According to edwin shneidman, people who are ambivalent about their intent to die and whose actions leading to death do not guarantee death (e. g., swimming in shark-infested waters) are called death:

Aresearcher conducting behavioral research collects individually identifiable sensitive information about illicit drug use and other illegal behaviors by surveying college students. one of the subjects is in an automobile accident two weeks after participating in the research study. is this an example of an unanticipated problem that requires reporting to the irb? yes, this must be reported because it was not listed as a risk of study participation in the consent form (was unexpected) and the subject experienced harm.yes, this must be reported because it involved a subject in a research study and it’s up to the irb to determine if it was related to participation.no, this does not need to be reported because it was assessed by the researcher as unrelated to the research study.no, this does not need to be reported to the irb since the researcher reported it to the sponsor of the study.

Janette goes into an electronics superstore to buy a new computer. the salesperson works with her to find the right model, and she agrees to buy a new computer for $500 and a floor-model 18-inch monitor for $100. just when she is ready to pay, the salesperson walks away for a minute and then comes back to inform her that the monitor she was ready to purchase can't be sold for < $125. she agrees to the extra $25 even though they had initially agreed on the $100 selling price. janette has fallen for the technique of gaining compliance.

Which best explains why the supreme court’s decision in plessy v. ferguson was unconstitutional? the supreme court’s ruling allowed states to deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction. since the 14th amendment did not make concessions for people born outside the us, the supreme court’s decision could not be applied. the supreme court’s decision gave individual states the freedom to make their own laws in relation to non-whites. since segregation laws did not provide equal protections or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th amendment.