Read the 10-page report titled Information Sharing, Dot Connecting and Intelligence Failures: Revisiting Conventional Wisdom, by Russell Travers (2009). To access the report, click on the following link, and then scroll down to the bottom of the page. At the bottom, click on the link with the same title as the report:

National Counterterrorism Center Web site

Travers argues that information sharing in general has improved significantly since the attacks of 9/11. He proceeds to deconstruct many popular arguments made by others claiming that intelligence gathering and information sharing, as practiced by entities in the United States today, are flawed. He also discusses legal, policy-based, and regulatory obstacles that impair reasonable intelligence and information collection and processing.

After reading this piece, complete the following:

• Define (that is, “operationalize”) the concepts of intelligence versus information.
• Do differences in these terms matter?
• How might either be easier—or more difficult—to share with other agencies? 
  • Also consider if some levels of government or sectors of society might be more or less amenable to sharing information. (For example, private sector entities that own and operate critical infrastructure upon which the nation or communities rely might hesitate to share proprietary information that makes them less competitive, economically. Is their reluctance reasonable?)
• Research, summarize, critically evaluate, and report at least 3 of the significant information-sharing problems and challenges (and key agencies) reported in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • For each of these challenges, use or dispute at least 2 of Travers’ main arguments that he makes in his paper to explain or justify these challenges.
• Make certain to connect Travers’ arguments to the report’s challenges that you select.

Please submit your assignment.

For assistance with your assignment, please use your text, Web resources, and all course materials.

Unit Materials

In each case, answer the questions at the end of the case and give researched references to support your assertions; also, explain what would be the ethical course of action and the legal requirements for action in the case.

Case One

Mrs. Lewis was head nurse on a medical surgical floor in a community hospital with 250 beds. Over the course of 6 months, she noticed that all patients admitted from the Shady Rest Nursing Home had signs of severe injuries other than those connected with the admitting diagnosis. There appeared to be patient abuse in the nursing home. Mrs. Lewis investigated discreetly and found no explanation possible except abuse. In accord with the obligations of the law in her state, she reported the matter to the Department of Welfare Bureau of Inspection.

The Welfare Department investigated immediately, found proof of abuse, and threatened to close down Shady Rest if there were any more recurrences. Mrs. Lewis was overjoyed until her hospital administrator, bypassing the director of nursing, called her in and warned her that she would be fired if she reported any other instances of abuse. Shady Rest sent the hospital a lot of business, and good relations had to be maintained.

Mrs. Lewis was even more shocked when she discovered that the administrator was a golf partner of the owner of Shady Rest and was doing an old buddy a favor. Despite fears of retaliation, Mrs. Lewis consulted a lawyer, who threatened the hospital with exposure and with penalties that would follow if one of its employees failed to follow the reporting provisions of the law on abuse in nursing homes.

Did Mrs. Lewis act correctly? What should she have done if she could not have afforded to consult with a lawyer? In what ways can whistle-blowers protect themselves? Must the art of intimidation be part of the toolbox of healthcare professionals in order to protect their patients? Is power an appropriate consideration in healthcare ethics?

Case Two

On a July weekend, Mrs. Allesfertig, nursing supervisor of the whole hospital, discovered that the intensive care unit was seriously understaffed. She pulled two nurses with previous ICU experience off other floors to bring the unit up to strength in view of the extreme level of acute care needed. On the following Monday, Dr. Bestknabe, who has overall responsibility for the ICU unit, closed the unit for further admissions until the staffing had been worked out on a permanent basis.

Should the new staffing policy give the nurses authority to refuse to admit patients when the staff is not sufficient to handle them? (In some hospitals, nurses have this authority.) Can any policy take precedence over the professional judgment of trained ICU nurses?

need help. the textbook is listed under references in document.

MUST SUBMIT IN 3 HOURS!!!! PLEASE HELP!!!