This assignment will provide you with the opportunity to practice influencing policy by communicating with a legislator about a current health problem. The letter should be in block format for a business letter, the letter may be more than one page. You do need to support with evidence. Cite your sources and include a reference page at the end of your letter. Follow the assignment directions and review the rubric. You can view samples for formatting a business letter on the following link: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/653/2/In addition some helpful links on how to formulate a letter to your legislator may be foundhttps://www.ncsbn.org/APRN_formletter_Legislator_web.pdfhttp://www.nea.org/home/19657.htmFollow the steps below to write a letter advocating for change, go to for an example: Select a current health problem that is being debated at the national and/or state level (e.g., the proliferation of "pill mills", pain clinics, etc) and state why it is of interest. Be sure to research your problem. Identify a legislator (state or federal) and state (OHIO: if you choose a state) why that person is the appropriate one to contact, you will show why this is right person to contact based on the supporting data you provided in your letter.Draft a letter to the legislator in business block format including the proper salutation.Introduce yourself and your reason for writing.Include the following in the body of your letter:Introduce yourself and your reason for writing.State concisely what you understand to be the current socioeconomic, political, and ethical issues surrounding the problem. You must have supporting data (include citations).Discuss the implications of the problem for your community, nursing or nursing practice.Make a clear request for action. You must have supporting data (include citations).Request a response.Include a reference page beginning on the page following the end of the letter, also include citations in the body of your letter. At least three references are required.

Part IThe information that you will need for the discussion can be found in Case 7, p. 62; Case 2c, p. 61; and Case 6, p. 140 of Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues. For one of these cases, identify the parties and the moral issue(s) at stake. In the diversity of customs or interests presented in the cases for this module, try to uncover any underlying values that are shareable among the parties involved.Part IIAs we saw in this week's module, according to Thomas Hobbes' Ethical Egoism, if we were to imagine ourselves living in a State of Nature, without government, then common standards of good, evil, and justice would be precarious, and always subject to defection by individuals who gave in to the passions for gain, pride, or revenge. As such, the common standard for good and evil would appear to be a social matter that could be secured only by an organized society that is complex enough to have a government formed by a Social Contract. Hobbes' views have enjoyed a long and lasting influence on the fields of philosophy, sociology, political science, and beyond (and are still commonly encountered within the theories of classically trained economists and political scientists today), but my question for you is simply, do you agree with Hobbes about all of this? In particular, do you find his metaphysical description of human beings living in the State of Nature ultimately convincing? Or might his characterization of human beings, as little more than selfish and competitive individuals concerned primarily with their own self-interest, tend in some way to distort a proper understanding of ourselves or fail to fully capture the actual experience of what it's really like to be a human being? If the latter should turn out to be true, then one implication of this would seem to be that, Hobbes' long revered and well respected portrayal of human beings as existing in a State of Nature (or as always just one step away from spiraling back into one, were it not for the saving graces of the Social Contract currently in place), is perhaps nothing more than a deeply-seated myth, passed down through the tradition, that perpetuates the apparent necessity and need for a Social Contract. If all this were true, then what explanation might you give for why such a myth has been able to take hold and persist for so long? And just whose interests might such a myth tacitly be serving in the end?