Krogstand and Robertson described three principles of ethical decision making, which include all of the following except: a. the caring principle. b. the utilitarian principle. c. the imperative principle. d. the generalization principle.

Ageneral requirement for the informed consent form is that it may not include any exculpatory language. exculpatory language is that which waives or appears to waive any of the subject's legal rights or releases or appears to release those conducting the research from liability for negligence. which of the following statements in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language? a general requirement for the informed consent form is that it may not include any exculpatory language. exculpatory language is that which waives or appears to waive any of the subject's legal rights or releases or appears to release those conducting the research from liability for negligence. which of the following statements in a consent form is an example of exculpatory language?

Mrs. walter’s husband died in 2016. she has not remarried and has maintained a home for herself and her dependent son, whom she can claim as a dependent. in the summer of 2018, the son was killed in an automobile accident. what is mrs. walter’s filing status for 2018

Athief was passing by a house under construction when he noticed that the ladder being used by workers on the roof had copper braces supporting the rungs. after making sure that the workers on the roof could not see him, the thief used pliers that he had in his pocket to remove all of the copper braces that he could reach from the ground. a short time later, a worker climbed down the ladder and it collapsed. he fell to the ground and severely injured his back. the thief was apprehended a few hours later trying to sell the copper for scrap. a statute in the jurisdiction makes it a felony for "maliciously causing serious physical injury to another." the thief was charged with malicious injury under the statute and was also charged with larceny. after a jury trial in which the above facts were presented, he was convicted of both charges. if he appeals the conviction for the malicious injury charge on grounds of insufficient evidence, how should the court rule? a affirm the conviction, because the thief was engaged in criminal conduct at the time of the act that resulted in the injury. b affirm the conviction, because the jury could have found that the thief acted with malice. c reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief intended to injure anyone. d reverse the conviction, because there was no evidence that the thief bore any malice towards the workers on the roof.