw funds for AIDS relief if GMO’s weren’t adopted by African nations. † Smtih Jeffrey. â€Å"Not In My Fridge. † Ecologist; November 2007, Vol. 37 Issue 9, p27-31, 5p â€Å"Monsanto and a few chemi- biotech companies ultimately control GMO’s and GMO seed supply. Funding for university level research is often funded or controlled by the agrochemical companies. Biotech companies deny access to their patent-protected GM technology. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"The FDA does not conduct independent testing for human or animal safety and relies strictly on the research conducted by the manufacturers of the products. While the main GMO producer, Monsanto, makes it impossible for independent scientists to study GM seeds. The biotech industry has convinced the FDA that GM crops are not substantially different from conventional varieties. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å" As the system now stands, biotech companies bring their own research to the government body overseeing their products. Multibillion- dollar company corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically- engineered crops, they have refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they’ve set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options,† wrote Doug Gurian- Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"If GMO’s fail, shareholders in Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and other companies will see their investments plummet. According to Yahoo! Finance, more than 80 percent of Monsanto’s stock is held by institutional holders such a Vanguard and funds such as Davis, Fidelity and T Rowe Price. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"FDA officials have openly criticized efforts to label GM crops and food. In 2002, when Oregon voters considered measure 27, with contributions totaling $1,480,000. Next was Dupont, with $634,000,† said Cameron Woodworth in Biotech Family Secrets, a report for the Council for Responsible Genetics. Biotech companies Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences, BASF and Bayer Crop Science, plus Grocery Manufacturers of America ( a trade organization), PepsiCo, General Mills and Nesde USA contributed $900,000, wrote Woodworth. † Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. â€Å"Labeling advocates, along with 40 other countries, including all of Europe, Japan, and China want any GM food to be labeled. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 â€Å"Biotech companies claim that if GM products were labeled it would deter consumer spending, for by labeling GMO’s consumers would deem such products defective. Other high-ranking government officials have lobbied against labeling, stating, â€Å"If you label something there’s an implication there’s something wrong with it,† said Jose Fernandez, the U. S. State Department’s assistant secretary for economic, energy and business affairs. †Mather R. â€Å"The Threat From Genetically Modified Foods. † Mother Earth News. April 2012. Web. 2 April 2013. In March 2013, President Obama signed a rider which temporarily â€Å"requires the Agriculture Department to approve the growing, harvesting and selling of such crops, even if the courts rule environmental studies are incomplete†. http://www. foxnews. com/politics/2013/03/30/obama-signs-bill-that-protects-makers-genetically-engineered-crops-from-federal/. Which â€Å"prohibits the Department of Agriculture from stopping production of any genetically engineered crop once it’s in the ground, even if there is evidence that it is harmful†. http://opinionator. blogs. nytimes. com/2013/04/02/why-do-g-m-o-s-need-protection/ â€Å"The use of GM crops has become widespread among U. S growers of commodities, or big crops sold on future exchanges. Eighty- eight percent of corn and 94 percent of cotton, came from GM strains in 2012. Because corn and soy are ubiquitous in processed food in the U. S. , from corn- syrup- sweetened Coca- Cola to crackers made with soybean oil, its likely that most Americans consume a product containing a genetically modified ingredient everyday. † Jason McLure. â€Å"Genetically Modified Food. †CQ Researcher Plus Archive; August 31, 2012, Vol. 22 Issue 30 p1-35, p35 People should have the right and the choice to know exactly what they are ingesting and serving to their children and loved ones. â€Å"Just label it. †