Militarization And Weaponization Of Outer Space Politics Essay

Militarization And Weaponization Of Outer Space Politics Essay The exploration and use of outer space à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ shall be for peaceful purposes and shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ [The] prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security Prevention of an arms race in outer space, United Nations General Assembly Resolution, A/RES/55/32, January 2001. (PDF Document) Its politically sensitive, but its going to happen. Some people dont want to hear this, and it sure isnt in vogue, but-absolutely-were going to fight in space. Were going to fight from space and were going to fight into space. Thats why the US has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms. We will engage terrestrial targets someday-ships, airplanes, land targets-from space. Commander-in-Chief of US Space Command, Joseph W. Ashy, Aviation Week and Space Technology, August 9, 1996, quoted from Master of Space by Karl Grossman, Progressive Magazine, January 2000 World Agrees: Space for peaceful purposes Internationally, for many years, it has been agreed that space should be used for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humankind. Examples of uses and benefits include weather monitoring, help in search and rescue, help in potential natural disaster detection, coordinating efforts on detecting and dealing with issues of space debris and minimizing harmful impacts on Earth, research in sciences, health, etc. The United Nations (U.N.) Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space law, saying that space should be reserved for peaceful uses. It came into effect in October 1967. As summarized by the U.N. Office for Outer Space Affairs web site, the treaty includes the following principles: the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind; outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States; outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means; States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner; the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes; astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind; States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities; States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies. Towards the end of 2000, the United Nations General Assembly had a vote on a resolution called the Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race. It was adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favor to none against, with 3 abstentions. The three that abstained were the Federated States of Micronesia, Israel and the United States of America. (You can see the details from a U.N. press release, together with a list of countries that voted, were absent and so on.) In June 2004, The United Nations reiterated concerns about the militarization of space and not being used for peaceful purposes in a U.N. General Assembly session: The view was expressed that the [U.N.] Committee [on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space] had not been fulfilling the mandate given to it by the General Assembly in recommending ways and means of maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. That delegation expressed the view that the Committee should address itself to that issue, since military activities in outer space were seriously affecting international cooperation in the exploration and peaceful uses of outer space. Some delegations expressed the view that a greater risk of the introduction of weapons into outer space and the adoption of a concept of a use of force in outer space would undermine the basis for and the very logic of developing nonproliferation mechanisms and of the whole system of international security. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ The view was expressed that an international agreement should be concluded to prohibit the deployment of weapons in outer space. Report of the Committee of the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, United Nations General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/58/20), 11 to 20 June 2003, pp. 7-8 Similar positions have been reiterated since, too. For example, October 2006 saw a near-unanimous vote at the General Assembly when 166 nations voted for a resolution to prevent an arms race in outer space. Only one country abstrained, Israel, while only one voted against such a resolution, the United States of America. Whether the Committee can be effective, as the General Assembly desire, depends largely on some of the most powerful nations in the world. US Seeks Militarization of Space While various militaries around the world have used Space for years, it has largely been for surveillance satellites etc. However, the Bush Administration in the United States has long made it clear that the US wishes to expand its military capabilities and have weapons in space and therefore also be dominant in this fourth military arena (the other three being sea, land and air). This new ultimate high ground would provide further superior military capabilities. While it would provide additional important defense mechanisms, many worry about the other benefit it would bring-capabilities for offensive purposes to push Americas national interests even if they are not in the interests of the international community. Furthermore, together with its pursuit of missile defense, (which goes against the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, an important part of global arms control mechanisms), the USA risks starting a wasteful expenditure of an arms race in space. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, and the resulting War on Terror military-based policies and spending has increased. So too have the policies looking into space-based weapons. The Washington D.C.-based Center for Defence Information (CDI) provides a detailed report suggesting that this should not be a rushed decision: Unlike in Star Trek, the final frontier has yet to become a battlefield. But if the current trends continue, that will change-not in the distance future of science fiction, but within the next several decades. Emerging Bush administration plans and policies are clearly aimed at making the United States the first nation to deploy space-based weapons. There are several drivers behind this goal, including the very real concern about the vulnerability of space assets that are increasingly important to how the US military operates, and the administrations decision to pursue missile defense. Unfortunately, the administration has done little thinking-at least publicly-about the potential for far-reaching military, political and economic ramifications of a US move to break the taboo against weaponizing space. There is reason for concern that doing so could actually undermine, rather than enhance, the national security of the United States, as well as global stability. Thus it behooves the administration, as well as Congress, to undertake an in-depth and public policy review of the pros and cons of weaponizing space. Such a review would look seriously at the threat, both short-term and long-term, as well as measures to prevent, deter or counter any future threat using all the tools in the US policy toolbox: diplomatic, including arms control treaties; economic; and military, including defensive measures short of offensive weapons. There is nothing to be gained, and potentially much to be lost, by rushing such a momentous change in US space policy. Theresa Hitchens, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?, The Policy Implications of US Pursuit of Space-Based Weapons, Center for Defence Information, April 18, 2002 But because space-based weapons have been on the agenda long before September 11, and the War on Terror, the fight against terrorism is not the sole justification, though it may now add to the reasons. However, long before September 11, the concerns of the US motives for pursuing such policies have been questioned. The fear is that by seeking to create a dominant position in space, the US will become more powerful and others may be compelled to join an arms race in space. The above-mentioned CDI report also points out that The Bush administrations views were directly reflected in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released Oct. 1, 2001. A key objective à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ is not only to ensure US ability to exploit space for military purposes, but also as required to deny an adversarys ability to do so, states the QDR. In this context then, space is no longer seen as the resource available for all of humanity, but another ground from which to fight geopolitical and economic battles. The New York Times reported (May 18, 2005) that there is a further push by the US Air Force for weapons in space. Any deployment of space weapons would face financial, technological, political and diplomatic hurdles, although no treaty or law bans Washington from putting weapons in space, barring weapons of mass destruction, claims the Times. Yet, this news article appears to ignore the Outer Space Treaty mentioned above, or the Prevention of Outer Space Arms Race resolution, adopted by a recorded vote of 163 in favor to none against, with 3 abstentions (the US being one of those three). If technically there are no bans on weapons, then certainly such weaponization would go against the spirit of those treaties. What the Times does mention, though, is that There has been little public debate while the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ preparing plans to deploy them; Air Force doctrine defines space superiority as freedom to attack as well as freedom from attack in space; In April 2005, Gen. James E. Cartwright, who leads the United States Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services nuclear forces subcommittee that the goal of developing space weaponry was to allow the nation to deliver an attack very quickly, with very short time lines on the planning and delivery, any place on the face of the earth.' Space superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destinyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦. Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space supremacy is our vision for the future. General Lance Lord, head of US Air Force Space Command, quoted from Air Force Seeks Bushs Approval for Space Weapons Programs, New York Times, May 18, 2005 On August 31, 2006, President Bush authorized a new national space policy, superseding the National Space Policy of September 14, 1996. The policy was based on 8 principles. One was about supporting the peaceful use of space by all nations. However, Consistent with this principle, claimed the policy, peaceful purposes would allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests. Two other key principles noted the use of force, if needed to defend US interests: The United States considers space capabilities-including the ground and space segments and supporting links-vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests; The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests; Unclassified National Space Policy PDF formatted document, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the US President, October 6, 2006 Despite its commitment to peaceful use of space as stated in its policy, just a few weeks later, the US was the lone vote against such a resolution at the UN General Assembly (and has voted against such a measure in the past), as mentioned further above. The policy therefore appears to meet the US Air Forces desire for weapons in space. The fear is that others will take a similar view (using the rhetoric of protecting its own interest in space) and encourage an arms race. For many, it may be shocking or disappointing that this might happen, but human history is littered with examples of powerful nations looking to consolidate their position to maintain their dominance which is a major reason for their wealth and success. China and Space As noted further below, China is likely to be considered a possible adversary of the US in the future, and may be one of the countries that could threaten US dominance in space, even though for now it has constantly opposed the use of space for military purposes. Countries that may either have their own power ambitions, feel threatened by the US, and/or are genuinely for peace, may all therefore have different reasons to want space used for peaceful purposes. When China recently blew up one of its aging satellites with a medium-range ballistic missile, it caused mild panic and concern amongst US, UK and other circles. The immediate fear was that China was slowly flexing its muscles and that an arms race was now underway. It was one of the first such acts since the 1980s when the Soviet Union and the US did such things. China is feared to be developing better weapons to do such things, and there was also concern that China didnt inform anyone that it was doing this. This lack of openness is certainly a worry and smacks of hypocrisy for wanting a global treaty to ban weapons in space on the one hand and then using a weapon to blow up a satellite in space later. It may indeed be that China is sincere in pursuing a global ban, but its lack of transparency has certainly diminished confidence in that idea. However, as the BBC noted, Chinas actions may have been in response to Bushs earlier declaration that they will seek to dominate space militarily and prevent a global treaty to ban weapons in space. On the issue of space weapons, the US certainly risks the charge of hypocrisy, the BBC noted. From the US perspective, the announcement of [US policy against a global treaty banning weapons in space] was clearly a response to a perceived threat from China as well as an attempt to preserve the current US advantage in space. Yet, It may be that last weeks test is an attempt by China to push back at the US and put pressure on Washington to consider negotiating a treaty to ban weapons in space. In addition, despite much of the mainstream media implying China had started an arms race, it could be thought that the US had already started it, and that unfortunately China decide to join in. Furthermore, any talk of an immediate threat from China, or one that is not too far off, would seem irrational, as clearly the US arsenal far outweighs any Chinese capability for the short-term future. Thus, any intention China has would result in self-annihilation. The concern the US has then is the longer term. US build-up in the region, fermenting alliances (e.g. India), purportedly due to the War on Terror also serves to check China in a new Cold War as Maryann Keady notes. As China and others increase in economic strength, investment in military and other such areas is going to increase. It is already recognized that China will be spending a lot more on military in coming years, but more to modernize rather than build up. However, in that process, it will likely gain a lot more capability, so people are watching with caution. India too has been investing in more space-based technologies and nuclear programs, which the US has been keen to get involved in. India, for its part has been only too happy for such assistance, even at the risk of neighboring tensions. Militarization of Space for Economic Superiority With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and were going to keep it. Space is in the nations economic interest. Keith Hall, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space, Speech to the National Space Club in 1997. (Emphasis Added) Most wars (hot wars, trade wars, cold wars etc) throughout history have had trade and resources at their core. (See the Military Expansion part of this web site for more on that perspective.) The military superiority of past and present nations has been to defend or expand such national interests. The militarization of space by the USA, even when there has been an international agreement to use space for peaceful purposes, as mentioned above, begs the question why? On 16 January 1984, Reagan announced that Nineteen eighty-four is the year of opportunities for peace. War is Peace, as Orwell wrote in his satirical book [called 1984]. Peace through strength, peace through domination. It is clear to most of the world that the Son of Star Wars, the Nuclear Missile Defense option, is also not about defense, but it is another way for the US to exert its global hegemony. The NMD, as this history of the SDI shows us, is a political weapon to further US ends rather than enhance global security. Vijay Prashad, Shooting Stars, June 15, 2001 While the answer from US authorities is usually along the lines of defensive purposes (as with the related issues of missile defense and star wars, as also discussed on this web site, in this section), many see the domination of space as the ability to maintain, expand and enforce those policies that will serve that national interest. The US military explicitly says it wants to control space to protect its economic interests and establish superiority over the world. Several documents reveal the plans. Take Vision for 2020, a 1996 report of the US Space Command, which coordinates the use of Army, Navy, and Air Force space forces and was set up in 1985 to help institutionalize the use of space. The multicolored cover of Vision for 2020 shows a weapon shooting a laser beam from space and zapping a target below. The report opens with the following: US Space Command-dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict. A century ago, Nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests by ruling the seas, the report notes. Now it is time to rule space. Karl Grossman, Master of Space, Progressive Magazine, January 2000 An Arms Race? How will the rest of the world take to being dominated from above? One doesnt have to be particularly unfriendly to the US to feel uncomfortable. More naturally hostile or suspicious countries could well feel they have been given no choice but to develop their own antisatellite weapons in an attempt to blind US satellites, even though, since the US will far outspend them, the effort would become an ever receding goal. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ It will not only make enemies where none exist, it will drive its Nato allies, already nervous and alarmed about the consequences of the ballistic missile shield plan, into a state of antipathy towards America. Jonathan Power, Space-After Titos fun it might be Rumsfelds nightmare, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, May 9, 2001 Additionally, the development of weapons in space risks leading to an arms race, as mentioned in the Star Wars section on this site, in discussing the development of missile defenses. Currently, as CDI points out, the threat to US space-based interests is not as much as it is made out to be: Vulnerabilities do not necessarily result in threats. In order to threaten US space assets, military or commercial, a potential adversary must have both technological capabilities and intent to use them in a hostile manner. There is little hard evidence that any other country or hostile non-state actor possesses either the technology or the intention to seriously threaten US military or commercial operations in space-nor is there much evidence of serious pursuit of space-based weapons by potentially hostile actors. Currently, the simplest ways to attack satellites and satellite-based systems involve ground-based operations against ground facilities, and disruption of computerized downlinks. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ It is obvious that the United States must ensure the integrity of its increasingly important space networks, and find ways to defense against threats to space assets. Still, there is little reason to believe that it is necessary for the US to put weapons in space to do so. Space warfare proponents are making a suspect leap in logic in arguing that space-based weapons are, or will soon be, required to protect the ability of the United States to operate freely in space. One could argue much more rationally that what is needed most urgently is to find ways to prevent computer network intrusion; to ensure redundant capabilities both at the system and subsystem level, including the ability to rapidly replace satellites on orbit; to improve security of ground facilities (perhaps moving to undergrou nd facilities); and to harden electronic components on particularly important satellites. Furthermore, the evidence of actual space weapons programs by potential adversaries is thin. Theresa Hitchens, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette? The Policy Implications of US Pursuit of Space-Based Weapons, Center for Defence Information, April 18, 2002 However, fearful of the additional advantage, dominance and power the US will have, it is possible other nations may choose to develop their own systems to try and keep up or minimize the perceived threat. This will in turn make the US want to increase its expenditure even more, and so on, leading to an arms race, which risks leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy to justify continued expenditures. Once testing [of space weapons] begins, the need for destructive capabilities in orbit induces a mindset opposed to rational restraint. The mindset becomes unassailable if testing is completed, for then the system must be deployed since, if we have developed the capability, others will want to follow suit and rapidly will do so. Chief of Research, Colonel Daniel Smith, USA (Ret.), Space Wars, Center for Defense Information, February 2001. While the US may possibly be able to afford this, for other nations to get involved into such expenditures will be costly indeed, especially most have other pressing priorities. (It is also somewhat questionable that even the US can afford this in the long term, but the influential US military industrial complex supports this and so tax payers money will help large military contractors, as also discussed in more detail on the Star Wars page on this site.) (The star wars part of this section on this web site, also linked to from above, discusses more about the possibilities of an arms race and an impact on international relations.) China and Russia would seem two of the most likely adversaries that might engage in such a space-based arms race. However, as the Monterey Institute for International Studies in California notes, China has consistently opposed the weaponization of outer space in its official statements, and, along with Russia, has led the initiative to create an international treaty banning all weapons in space through negotiations within an ad hoc committee of the Conference on Disarmament. It could be argued that these nations are only pursuing such a course because they fear the more powerful United States getting even more powerful. This view may take hold in nations such as the US that do not look at the Chinese regime favourably (though much criticism is definitely warranted.) On the other hand, if China is going down this path for self-interest or self-preservation concerns, then by pressing for a treaty to ban weapons in space, they are doing it in a way that will prevent them from using space for their own military advantage. With backing from the United States the desires of the world community to keep space for peaceful purposes could be realized. The various technical monitoring facilities that would need to be in place to ensure compliance would likely mean any nation with desires to deceptively pursure a space militarization program could be thwarted. The US labels other nations that do not want to be part of the international system as rogue, yet one cant help wonder how the US should be labeled on this issue, then. Irans satellite: a look at the implications by Taylor Dinerman Monday, October 18, 2004 Recently, the Iranian military announced that it has successfully tested a 2000-km range missile, the Shahab 5, and the Tehran government has also said that, in April of 2005, they plan to launch the Islamic Republics first satellite. This, combined with the mounting evidence that their nuclear program is accelerating, indicates that we are headed for a major crisis next year. During the debates, both Bush and Kerry talked as if they will be able to stop Irans drive for nuclear weapons and the long-range ballistic missiles to deliver them, if not with diplomacy and sanctions, then with force. If they mean what they say, there is going to be trouble ahead. From inside Iran, a 2000-km missile will be able to hit, to the west, Greece, Turkey, parts of the Balkans, and the parts of Ukraine. To the east, it will cover all of Pakistan and major parts of India. To the south, it will not only be able to target Saudi Arabia, but Yemen, Eritrea and Djibouti, as well. To the north, not only will the nations of the Caucasus and Central Asia be within range, but major parts of Russia, as well. The capability of this weapon is far beyond what is needed for a strike against Israel. This missile and its longer range successors that are already in development are part of a major asymmetric arms buildup. The purpose of this effort is, in the first place, to safeguard the Mullahs position at home, where they are under challenge from a generation of young people who reject the Islamic revolution and the dictatorship it has created. Second, it is intended to provide an umbrella for the extension of their power into Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf, through the use of surrogates, such as Al Sadr and Gulbaddin Hekmatyr. If Iran can build and test a nuclear weapon, and prove that it has the capability to build and launch a satellite, even a small one, it will join a new category of states that could be referred to as mini-superpowers. Irans drive for nuclear weapons is obviously not going to be stopped because the Europeans or the Russian ask them to. The Mullahs believe that they need nuclear weapons not only to deploy against the US and Israel but also to safeguard their own regime. This does not mean that they are going to blow up one of their own cities if the locals get out of line, but it does mean that they want the prestige and the burst of nationalist pride that the Indians and Pakistanis got when their governments tested nuclear weapons in the 1990s.They may also hope that the West will fear that, if the regime is overthrown, the ensuing chaos might lead to a loose nukes situation. Under the Shah, Iran not only bought billions of dollars worth of western weapons, but also arranged for thousands of Iranian students to study science and engineering in the US and elsewhere. Many of these students stayed in the West, but thousands of others went back to Iran. Some of them, or people trained by them, are no doubt working on the Mullahs nuclear weapons and on the means to deliver them. If Iran can build and test a nuclear weapon, and prove that it has the capability to build and launch a satellite, even a small one, it will join a new category of states that could be referred to as mini-superpowers. A nation that can launch a satellite can theoretically build an ICBM. Israel and India are members of this club. Pakistan has not yet launched a satellite but has indicated that it plans to do so. Nations as diverse as Brazil, North Korea, South Korea, South Africa, and Japan all have tried, at one time, for membership. Having a satellite in orbit and a bomb in the basement gives a government options, and a certain amount of room to maneuver than states without that capability would have. During its war with Iraq, despite a larger population and greater strategic depth, Iran was nonetheless fought to a standstill, due to Saddams access to better weapons, from the USSR, France, China, Brazil and elsewhere (The US supplied less than 1% of Saddams weapons, mostly training helicopters and Chevy Blazers) and to his massive use of poison gas. The Islamic Republic learned to modify and to adapt the American and British weapons it had inherited from the Shah. The ability to keep even a small part of these systems in operation is not to be dismissed. To imagine, as some analysts do, that Iran is technologically dependent on Russia, North Korea, China, or Pakistan for its nuclear missile and satellite program is surely a mistake. The Shah was an exceptionally ambitious ruler and he laid the groundwork for Iran to develop a sophisticated and capable armaments industry. The requirements of the 1980-1987 war forced them to build on this foundation. Unless great care is taken, the Mullahs military may reserve some nasty surprises for anyone who goes against them. Fortunately, all reports indicate that the regime in place is at least as unpopular as that of the Shah during his last days. Indications of unrest are all over the Internet and even reach into the mainstream press. Sadly, this may not be enough to overthrow the Mullahs any time soon. So the US has got to begin developing some alternative plans for dealing with Iran. The US Army and Marine Corps may be fully engaged in Iraq, but the Air Force and Navy have plenty of spare capacity that could be used if diplomacy fails. Effectively targeting these forces against Irans bomb program and its supporting infrastructure is an exceptionally tough problem for the Pentagons and Centcoms Joint Planning Staff. If the US does nothing, then it is quite possible that, within a decade, Iran will have nuclear-tipped missiles that can hit not only Israel and Europe, but America itself. To counter that threat, the US will need a far more effective missile defense system than the one it has today. Only space-based boost phase interceptors, combined with a real multi-layered defense system, could hope to negate the threat. The final option is to develop and deploy space-based weapons capable of destroying Irans missiles and satellite launchers. This means accepting the weaponization of space, something that the Bush Administration seems to be trying to avoid dealing with. So the US and the West are faced with three exceptionally unpalatable choices. First, they could continue down the diplomatic path. This is currently being pursued, but since the Mullahs are obviously playing

The Media and Violence in our Society Essay -- Violent Gaming Video Ga

Violence has always played a role in the media. It is found everywhere around the world. Media does contribute to violence in our society. This essay will prove that media does contribute to violence in our society by examining music, video games and Web Sites. Firstly, one form of violence which influences behaviour in our society is music. This sort of media is a concern to parents who are interested in the development and growth of their children because of the negative and destructive themes of some kinds of music. Let’s take for example the rap artist Eminem. In his album â€Å"Marshall Mathers†, he talks about murdering his wife, and plans to rape and murder his mother. These violent lyrics promote hatred against women. However, his â€Å"Marshall Mathers† release sold 679 567 copies in Canada in 2000 and was also the year’s best selling album. These type of music influences teenagers on believing that it is ok to disrespect women and have an aggressive behaviour as well. If a teenager is constantly preoccupied with music like this, that has destructive themes, there c...

Particular sectors of the population Essay

Abstract The point of this paper is to help the reader grasp the different aspects of human identity construction with regards to ones race and/or ethnicity. This is a topic that is incredibly important to all races of people regardless of economic class or whatever else is seemingly more important. It is quite impossible to go throughout life without forming an idea of who you are or where you have come whether you care to make it a part of your daily life, have no choice or acknowledge it when it is convenient; without that knowledge I find it difficult to fully make the most of life. Through the readings from the semester and class discussions I have come to the conclusion that White ethnics choose to either assert their ethnicities thickly or thinly, or they chose to incorporate it into their lives symbolically. Blacks on the other side of the spectrum lack choice in their racial identity because their race is visible and so it is assigned to them. Asians have both the ability to choose to assert their specific ethnicities but they are racially assigned. The issue with racial and ethnic construction is that it is born of social construction-what others believe of your race to be true. This can make the identity construction process much more difficult depending upon your racial or ethnic background. Regardless, I find this to be an important part of the identity construction journey. How many cares one loses when one decides not to be something but to be someone. These words were spoken by the infamous French fashion designer, Gabrielle â€Å"Coco† Chanel. In America today, these words could not ring truer in the subject of identity. â€Å"Who am I? †, â€Å"Where do I come from? † All questions of self reflection which undoubtedly each individual asks themselves on a daily basis. These questions are not elaborate in structure but hold a great deal of weight to them and contain countless answers. White ethnics face the decision of whether or not to include their ethnicities into their identity construction; their racial invisibility gives them the choice to identify. Racial minorities self define differently from those of the white majority-there often is no choice. There are many different facets of identity construction that create the varying formulas with which Black Americans must create their racial identity. The blatant visibility of race for Blacks creates many of the difficulties that they face in the United States varying from the generalized stereotypes, entry into the coveted middle class of America. These are some of the factors that determine whether or not a positive Black identity is being formed. Lastly, Asian Americans, have found themselves in that strange middle ground of identity construction; their struggle is not exactly like that of Black Americans but they are also not easily accepted like the dominant white group. The unique factors that help Asian Americans shape their identity are the same ones that make it difficult for others outside of their race to define them. It is with this unusual combination that Asian Americans have been given the convenient ability to choose to assert their specific ethnicities and to assimilate like white ethnics while still feeling the effects of racial constraint and having their race assigned to them like Black Americans. White Ethnic Identity Construction Today we look at the possible ways the white racial group define themselves; how they appear to others of their same race as well as to non-whites and the impact of American societal expectations on the self, ultimately creating a portrait of how white ethnics construct their ethnic identity throughout the generations and the evolution of ethnic value over time. It is all too common to hear an individual say â€Å"I don’t care what people think of me† or â€Å"Their opinion doesn’t matter,† although that may be their thought process, little do they know that it is the interaction with other human beings that helps form each person’s sense of self and that every person’s opinion of you matters a great deal. â€Å"Identity cannot exist apart from a group†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Gans, 1991, p. 430). Each person bounces their personality off of other people and it is from their reactions to us that we base our identities on. This idea is called â€Å"The Looking Glass Self† developed by Charles Cooley. Cooley argues that every time we interact with another person, we see ourselves in a mirror that they hold up to us and our reflections shape our sense of self (Butler-Sweet, 2011, Sep. 20). Essentially our self definitions are based on how others see us. We cannot escape it, the society that we live in is based on interaction with other people and humans, by nature are visual; we judge first by what we see. This is why race is the defining factor in American society but mainly for non-whites. The white race in America is dominate, however, it is not dominate because of the race itself but because of the culture that was formed from it. This idea of â€Å"whiteness† stems from European ideals where historically white ethnics had the most education and were Christians opposed to the non-Christians who were also not white. When Europeans came over to America they brought these ideals with them and used them as a foundation for the new culture they were creating that placed large emphasis on church, family, and accumulating wealth and with that social status (Zack, 1998, p. 61). These ideals were the foundation of American culture and since this culture was created by whites, American became synonymous with white, white became the norm and therefore transparent. If you are white in America it is highly unlikely that you will notice your race on a daily basis unless you are placed in a situation where you are surrounded by non-whites and forced into awareness. It is a definite advantage to have your race be invisible to everyone; when you are accustomed to seeing something, you do not think about it. That being said, according to the â€Å"Looking Glass Self†, hardly anyone, white or non-white will reflect a white person’s whiteness to them. Having race viewed as insignificant in a white individual’s identity. Due impart, to the diminished importance of race to white identity construction, ethnicity among white ethnics is a choice. White ethnics can decide if they want their ethnicity to be a part of what shapes their identity and if they do chose to assert an ethnicity they chose once again if they want to assert it thickly or thinly. Growing up in Connecticut, I know that there is not as wide a variety of ethnicities as there could be among white ethnics but in a few of the less suburban areas in Connecticut, namely New Britain, certain white ethnics choose to thickly assert their ethnicity. In New Britain there is a large population of Polish white ethnics; they speak the language and have ethnic markets and restaurants. They choose to incorporate their ethnicity into their everyday lives and associate with those of that same ethnicity. On the flip side, in my suburban hometown of Farmington, Connecticut, there were a decent amount of Polish people who attended my high school however, most choose to thinly assert their ethnicity mostly by only claiming their ethnicity when it came to soccer or eating polish food during the holidays. The importance of ethnicity to white ethnics is often asserted thinly if at all. The amount of emphasis placed on the value of ethnic identity among whites is not the same as it has been in times past; the emphasis has now been placed on American culture and what is considered valuable. If white ethnics choose to include their ethnicity in their identity today, it would most likely be symbol of what once was. When Europeans first came to America from whichever country, their original ethnic background was everything. The language, food, traditions, clothing and music was a constant influence on their everyday lives as first generation Americans. Community ties to people of your same ethnicity were incredibly important as it was an extension of your immediate family. Being the â€Å"new kids on the block† so to speak, was what kept these ethnic communities very tightly knit however, each generation after began to slowly back away from those original ties and started to assimilate into the dominate American culture. The acculturation process starts in second generation white ethnics where original ethnic traditions that they grew up with become not as important because now, fitting in to the dominate culture is the way to progress. The third generation white ethnic, has fully assimilated into American culture and has little interest in their ethnicity because by now they have figured out that in being a white ethnic, they fit into the dominate culture and ethnicity is not necessary. It may not necessarily be a hindrance to their economic, intellectual or social success, but it also is not a part of them that they feel needs to be asserted; it is at this point, that ethnic symbolism begins to show up (Gans, 1991, p. 430). Through intermarriage and acculturation, third generation white ethnics and beyond often know little about their ethnicity or by now ethnicities. Sometimes there are so many ethnicities to choose from, from either parent that a white ethnic will simply pick out the stereotypes of a certain ethnicity in their genetic arsenal that they feel they can identify most with as a way of feeling ethnic of their ethnic identity. Physical traits are often used as the indicator for which ethnicity a white ethnic will chose to identify with; one of my closest friends is Luxembourgian, German, Scandinavian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Scottish. Despite the fact that her last name itself is German, she chooses to associate her fair skin, blonde hair and blue eyes with her Scandinavian and Swedish ethnicities; this is probably in large part due to her mother’s family who’s history holds more interest to her as well as people who look the most like her. She uses her physical features as symbols of her ethnicity, nothing more. It is often that if one side of the family is more vocal about a certain ethnicity or ethnicities within the family that as a result, the children will associate more with that ethnicity or ethnicities (Waters, 1998, p.60). The majority of white ethnics are of the upper middle class in American society because the race is not a constraint for them and so they have access to jobs and to education that non-whites may not have. This American culture or â€Å"whiteness† by itself leads to a sense of monotony to some white ethnics and so the symbolic ethnicity comes into play as a way to liven things and bring back a since of individuality; to not be â€Å"just American† (Waters, 1998, p. 90). Non-whites in America maintain their ethnicity and embrace it because they are not given as equal a chance to assimilate into the dominate culture and without that opportunity, they are cut off from the jobs, that would provide money to become educated and progress in the American way and therefore stay very rooted in their original culture and maintain a strong sense of community which many white ethnics do not have. The constraints of white ethnic identity are few. The invisibility of whiteness gives white ethnics a definite upper hand and even further so, when it comes to their ethnicity they can make the choice. The possibilities for white ethnic identity and furthermore, their identity as a whole would seem to be very flexible. They lack only, it would seem when it comes to the sense of community. In the American culture, as it has evolved into today, the majority population’s focus is on wealth and social status and so nothing else comes to matter. White ethnics as a whole suffer little if any because, being the dominant race and culture; it is rare to find any door closed; the invisibility of their race gives them an unseen advantage which racial minorities do not have. Black Racial Identity Construction As mentioned previously in discussing white ethnic identity construction, Cooley’s Looking Glass self was a prime factor in how identity is shaped, particularly for Black Americans. The mirror that is continuously held up to each Black person is a constant reminder that their race is a large part of how others define them. Unlike the dominant White group, race is nowhere close to being invisible for Blacks. W. E. B DuBois applies the basic idea of Cooley’s looking glass self, most specifically to the Black minority group with this concept of a â€Å"double consciousness† (Butler-Sweet, 2011, Nov.3). Much like the looking glass, the double consciousness stresses that you will never be able to truly see yourself if you are of the Black minority group because others will see your race first and automatically reflect a negative image. If this double consciousness continues it can create, what Cornell West calls a Nihilistic threat; internalizing the negative impressions of your racial group and therefore yourself. Beverly Daniel Tatum points out in her book â€Å"‘Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? ’† that young children do not view racial differences as an issue but rather as a topic of curiosity, however, as the child reaches, what she calls, the â€Å"encounter stage† around adolescence race becomes very noticeable and if parents are not careful, their child will internalize all of the negative connotations of what it is to be Black (p. 55). The rest of that child’s life they will be reminded daily of their race, not necessarily in demeaning racial slurs, but in indirect forms of racism and prejudices. Unlike their White counterparts, Black Americans do not have the privilege of letting their race be invisible in society. Being the dominant group, White is expected and accepted-their race is invisible but as a minority group, Blacks do not have the choice of blending in; race is not only an assigned part of one’s identity if you are Black but it is thickly assigned which creates the boundaries and sense of separateness among the different racial groups. Identifying oneself as Black is essential for a member of the Black minority group if they wish to avoid self conflict. Wishing that you were not Black or attempting to be something other than Black only exasperates the issue. This negative view has to do with prejudices which transformed into stereotypes about Black Americans and translated into the negative Black identity which Black adolescents begin to form and even take with them into adulthood. Ones view of what it means to be Black can be fuelled primarily through stereotypes which can lead to a disdain of your own race. This could be expressed in a need to be the opposite of all those stereotypes, which was manifested as the Black kid not sitting at the all Black table (Tatum, 1997, p. 67). He refused to associate himself with those of his race because of the stereotypes that were reflected through â€Å"the looking glass. † This can at times be rectified later in life through exposure to positive examples of Black peoples, particularly those who are college educated. According to the double consciousness, the fact that you are Black is already assigned and therefore asserting it further, is unnecessary. The idea that having a positive Black identity is contingent upon putting your race first is redundant because it is already visible to everyone you come in contact with. It is as if you are a book and your race is the plastic covering around it; people cannot open the book because the plastic is sealed so tightly around it. In order for there to be a positive black identity all that is necessary is a full acceptance of your race and the positive aspects of it. The presence of positive Black role models in the life of a Black youth early on encourages a positive Black identity and expels most of the widely spread negative stereotypes. (Tatum, 1997, p.55). With largely widespread negative views on Black Americans as a whole and stereotypes being perpetuated regularly it is easy for a Black person to feel victimized; caged into a role even. The most readily available images of Black people in the media are often those that portray blacks in dire, downtrodden striates or extreme poverty. Sadly, this generalized portrait of Black Americans is overly, the dramatized and filled with gang violence, illegal drug sale, and so on. This type of life has been glorified in popular music; rappers especially speak of having been poor and having to live in the projects-the only way to survive being crime. Whatever is most commonly projected will be the easiest to accept as your only choice if you are Black. Lack of funding in lower income communities, the majority of which are populated by Black Americans, create low grade schools decreasing the ability or even the possibility for Black minorities to go on to higher education. America is a country built on capitalism; if one group cannot keep up with the dominant group financially they will fall back. Only 30% of Black Americans are impoverished but as a whole, are widely accepted as poor because of the media’s attention on densely populated, majority black communities (Butler-Sweet, 2011, Nov. 10). When this negative view becomes the norm, it is hard for Black youth to see much else, which is often why the minority of Blacks who rise above the negative stereotypes their racial identity is questioned by others of their same race. Since the idea of a middle class and the suburbs is a social class largely dominated by the dominant white group, some would find Black Americans as a part of that middle class to be an oddity. It is automatically assumed that because the White race is dominate in American society that they would have the jobs, the wealth, education and ability to enter seamlessly into the middle class realm and above. However, racial prejudices and stereotypes have made it so that it is quite uncommon to find a Black family in a predominantly White suburb; the symbol of the middle class. Somehow, through hard work, sacrifice or well-off parents, Blacks have managed to go on to higher education and thereafter; higher paying jobs, earning them a spot in the middle class. Unfortunately, this kind of success among Black people of the middle class does not sit well with those that live below it. It is the truest statement to say that personally, growing up in a largely White suburb, endured an intense inquisition about my racial affiliation from my Black peers who were bused in from Hartford. I was told that I â€Å"dressed White†, â€Å"talked White†, and many a time that I was in fact White or an â€Å"Oreo† as they would put it. Many of my White friends would joke around with me that I was not Black. There is nothing more offensive than being told, in so many words, that because your parents were educated, held well paying jobs, bought a house in the suburbs and educated you in a majority White school system, that you were no longer Black; worse even, being scrutinized and ignored by people of your own race because of a difference in social class. Tatum speaks of the same issues in her book, she even states how important it is for young Black people in predominantly White communities to connect with other Black peers to share experiences and increase awareness of daily life outside of the suburbs (Tatum, 1997, p.69-70). One would think that coming to a university with a larger community of Blacks than in my high school would open doors, but sadly I find that the divide is almost completely the same. The Black friends I have made since attending the University of Connecticut have been ones that share a similar background as myself; rarely do non-suburban Black people and I become friends and it is not for lack of effort on my part. I would like to think that I keep a positive attitude towards both Whites and Blacks but because of the stereotypes so deeply ingrained in many of us, it is difficult to lay them down and redirect our way of thinking. It is this reason, among others why other racial and sometimes ethnic minorities have difficulty being accept in America, Asian Ethnic and Racial Identity Construction The entrance into America for Asians is considered to be the first wave of immigration. This wave is relatively recent beginning in the early 19th century with the Chinese who immediately moved out west where the work they were given was largely agricultural. Like all immigrants coming into the United States, the Chinese, Japanese and later other groups like Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese, among others, all faced discrimination from the dominate White group. When the Chinese first entered they were very hardworking and skilled while working on the transcontinental railroad but having not been in America long enough and having so many Chinese coming in their seemingly flawless work ethic was viewed as a threat by their fellow White workers. After the Chinese Exclusion Act was put into action in 1882, Japanese immigrants began to make their way into America but the same thing happened to them. Their advanced skills in agriculture were considered a threat to the Whites. They were taking their jobs and since farmland is not something that goes away, the Japanese were able to establish themselves a little better than the Chinese (Butler-Sweet, 2011, Nov. 28). The manner in which the group entered into the United States is the reason why their history is so important to their formation of a positive Asian American identify. The entrance of the various Asian groups into the United States and the acceptance of them were bound to be a bit difficult. The size of the group was large enough to be considered a threat to the dominant white group and because they had a tendency to settle down together, making it difficult for them to assimilate into American culture. The second wave of Asian Immigration is a part of present day America and this idea of being threatened by the skillfulness of Asians is still something that the dominant group feels and makes a point to mention often. In the first wave of immigration, the Chinese and Japanese succeeded because the work they found in the United States involved the use of skills they had already cultivated in their specific countries and so the excelled. Here in this second wave it is the same thing; whatever the Asian group is good at in their places of origin are the skills they will take with them when immigrating and that is why this idea of the Model Minority Myth has been created (Monk, 1996, p. 31). Asian American’s ability to succeed so effortlessly it seems, in large part can be attributed to the fact that much like the dominant White group, Asian Americans have the ability to assert their specific ethnicities. Similar to Black Americans, Asian Americans have an assigned race; when it comes to their ethnicities, which hold more value to them than their race, it is of greater significance to how they identify. However, non-Asian groups tend to lump every Asian ethnicity under one â€Å"Pan Asian† label but Asian Americans refuse to accept this (Kibria, 2002, p.73-74). Instead of agreeing with the reflection they see from other people about their race, as mentioned previously in regards to Cooley’s â€Å"Looking Glass Self†, Asian Americans place a great amount of emphasis on their specific country of origin and its traditions and cultures in order to define themselves. In the first wave of immigration, Asian Americans would settle in closely knit communities with their specific ethnic group; in those communities, they would all help each other out making it easier to survive in America. Even today, there are large communities of Asian Americans who choose to live close to each other to keep that sense of having a culture and traditions that separate them from everyone else. Having these tightly knit communities makes it easier for Asian Americans to succeed because they have a constant support group and people to fall back on if they need it (Monk, 1996, p. 37-38). Being in such constant close contact with those who share your culture background and infuse it into daily life definitely helps with forming a positive Asian American identity, regardless of outside influences. Some of the dominant White group believes that if given the chance, over time Asian Americans could have the potential to fully assimilate to American culture and become ultimately â€Å"white. † This idea of racial ethnogenesis is that the later generations of Asian Americans as well as incoming groups of Asians will simply begin to blend into American culture to the point that they will just embrace the racial category they have been placed in and forget about their ethnic background (Kibria , 2002, p. 14). What would this do for the identity construction of Asian Americans? Would their full assimilation into American culture really improve their quality of life anymore? The identity construction of Asian Americans would be so unlike every other identity if they simply assimilated completely into American culture. Letting go of cultural ties and accepting the general name for people of your same race will not improve the quality of life significantly because their race is still visible. Again, culture is a choice, race is not. Although Asian Americans are capable of choosing their ethnic identity and asserting it like the White ethnics, they also share the disadvantage of being assigned to their race like Black Americans because their race like Blacks is very visible. Since their race is visible it creates this aspect of constraint which makes it difficult for people to not see your race and therefore puts limits on how people will treat you or what jobs you can attain. Regardless of the success Asian Americans have in academics and achieving higher paying jobs, there is still a â€Å"glass ceiling† they have to deal with (Monk, 1996, p. 42). The visibility of their race keeps them from being hired as corporate CEOs or being in leadership positions in general. Excelling most commonly in mathematics and sciences often places Asian Americans in behind the scenes type of work that pays well but does not require them to be out in the open as public figures in the corporation. The added factor of an accent for more recent immigrants can also serve as additional restriction to entering into the higher echelons of business (Monk, 1996, p. 43). The positive connotations that come with being Asian American as well as the negative can have an adverse affect in identity construction. Being considered to be a â€Å"Model Minority† definitely can create some hostility especially for second and third generation Asian Americans. When non-Asians assume that you get A’s in school and that you are inherently good at mathematics it becomes a burden (Kibria, 2002, p. 87). Just the same, negative stereotypes about the foods that different Asian American cultures eat or assuming that because certain physical features are similar among the different ethnic groups, they are all the same, can create negative feelings about being Asian American and that is not good for the development of a healthy ethnic or racial identity. The saying â€Å"Asian Invasion† (Monk, 1996, p. 44) is very common I personally even have used it in jest and so have some of my Asian friends; I assumed that its use was okay. Generally, my second generation Asian friends will use this term when talking about either the Asian students who are studying abroad on campus, or in regards to first generation Asian Americans. This makes me wonder if my friends have assimilated enough into the dominant white culture that they no longer can see themselves associating with the incoming Asians. It is hard to determine whether the statement is meant as a joke or a commentary against ethnic Asians. Conclusion Having explained the different forms of identity construction through the examples of White ethnics, Black Americans and Asian Americans it has been made clear that identity construction cannot be viewed the same for a ethnicities and races. White ethnic identity comes in many different shapes sizes and forms ranging from symbolic, non-exisistent, or thinly asserted to a large part of how one identifies or thickly asserted. The option to pick and chose which part of your heritage you prefer over another or not at all is how white ethnics construct their identities. The majority of white ethnics who choose the route of symbolic ethnicity opposed to asserting either thinly or thickly a certain ethnicity is often because the dominant American culture has become of greater value to their identity than anything else and choosing an ethnic symbol to place on themselves is what will separate them from the rest of their fellow white ethnics or bring them closer to someone who holds the same ethnic symbol. Just the same, the constant pressures placed on Black Americans to play multiple roles are a difficult task. Shaping a positive identity of any kind is difficult but to shape a positive Black identity in America holds a certain amount of extra weight to it. Black Americans struggle trying to advance themselves because of the constant racial stereotypes reverberating in the background. If you do manage to elevate into the higher ranks of American life your racial loyalty will then be questioned. Is it possible that over time these stereotypes will dissipate or is there a reason they are kept alive? The unique combination of both ethnic choice and racial constraint makes Asian American identity construction the most interesting form of identity construction so far. Since the first wave of immigration into the second one, Asian Americans have dealt with a slew of racial injustices in America but they have also gained a great deal of merit mostly for being the â€Å"ideal† so to speak. Being hard workers and keeping close ethnic ties have made Asian Americans competition for White ethnics. In the future, whether or not they will completely assimilate or not is questionable and what toll it will take on their identity construction. Having the option to choose a part of your identity which no one can see will never outweigh your racial assignment. What is it, or is it possible to have a truly positive White ethnic or Black or Asian racial identity in America? The constant changes in society make it impossible to know.

Personal Health Records ( Phrs ) - 785 Words

Personal Health Records (PHRs) refer to computer-based systems that enable patients (their caregivers acting in their stead) monitor and manage their health. Like other popular online platforms for banking, shopping, etc., PHRs allow patients to remotely access some level of healthcare service. Some examples of services provided by tethered PHRs – PHRs owned or controlled by a single or multiple healthcare organization; include viewing laboratory test results, scheduling hospital appointments, reordering medication, or securely communicating with healthcare providers. PHRs also avail healthcare organizations a means to closely, but remotely, monitor the health of patients thus allowing them to provide continuous care. The PHR was one of three health information systems that came to the limelight in 2009 (the others are the Electronic Medical Record and the Electronic Health Record), when the Institute of Medicine intensified efforts to improve the quality of the process of collection of patient data. The data collection process was prone to error, and was a principal source of wrong medication with adverse drug effect. With the PHR, and unlike other health information systems, patients could access and crosscheck their records, transfer their records between different healthcare organizations or organize and manage records generated by different health organizations into a single system. Additionally, in this era of rising cost of healthcare provision, decreasing labourShow MoreRelatedThe Personal Health Record ( Phr )781 Words   |  4 Pages The Personal Health Record Final Project – Essay Diana Morris Darton State College â€Å"The personal health record (PHR) is an electronic, lifelong resource of health information needed by individuals to make health decisions.† (Burrington-Brown) Patients manage and control their own information from all healthcare providers and facilities. The PHR is supposed to be in a secure and private place. The patient sets who is allowed to access the PHR. The PHR is only for the patientRead MoreA Report On Phr ( Personal Health Record )3545 Words   |  15 Pagesgoing to prepare a report on PHR (personal health record), What are its benefits and How it is useful.PHR is an E-device used by the patients to maintain their health information in a safe and secure environment. This stands in opposite to the more likely used e-medical record and data is operated by hospitals and contains data entered by physician or billing data to help insurance company. The proposition of a PHR is to give a total and brief outline of a patient’s health history which is availableR ead MorePersonal Health Record ( Phr ) : An Emerging Model Of Patient Centric Health Information Exchange System Essay1360 Words   |  6 PagesAbstract Personal health record (PHR) is an emerging model of patient-centric health information exchange system, which has been often outsourced to be stored at any third party locations, such as cloud service providers. However, there have been wide privacy concerns as the personal health information could be exposed to unauthorized parties and to those third party servers. To assure the patients control over accessing their own Personal Health Records, it is required to encrypt the PHRs before outsourcingRead MorePersonal Health Record ( Phr )1046 Words   |  5 PagesPersonal health record (PHR) is a developing patient-centric model of health information exchange, which is often deployed to be archived at a third party, such as cloud service providers a person is concerned more about their health condition which is considered as most important and personal. At the same time in order to get cure from medical issues, Health bulletin is shared to the Specialists Doctors throughout the world due to the advancements in the Present day Technology. Few privacy issuesRead MoreA Personal Health Record ( Ehr )1547 Words   |  7 PagesA personal health record (PHR) is an emerging health information technology that patients may use to participate in their own health care and improve the quality and efficiency of that care. Most articles written about PHRs have been published since 2000. PHR could be defined as â€Å"An electronic application through which individuals can access, manage and share their health information, and that of others for whom they are authorized, in a private, secure, and confidential environment†. A PHR shouldRead MoreIntroduction Of Personal Health Record1563 Words   |  7 PagesIntroduction of Personal Health Record Abstract The widely adoption of Electric Health Record (EHR) accelerates the development of Personal Health Record (PHR). The functionality of PHR can be summarized as information collection, information sharing and exchange, and information management, which could improve efficiency and quality of health care. In this article, we reviewed the definition, history and technical architectures of PHR. We also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of PHR adoptionRead MorePersonal Health Record And Patient Portal Use967 Words   |  4 PagesPersonal Health Record and Patient Portal Use The Personal Health Records (PHRs) are the innovative solution to the problems associated with fragmented communication and lack of interaction among the Medical Record Systems (EMRs) (Henriksen et al., 2008). It allows patients to access their healthcare data in the secure environment and increases patient s engagement in medical care. The PHRs are also known as patient portals. They help patients in getting relevant medical data from their providerRead MoreWeek 6 Integrating The Into Ehr Platforms Db 6401-3 Main Post886 Words   |  4 PagesWeek 6 Integrating PHRs into EHR Platforms DB 6401-3 Main Post Patients are taking an aggressive role in their healthcare needs. Patients desire to in touch with their medical records. Medical professionals are utilizing the Electronic Health Records to implement current data into information necessary to provide quality care for the patient. Thereby, managing patients’ current, and past histories. To understand what is occurring today, one must recognize why patients are taking an active approachRead MoreThe Electronic Health Record Information1061 Words   |  5 PagesThe Electronic Health Record, or EHR, is used throughout the medical field. The EHR systems are a collection of patient health information that is stored in digital format, and can be shared electronically with all health care settings. The Electronic Health Record contains information regarding a patient’s health visit; everything that has been done during that visit is recorded in the EHR system along with the patient’s health insurance information. A p atient s lab test results, there is alsoRead MoreThe Health Care Facility Controls The Medical Information953 Words   |  4 PagesPatients can retrieve their health records via patient portals, personal health records, and personally controlled health records. Each serves a role in assisting the patient maintaining and sustaining their good health. Firstly, portals serve as access points for patients to view their clinical record online. This is conducted via a secure, hospital and health care facilities’ website which is linked to the patient’s electronic health records (EHRs) at any time (Johnson, Jimison, Mandl, 2014)