5d. Continued..

I have posted some questions on my LinkedIn page.

Please have a look at them, any feed back would be greatly appreciated!

Going back to training..

5d. Proposed Enquir

In less than one week today I will be leaving for New York!

I have got a place at The Lee Strasberg Theatre and Film Institute, so will be studying out there for three months.

The reason I have chosen to go back into education and to study this course in particular was for a number of different reasons:

I keep speaking to people about how I have trained, (Three years in Musical Theatre at Italia Conti) and they turn their nose up at it. 'Ohh musical theatre..' As if doing musical theatre means that you have not studied acting;

I love method acting. This school specialises in it. It is also an incredibly accredited school;

I love that it is a 12 week course, I feel like anything else would be too short. And I wouldn't have enough time to cultivate what I had learnt. And anything longer would be too much time to take out of my working life.

So I have decided to change my proposed enquiry to;

What are the reasons you would go back into training?

With this question there is a lot of explanation to be made. Similar to my old proposed enquiry, people have a lot to say about the company.

5c. Ethics

A lot of news is for light reading. Should we really care about what a celebrity has in their fridge when there are issues happening all around the world that are more common that we may think!

An issue that is very close to home at the moment is about a family friend. He had the wrong lung operated on and as a result has passed away. Now, who could have made such a foolish mistake? Was it the mistake of the surgeon? Was the surgeon just following the notes? Who wrote the notes incorrectly? If it was the fault of the note writing assistant, who is to blame? The assistant or the surgeon that was clearly operating on the wrong lung? Is this man slaughter? Could someone go to prison for originally trying to save the patients  life? But most of all, how often does this happen? Is it that this is very common but the media don't widely report it? Because its not as interesting as the new nail varnish that your favourite D list 'celebrity' is being out?

In the eyes of the mans family. This man has been murdered. If the procedure had gone correctly, he probably would have lived. Someone made a huge mistake and should pay for that. 

'Luckily' this was an elderly man. Who's wife has passes away and his children are all in their 40's. However, would the law look upon this case differently if this had been a thirty year old man who supported his wife and three children? 

A subject is only ethical if it is believed to be ethical. 

Take one of the main topics of news at the moment, gun crime in America. The one thing everyone can agree on is we don't want a mass shooting in schools ever again.

But how do we go about stopping this?

Some states such as Texas and other republican states want to make guns readily available, they believe that the only way to stop fire is with fire. They say that if a psychotic person had a gun. The only thing that would stop him would be to have gun pointed back at him. There are many stories of people who have lost their friends and family at gun point and believe that if they had been in possession of a weapon they could have stopped devastation.  And where do you draw the line with who can own a gun? At sixteen or even eighteen years of age you are still wanting to show off to your friends, you wear your heart on your sleeve and you want to be top dog. You are still not mentally mature enough to own something can can kill a person so easily. Surely it's like tip toeing on the edge of a cliff. The slightest thing could make you fall.

The other view is a ban on weapons. But surely, this will actually make no difference. As drugs are illegal but widely used all round the world.

 Guns can be confined to shooting clubs. As shooting and hunting are still sports. A ban on weapons in the home. But it will be very difficult to controls this as there is always a way of getting around the law.

Another idea would be to stop schools being gun free zones. To make sure that two or three teachers were trained to handle a situation with a gun incase the worst was to happen. But who is to stop someone or a child getting hold of this gun?

It's an ethical issue that Obama us trying to solve with a vote. Who who is right and who is wrong?

In regards to the ethics of the well being of yourself or your employees. A list of factors must be drawn. But inevitably it all comes down to twos fault it is. If a dancer has slipped on a  wet stage it is the fault of the employer. As it is the employers job to abide by the minimum safety requirements for the dancer. 

If a dancer does not warm up and tears a muscle it is the fault of the dancer as a dancer is required to keep themselves in tip top condition.

However, if a singer gets nodules or looses their voice it is very difficult to decide who is ethically responsible. Is it the singer for not looking after their voice correctly? Is it the employer for pushing them to do too many shows without enough rest? Has the singer been abusing their voice with late nights, smoking and shouting?

Each topic is very different and maybe the only way to solve them is to look at the facts and to try and work out which is the most logical explanation as people look at things differently. Making ethics a continuously hard subject to tackle.