Ottawa Charter Hp Pdf Free !!LINK!!
DOWNLOAD >>> https://urlin.us/2t7Dnv
This benchmark conference led to a series of conferences on health promotion - Adelaide (1988), Sundsvall (1991), Jakarta (1997), Mexico-City (2000), Bangkok (2005) and Nairobi (2009). In Adelaide, the member states acknowledged that government sectors such as agriculture, trade, education, industry and communication had to consider health as an essential factor when formulating healthy public policy. The Sundsvall statement highlighted that poverty and deprivation affecting millions of people who were living in extremely degraded environment affected health. In Jakarta too poverty, low status of women, civil and domestic violence were listed as the major threats to health. The Mexico statement called upon the international community to address the social determinants of health to facilitate achievement of health-related millennium development goals. The Bangkok charter identified four commitments to make health promotion (a) central to the global development agenda; (b) a core responsibility for all governments (c) a key focus of communities and civil society; and (d) a requirement for good corporate practice.(12,13) The last conference in October 2009 in Nairobi called for urgent need to strengthen leadership and workforce, mainstream health promotion, empower communities and individuals, enhance participatory processes and build and apply knowledge for health promotion.
Thus, we hold that content based ethics should provide a foundation for guidelines during the development and evaluation of supporting technologies. This is especially important in providing a "cloud of care" to explicitly assess the degree of autonomy, self-determination, freedom of decision and dignity that will be affected by technology. However, we also maintain that technologic development may prompt a re-examination of the moral context and social integrity of ethical principles. So for example, we may question if the person utilizing a distinct technology is still free to decide what to do and what not to do? Does the person have control over technology or does technology have control over the person? To what extent will well-being be improved or perhaps defined? Is the assistive technology affordable and available for all or will this technology incur distinct socio-economic bias? And finally does the technology enhance the comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness of life, or simply provide it? Such questions must be addressed, examined, and answered prudently if the developing field of AAL is to maintain both practical utility and remain ethically justifiable. 2b1af7f3a8