Globalization made the development of certain economic standards a matter of survival for many companies. In order to operate on the global market, organizations have to adhere to certain standards such as International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS). At the same time, companies use other guidelines to operate in their domestic markets. For example, American companies are to use Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (US GAAP). Although these reporting systems have similar features, they differ in quite important aspects.
For instance, the Historical Cost Concept that is employed in US GAAP implies the focus on the value of the asset from the historical perspective. In simple terms, companies record the exact cost of an asset they paid at the time of the purchase (Pinto, Henry, Robinson, & Stowe, 2015). This principle is, for instance, manifested in the way long-term assets are calculated. Under GAAP, the value of long-term assets is calculated using the historical value minus estimated depreciation. In accordance with IFRS, the fair value at the date of the calculation is used minus impaired losses and depreciation (Wahlen, Baginski, & Bradshaw, 2017). Both methods consider the depreciation of assets, but IFRS is more relevant to the current market situation.
IFRS seems a more appropriate reporting system due to its focus on the current situation in the market. This international standard helps companies to report their assets values with the focus on fair value and exact asset impairments. The use of US GAAP guidelines in this respect seems rather outdated as the value of various assets is dynamic nowadays, and the utilization of the historical approach is not appropriate, which is especially true for industries associated with innovations.
Response: Ethical Theories Used to Make Treatment Decisions for Patients
Healthcare professionals tend to find themselves in situations when their patients refuse the suggested treatment. There is still no agreement on what ethical paradigm to follow when addressing this issue, so the medical staff should choose among the existing frameworks. At the same time, deontology seems to be the most appropriate ethical approach to be employed in such cases. According to this theory, the major focus is on the morality of the action rather than its consequences or ethical load (Skelton, 2017). If the case adheres to certain standards, its morality is justified, and a specific action can be undertaken. Deontology relies on laws rather than benefits for some stakeholders or some ethical concerns. It is also stressed that an individual has the ultimate right to make decisions regarding their life or health as every human being cannot be deprived of their inherent dignity.
Clearly, it is essential to make sure that the patient’s decision is well-informed prior to implementing certain steps. Appelbaum (2007) describes several measurements and frameworks that help to identify whether the patient is capable of making important decisions. Healthcare practitioners can use these instruments to make their own decisions. It is essential to remember that any decision should be respected although the medical personnel should try any possible means to convince the patient to adhere to the developed treatment plan. However, if the patient’s decision is well-informed, no one has the right to force them to act in a specific way. Although the patient decision may be painful for their relatives and may seem unthoughtful as there is always hope, patients have the right to be completely responsible for their health and life.
References
Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 1834-1840.
Skelton, L. (2017). Ethical theories and perspectives on end-of-life decisions. Dialogue & Nexus, 4, 1-7. Web.
Pinto, J. E., Henry, E., Robinson, T. R., & Stowe, J. D. (2015). Equity asset valuation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Wahlen, J. M., Baginski, S. P., & Bradshaw, M. (2017). Financial reporting, financial statement analysis and valuation (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.