The Australian Wheat Board Scandal

The Australian Wheat Board Scandal Introduction This essay will discuss the primary organisational structure and causes of the Australian Wheat Board scandal, hereafter referred to as AWB. This was a scandal of global magnitude, whereby AWB paid substantial monetary bribes to Iraq officials in blatant non-compliance of the regulations set out in the Oil-for-Food programme; which was established by the United Nations. Moreover, this essay will discuss the evidence presented in the Cole Royal Commission, an enquiry established to investigate the conduct of several Australian companies in relation to the oil-for-food program; AWB a governmental organisation was the foremost organisation under scrutiny. This essay will also examine the regulatory failures that facilitated corruption at the Governmental level to occur, and which remained predominantly unfettered for a protracted period. Incidences of governmental and corporate corruption and deviant behaviour, which often involve considerable numbers of active or passive participants, are seldom the result of opportunism alone, but are far more often insidious and methodical by nature. The AWB case is a clear illustration of governmental corporate culture and demonstrates a plethora of systemic regulatory and policy failures, all of which further influenced and defined the AWBs decision-making process and unethical posture. Lastly, the aforementioned material will be discussed commencing with a brief summary and literature review, and a comprehensive case analysis in order to demonstrate the ubiquitous nature of this particular type of Governmental crime, which sits under the broad ambiguous umbrella of white-collar crime. Brief Summary Contemporary society in a globalised world demonstrates an almost overwhelming abundance of criminal activity in particular pertaining to white-collar crime; however, numerous researches demonstrate that not all crimes and criminals are dealt with in the same manner (Chambliss, 1989). In fact, on closer examination, research has suggested that there is an innate tendency for specific crimes and criminals to be positively overlooked, typically these being crimes of the powerful, (Ditton, 1977; Box, 1983; Chambliss, 1989; Muncie, 1996) .primary example is that of the AWB scandal. The questionable Utilitarian approach of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Kay 1997) found to be assumed by the AWB and its Board, is analysed in the Cole Enquiry Report. The Cole Report stimulated awareness to the fundamental deficiencies in both corporate governance and culture, which play a significant function in permitting or precluding the occurrence of unethical conduct (Kay, 1997). Furthermore, the inaction demonstrated by the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade hereafter referred to as DFAT, and the Australian Federal Government in investigating claims against AWB further highlights the systemic failures that permitted AWBs unethical behaviour to prevail (Gibson, 2000). The key causes of, and major influences on unethical behaviour determined from the Cole report are: -The AWB organisations strong profit driven demand to meet financial or business objectives, and the promotion of tolerance for illegal/criminal acts (white-collar crime) (Overington, 2006) -A culture of getting the job done, where corrupt acts are justified under the proviso that the greatest good will be achieved for the company (Overington, 2006) -A lack of control mechanisms and moral agents in both corporate and public sector governance (Overington, 2006) -The implication of privatisation of Australian rural entities (Bartos, 2007) -Policy and Regulatory design and the lack of adherence and implementation (Bartos, 2007) -Governmental oversight of wheat growing monopoly, international monopolisation (Bartos, 2007) -Conduct of foreign policy misconduct United Nations Oil-for-Food-Program International Trade Sanctions )Bartos, 2007) One crucial aspect to be considered is that Australia is a signatory to both the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Officials in International Business Transactions. Australias interpretation of the aforementioned United Nations Convention is The Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Act, referred to as the Bribery Act, which is the Australian Parliaments legislative implementation of the latter convention Literature Review It is common knowledge that conventional criminals consider it normal to utilise any instrument or weapon to perpetuate a crime, therefore, it would also seem normal for organisations to utilise the organisation itself to acquire money from victims by way of its deviant misbehaviour (Harris Hartman, 2002). These victims are varied and may be customers or the members of the organisation themselves (Harris Hartman, 2002). This is a prime example of what is referred to as the organisational weapon the organisation is for white-collar criminals as the gun or knife is for conventional criminals (Wheeler and Rothman, 1982, cited in Punch, 1996). Harris and Hartman (2002), state that an organisations culture consists of the values, norms, and attitudes of the people who intrinsically make up the organisation. Moreover, the stated values demonstrate what is important; whereas norms reveal expected behaviour; attitudes expose the mind-set of individuals (Hall, 2006). Therefore, organisational culture informs people what is important in the organisation, expected behaviours, and how to observe things (Hall, 2006). Culture is a part of organisational life that influences the behaviour, attitudes, and overall effectiveness of all members of an organisation (Gibson et al, 2000). Further to this, Daboub Coulton (2002) stressed the importance of organisations selecting business partners who share a comparable commitment to both the social and environmental practices and ethical commitment of the company. They further stated that this would assist in ensuring that the organisation is not placed in compromising situations due to unethical acts perpetrated by those companies with whom they have working associations (Daboub Coulton, 2002). Robbins (2000) argued that todays global business environment can lead to such problematic associations, and stated the need for organisations to take a fervent pro-active stance to further ensure that the codes of conduct under which they operate are transparent, implicit and adhered to by their associates (Robbins, 2000; Daboub Coulton, 2002). Furthermore, the political influence on large governmental or privatised organisations and the desire not to over-regulate can also be very influential. Politicians are mindful of the detrimental effect that heavy regulation can have on businesses that are often generous economic contributors. The will of governments not to introduce laws that hinder corporate activity is evidenced by the lack of substantial powers and penalties (specifically prison terms) available to regulatory bodies, the lack of resources available to enforce those provisions already available and governments commitment to regularly review any legislation that may impact adversely on competition. Case Analysis The United Nations Oil-for-Food program involved not only companies but also governments; however, various activities by the Howard Government were outside the provisions of reference of the Cole Enquiry, which was fundamentally sanctioned to examine the actions of the companies specifically mentioned in the 2004 United Nations report on the Oil-for-Food program. Furthermore, Cole was unable to examine the extent to which government policy during that period encouraged or discouraged bribes from the AWB, or equally as to whether Australian Government Ministers should have enquired further, especially considering that warnings were received that something was inappropriate, or indeed how the government managed its relationship with the AWB throughout this protracted process. To illustrate further, Henry Bosch former chairperson of Transparency International Australia and also one of Australias most experienced business regulators, argued that somebody, somewhere must have known what was going on. Bosch stated to the Ethical Corporation that he suspected, that the executives involved in winning contracts were a bit less careful than they should have been regarding the status of payments being demanded. The AWBs justification for this deviant and criminal behaviour was to argue that it simply was not aware of the payments. Moreover, numerous critics pointed out that it was virtually impossible for government Ministers and various other officials to not have known, especially due to the fact that the fees paid to the contractors selected by Saddam Husseins bureaucrats would have been noticeably and remarkably high, in fact, the AWBs responses plainly raised far more questions than answers. Further to this, the Cole Enquiry argued that the AWBs structure was primarily to blame, for example; the company was responsible for the marketing and exporting of one of Australias major export commodities. Moreover, all Australian wheat exports passed through the offices of the so-called single-desk export authority, which was heavily vested in the AWB. The single-desk export authority was established in 1915 to assist Australian wheat growers to get their produce to global export markets, therefore dealing with the AWB was a major factor for all businesses involved in Australias powerful expansive wheat growing sector. In addition to this, Iraq was a massive market and there was a need for the organisation to justify its often-criticised monopoly on Australias global wheat exports, particularly in the face of strong competition from the United States and other suppliers. Numerous critics observed that, since the AWB was privatised in 1998, and consequently listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) in 2001 the AWB had noticeably become far more extreme than its former bureaucratic culture might have previously endorsed. Furthermore, a United Nations report on October 27, 2005 established that the Australian Wheat Board (AWB) had paid $US221.7 ($AU300) million in bribes to the Iraqi Government between 1999 and 2003 under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program (Whitton 2007). Through this mode of immoral and illegal behaviour, the AWB defrauded their shareholders out of their financial investments and profits as well as causing irreparable damage to Australias trade reputation globally. Further to this, the United Nations report on the inquiry into corruption in the Oil-for-Food Program, led by Paul Volcker, revealed that 2200 companies participating in the program were misappropriating funds from the United Nations accounts to redistribute them to the Iraqi government but none of the magnitude of the AWB. Moreover, the AWB was a company with a high profile and facing a serious legal problem, therefore the AWB was obviously likely to draw attention from both the Australian and worldwide public and media (Lukaszewski, 1997). Consequently, with the release of the report and mass media and public attention (Mackey, 2002), the AWB was obviously facing a dire crisis. Due to this in February 2006, the AWB managing director Andrew Lindberg resigned after demonstrated outrage throughout the press and collective Australian wheat growers. The AWB scandal has left an indelible black mark on the AWBs reputation throughout the world, and puts into question how reliable it was and how well suited it was to represent and market nearly all of Australias wheat to the overseas marketplace. In addition, the AWB was sued for AU$1 billion in compensation by collective wheat farmers in North America for alleged, bribery and other corrupt activities to corner the grain markets internationally (news.com.au, 2006). The effect of the scandal resulted in Iraq refusing to purchase wheat from the AWB and the consequential loss of a substantial overseas market for Australian wheat growers. In an attempt to minimise damage to the Howard Governments reputation, Prime Minister Howard launched an official enquiry in November of 2006, into the payment of bribes by the AWB Ltd, formerly known as the Australian Wheat Board, to the Saddam Hussein regime, this enquiry essentially produced a whitewash report designed for several key purposes. Foremost, was the need to clear Prime Minister John Howard and his leading ministers of any political and/or criminal responsibility pertaining to the payment of bribes to Iraqi bureaucrats. Another critical concern was to fend off United States agricultural interests that were demanding the dismantling of the AWBs wheat export monopoly as part of a ruthless trade war. To illustrate further, it was absoloutely paramount for the Howard government to prevent any examination of the motives behind Canberras participation in the U.S occupation of Iraq. Therefore, in an obvious act of scape-goating, enquiry Commissioner Cole singled out 11 former AWB executives and one ex BHP executive for blame, and the possibility of criminal prosecutions. Sanctioned by the Howard government the mass media immediately did its best to assist this diversionary exercise by dubbing these 12 individuals the dirty-dozen in newspaper headlines around the country, demonstrating the great measures that politicians will take to cover their corruption. Howards use of Cole, a trusted lawyer who had previously conducted a witch-hunting enquiry against building workers on behalf of Prime Minister Howard wreaks of the unfettered abuse of governmental power. It was therefore not surprising that Cole attributed the payment of nearly $AU300 million in bribes under the United Nations 1996-2003 so-called Oil-for-Food-Program solely to a handful of 12 individuals. Moreover, Cole stated that these 12 individuals deviant corrupt behaviour developed from a closed culture of superiority and impregnability within the organisation, which had been produced by the AWBs 67-year monopoly and stronghold over all Australian wheat exports. In addition to this, Cole stated that it was obvious that the AWBs unethical policy in Iraq was to do whatever is necessary in order to retain the $AU500 million in annual wheat sales, and further stated that was precisely what the Howard Governments policy was at the time. The substantial and comprehensive documents tabled at the Cole enquiry confirm that the AWB, which was a government agency up until 1999 and then subsequently privatised continued to operate and receive Canberras protection, almost as a virtual arm of the Howard Government throughout the lead-up to the March 2003 U.S. led invasion of Iraq Conclusion The AWB scandal raises significant questions and concerns pertaining to the Australian policy-making processes and the attitudes of the government ministers involved.

Contingency Theory

Contingency Theory Contingency Theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. An organizational / leadership / decision making style that is effective in some  situations, may be not successful in other situations. In other words: The optimal organization / leadership / decision-making style  depends  upon various  internal and external constraints  (factors). Contingency Theory factors Some examples of such constraints (factors) include: †¢ The size of the organization. †¢ How the firm adapts itself to its environment. Differences among resources and operations activities. †¢ Assumptions of managers about employees. †¢ Strategies. †¢ Technologies being used. Contingency Theory on the organization 1. There is no universal way or one best way to manage an organization. 2. The design of an organization and its subsystems must ‘fit' with the environm ent. 3. Effective organizations not only have a proper ‘fit' with the environment, but also between its subsystems. Contingency Theory of leadership In the Contingency Theory of leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/or group variables. The effectiveness of a given pattern of leader behavior is contingent upon the demands imposed by the situation. These theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. Some of these theories are: †¢ Contingency Theory (Fiedler): Fiedler's theory is the earliest and most extensively researched. Fiedler's approach departs from trait and behavioral models by asserting that group performance is contingent on the leader's psychological orientation and on three contextual variables: group atmosphere, task structure, and leader's power position. This theory explains that group performance is a result of interaction of two factors. These factors are known as leadership style and situational favorableness. In Fiedler's model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works. †¢ Situational Theory  (Hersey & Blanchard). This theory is an extension of Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid Model, and Reddin's 3-D management style theory. This model expanded the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership, and a readiness dimension was added. Leadership Pipeline  (Drotter) Contingency Theory for dicision making Vroom and Yetton's  Decision Participation Contingency Theory  or the  Normative Decision Theory: According to this model, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation: †¢ The importance of the decision quality and acceptance. †¢ The amoun t of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates. †¢ The likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic decision, or the likelihood that subordinates will cooperate to make a good decision if they may participate. The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their alternatives. Contingency Theory& situational theory Contingency Theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple way that is always right. The main difference is that situational theory focuses more on the behaviors which the leader should use. Given situational factors (often about follower behavior). Whereas Contingency Theory takes a broader view, which includes contingent factors about leader capability, but also includes other variables within the situation Contingency Theory Contingency Theory Contingency Theory is a class of behavioral theory that claims that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. An organizational / leadership / decision making style that is effective in some  situations, may be not successful in other situations. In other words: The optimal organization / leadership / decision-making style  depends  upon various  internal and external constraints  (factors). Contingency Theory factors Some examples of such constraints (factors) include: †¢ The size of the organization. †¢ How the firm adapts itself to its environment. Differences among resources and operations activities. †¢ Assumptions of managers about employees. †¢ Strategies. †¢ Technologies being used. Contingency Theory on the organization 1. There is no universal way or one best way to manage an organization. 2. The design of an organization and its subsystems must ‘fit' with the environm ent. 3. Effective organizations not only have a proper ‘fit' with the environment, but also between its subsystems. Contingency Theory of leadership In the Contingency Theory of leadership, the success of the leader is a function of various factors in the form of subordinate, task, and/or group variables. The effectiveness of a given pattern of leader behavior is contingent upon the demands imposed by the situation. These theories stress using different styles of leadership appropriate to the needs created by different organizational situations. Some of these theories are: †¢ Contingency Theory (Fiedler): Fiedler's theory is the earliest and most extensively researched. Fiedler's approach departs from trait and behavioral models by asserting that group performance is contingent on the leader's psychological orientation and on three contextual variables: group atmosphere, task structure, and leader's power position. This theory explains that group performance is a result of interaction of two factors. These factors are known as leadership style and situational favorableness. In Fiedler's model, leadership effectiveness is the result of interaction between the style of the leader and the characteristics of the environment in which the leader works. †¢ Situational Theory  (Hersey & Blanchard). This theory is an extension of Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid Model, and Reddin's 3-D management style theory. This model expanded the notion of relationship and task dimensions to leadership, and a readiness dimension was added. Leadership Pipeline  (Drotter) Contingency Theory for dicision making Vroom and Yetton's  Decision Participation Contingency Theory  or the  Normative Decision Theory: According to this model, the effectiveness of a decision procedure depends upon a number of aspects of the situation: †¢ The importance of the decision quality and acceptance. †¢ The amoun t of relevant information possessed by the leader and subordinates. †¢ The likelihood that subordinates will accept an autocratic decision, or the likelihood that subordinates will cooperate to make a good decision if they may participate. The amount of disagreement among subordinates with respect to their alternatives. Contingency Theory& situational theory Contingency Theory is similar to situational theory in that there is an assumption of no simple way that is always right. The main difference is that situational theory focuses more on the behaviors which the leader should use. Given situational factors (often about follower behavior). Whereas Contingency Theory takes a broader view, which includes contingent factors about leader capability, but also includes other variables within the situation

Example of a Consent Form

Research Consent Form Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Massachusetts General Hospital Version III. a August 1998 Pi_dist9. doc Imprint Patient ID Number Protocol Title: Developmental Anatomy Genome Project (DGAP) Principal/Overall Investigator: Cynthia C. Morton, Ph. D. Site-Responsible Investigator(s)/Institution: James Gusella, Ph. D. /MGH Co-Investigator(s)/Study Staff: Drs. B Quade, A Ligon, R Maas, A Michelson, J Gusella, M MacDonald, E Lemyre, J Lewis Description of Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomalies PURPOSEWe would like permission to enroll you as a participant in a research study. The purpose of this research is to identify and study genes involved in human development. You have been asked to participate in this research study because you (or your child) have (or has) one or more developmental abnormalities and chromosomal abnormalities that have been present since birth. Such chromosomal abnormalities may disrupt the functi on of genes required for normal growth and development. By identifying these genes in people with specific birth defects, we hope to reach a greater understanding of how the human body grows and develops.STUDY CONTACTS This study is being organized by Dr. Cynthia C. Morton, who can be reached at 617-732-7980 with any questions you may have during the course of this study. If you enrolled at the MGH, please contact Dr. James Gusella at 617-726-5724. PROCEDURES If you agree to participate, you will donate a blood sample. The amount of blood drawn will vary with age (less than 2 years old: about 1 tablespoon; ages 2-10 years: about 2 tablespoons; ages 11 years and up: about 2-4 tablespoons) and may be reduced for smaller individuals.In general, after you have donated blood, cells or tissue samples no additional hospitalization or clinic visits will be required for you to participate in this study. Any of the samples you donate will be used to establish an immortal cell line. This means that an inexhaustible supply of DNA will be available for genetic research. DNA is the genetic material from which genes are made. These samples may be stored/banked for future use and/or shared with other investigators associated with this study. These stored or distributed samples will NOT be labeled with your name.Do you agree to this (please circle one choice): Page 1 of 5 Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomalies IRB Protocol Number: 1999P-003090 98-09233 Sponsor Protocol Number: N/A Consent Form Approval Date: DECEMBER 9, 1999 Amendment Number Approved: N/A IRB Expiration Date: Amendment Approval Date: N/A NOVEMBER 22, 2000 Research Consent Form Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Massachusetts General Hospital Version III. a August 1998 Pi_dist9. doc Imprint Patient ID Number YES NO You may be contacted in the future and asked for additional samples to continue research.If you do not wish to be contacted in the future, you may indica te this below: YES, okay to contact NO, do not contact As mentioned above, samples that are sent to the research laboratory will be assigned a code number. The key to this code will be maintained in locked files by Dr. Cynthia Morton, and your (or your child's) identity will not be revealed to anybody other than your referring physician. Important non-identifying information such as sex, age, and nature of your developmental abnormality will be transmitted to the research laboratory in order to correlate study results with specific developmental problems.The information obtained from this study of your donated blood or tissue is not known to be useful clinically or diagnostically at this time. The research is currently useful only as a means of understanding genes and developmental abnormalities. Results from these genetic studies will NOT be placed in your (or your child's) medical record. We will not communicate these results directly to you; study results will be released to your referring physician. COSTS No charges will be billed to your insurance company or to you for this study. You should be sure that no charges for the blood draw are to be filed with your insurance company.If the person who draws your blood intends to bill you, you should pay for this yourself and send a copy of the bill to the investigator who will reimburse you. RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS There are minor risks and discomforts associated with blood sampling. This includes a brief amount of pain and possibly a small bruise at the needle site. Occasionally a person feels faint when his/her blood is drawn. Rarely an infection develops, but if this occurs the infection can be treated. Disclosure of Study Results Information about your participation in a genetic study may influence insurance and/or employers regarding your health status.We will use many safeguards to prevent unintentional disclosure: I) information about your participation in, and the results of, this research will NOT be plac ed in your medical records, II) research data (including data collected from medical charts) will be entered only into a research database. No names will be entered into this database, only the codes assigned to submitted samples. Other investigators will NOT be given a key to this code, and III) NO results from this study will be released to anyone other than your referring physician.You can also minimize these risks by not sharing with others the fact that you have participated in genetic studies. Page 2 of 5 Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomalies IRB Protocol Number: 1999P-003090 98-09233 Sponsor Protocol Number: N/A Consent Form Approval Date: DECEMBER 9, 1999 Amendment Number Approved: N/A IRB Expiration Date: Amendment Approval Date: N/A NOVEMBER 22, 2000 Research Consent Form Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Massachusetts General Hospital Version III. a August 1998 Pi_dist9. doc Imprint Patient ID NumberThese studies are for res earch purposes only. Therefore, NO study results will be communicated to you at any time. However, in the event that this research study uncovers information that we feel MAY impact your healthcare (either positively or negatively), we will convey this information to your physician. After the potential significance of such results has been explained to you by your physician, you will be offered an opportunity to obtain independent diagnostic confirmation of this research finding in a laboratory which specializes in this type of clinical testing.This diagnostic testing will ONLY take place IF you provide additional consent for it. Only the result of the confirmatory test would be entered into your medical record by the diagnostic laboratory or your physician. BENEFITS At this time, we know of no direct benefit to you (or your child) as a result of participation in this research study. Participation is completely voluntary and your alternative is to not participate. Other individuals may benefit in the future if these studies provide useful information about identifying or treating developmental abnormalities.ALTERNATIVES You are free to participate or not to participate in this study. If you choose not to participate, your medical care and treatment will NOT be affected. Page 3 of 5 Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomalies IRB Protocol Number: 1999P-003090 98-09233 Sponsor Protocol Number: N/A Consent Form Approval Date: DECEMBER 9, 1999 Amendment Number Approved: N/A IRB Expiration Date: Amendment Approval Date: N/A NOVEMBER 22, 2000 Research Consent Form Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Massachusetts General HospitalVersion III. a August 1998 Pi_dist9. doc Imprint Patient ID Number THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS CONTAIN STANDARD INFORMATION WHICH GENERALLY APPLIES TO PERSONS INVOLVED IN A RESEARCH STUDY AND ARE REQUIRED ON ALL CONSENT FORMS. CONFIDENTIALITY Medical information produced by this study will become part of your hospital medical record, unless specifically stated otherwise in this consent form. Information that does not become part of your medical record will be stored in the investigator’s file and identified by a code number only.The code key connecting your name to specific information about you will be kept in a separate, secure location. Your medical record is available to health care professionals at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), or Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), collectively called the â€Å"Hospitals†, and may be reviewed by appropriate Hospital staff members in the course of carrying out their duties; however, they are required to maintain confidentiality in accordance with applicable laws and the policies of the Hospitals.Information contained in your records may not be given to anyone unaffiliated with the Hospitals in a form that could identify you without your written consent, except as described in thi s consent form or as required by law. It is possible that your medical and research record, including sensitive information and/or identifying information, may be inspected and/or copied by the study sponsor (and/or its agent), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), federal or state government agencies, or hospital accrediting agencies, in the course of carrying out their duties.If your record is inspected or copied by the study sponsor (and/or its agents), or by any of these agencies, the Hospitals will use reasonable efforts to protect your privacy and the confidentiality of your medical information. The results of this study may be published in a medical book or journal or used for teaching purposes. However, your name or other identifiers will not be used in any publication or teaching materials without your specific permission. In addition, if photographs, audiotapes or videotapes were taken during the study that could identify you, then you must give special written permissio n for their use.In that case, you will be given the opportunity to view or listen, as applicable, to the photographs, audiotapes or videotapes before you give your permission for their use if you so request. REQUEST FOR MORE INFORMATION You may ask more questions about the study at any time. The investigator(s) will provide their telephone number so that they are available to answer your questions or concerns about the study. You will be informed of any significant new findings discovered during the course of this study that might influence your continued participation.If during the study or later, you wish to discuss your rights as a research subject, your participation in the study and/or concerns about the study, a research-related injury with someone not directly involved in the study, or if you feel under any pressure to enroll in this study or to continue to participate in this study, you are asked to contact a representative of the Human Research Committees at BWH (617) 732-7 200, at MGH (617) 726-3493, or at the Protocol Administration Office at DFCI (617) 632-3029. A copy of this consent form will be given to you to keep. Page 4 of 5 Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomaliesIRB Protocol Number: 1999P-003090 98-09233 Sponsor Protocol Number: N/A Consent Form Approval Date: DECEMBER 9, 1999 Amendment Number Approved: N/A IRB Expiration Date: Amendment Approval Date: N/A NOVEMBER 22, 2000 Research Consent Form Brigham and Women’s Hospital Dana-Farber Cancer Institute Massachusetts General Hospital Version III. a August 1998 Pi_dist9. doc Imprint Patient ID Number REFUSAL OR WITHDRAWAL OF PARTICIPATION Participation in this study is voluntary. You do not have to participate in this study. Your present or future care will not be affected should you choose not to participate.If you decide to participate, you can change your mind and drop out of the study at any time without affecting your present or future care in the Hospitals. In additi on, the doctor in charge of this study may decide to end your participation in this study at any time after he/she has explained the reasons for doing so and has helped arrange for your continued care by your own doctor, if needed. INJURY STATEMENT If you are injured during the course of the study and as a direct result of this study, you should contact the investigator at the number provided.You will be offered the necessary care to treat that injury. This care does not imply any fault or wrong-doing on the part of the Hospitals or the doctor(s) involved. Where applicable, the Hospitals reserve the right to bill third party payers for services you receive for the injury. The Hospitals will not provide you with any additional compensation for such injuries. SIGNATURE I confirm that the purpose of the research, the study procedures and the possible risks and discomforts as well as potential benefits that I may experience have been explained to me.Alternatives to my participation in t he study also have been discussed. All my questions have been answered. I have read this consent form. My signature below indicates my willingness to participate in this study. Subject/Patient Date Witness/Advocate/Minor/Legal Guardian (if required) Date Additional Signature (if required)(identify relationship to subject) Date I have explained the purpose of the research, the study procedures, identifying those that are investigational, the possible risks and discomforts as well as potential benefits and have answered any questions regarding the study to the best of my ability.Study Representative Date Investigator Complete This Information At Enrollment for HEMATOLOGY/ONCOLOGY PROTOCOLS ONLY (A copy of this form should be faxed to the QCC and to the appropriate Medical Records) Primary Care Physician’s Name: Date protocol treatment begins for this subject: Diagnosis: Page 5 of 5 Subject Population: Patients with congenital anomalies IRB Protocol Number: 1999P-003090 98-09233 Sponsor Protocol Number: N/A Consent Form Approval Date: DECEMBER 9, 1999 Amendment Number Approved: N/A IRB Expiration Date: Amendment Approval Date: N/A NOVEMBER 22, 2000

The Role Of Gay Parenting - 1846 Words

Traditional families are the way to go, no one wants to see two girls or two guys together and a homosexual couple especially bringing a child into the mix and having the child go through all the rough times that they went through as an adult. Gay and lesbian parenting is an accepted problem that people watch occur every single day, and that should not have to see. The role of gay parenting is ruining; the traditional family aspect of a childhood, the way the children are treated in schools, and it also is a threat to religion. The way people live today should be the traditional way of the families and children should be brought up, and not by lesbian or gay parents so that the kids would not have a mom or a dad and the way that would make†¦show more content†¦They do not get to chose if they are in a hetrosexual or a homosexual family, and if they are morally against homosexuality but get put into a homosexual home then that could completely ruin their life and worse end it . On the other hand, people that agree with the gay and lesbian marriage arrangements would say different, such as, that they are not more likely to have social problems because the tolerance rate of the children are higher than that of a heterosexual couples kid because they will be more acceptive of things. â€Å"Homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children† (More Likely) Children that are in gay and lesbian environment are more acceptable to things, but are the eye to a bully in the school yard. â€Å"both parental expectations and aspirations tend to pressure children to model their parents behavior, providing a clear pathway for parental sexual orientation to influence a child’s sexual orientation.† (More Likely) Meaning that the way the parents act is most likely going to be the way the children turn out. If the parents are homosexual then the kids will most likely turn out homosexual, because that is how they , were raised and that is the type of environment.â€Å"Both parental expectations and aspirations tend to pressure children to model their parents behavior, providing a clear pathway for parental sexual orientation to influence a child’s sexual