Suchergebnisse

General background: Obscure death (OD) is a medicolegal dilemma which had not been well covered in the literature. It could be a real OD if there is no cause was achieved after having all relevant data and conducting a complete standard autopsy followed by a series of complementary investigations. Moreover, it could also be relative OD if one or more of those important procedures or investigations were not performed, whatever were the circumstances. OD is a multifactorial problem, caused by various factors involved such as cadaveric, autopsy, laboratory, financial, legislation, and local regulations In fact, obscurity of death includes undetermined mechanism, cause, and mode of death. There are a lot of factors or difficulties, which could interact and leads to situation of cul-de-sac (a blind diverticulum or pouch), i.e., obscure death. However, our present talk is a general discussion.

A strictly biological definition of death as a specific event is both possible & socially desirable. Contrary to L. C. Becker (see SA 24:5/76I1544), brain-stem death, as defined by the Harvard Committee of 1968, provides a satisfactory definition of death, since it provides as equally valid a yardstick as the conventional criteria of cessation of respiration & of the heartbeats. The convergence of transplant surgery with extraordinary methods of resuscitation has led to considerable confusion concerning the boundaries of life & has placed the issue of an alternative biological criterion of death in the foreground of public interest. The concept of a biological definition of death is defended against proposals to redefine death in terms of social, economic, or morally relevant criteria. The criteria for diagnosing death, being strictly biological, must be distinguished from discussions concerning the quality of residual life & decisions as to when, if ever, the existence of a living being should be terminated. Following a survey of changing attitudes toward the traditional diagnosis of death within the medical profession, the actual criteria for the diagnosis of brain-stem death is examined & then defended against the accusation that any departure from criteria based on the cessation of the heart & respiratory organs must constitute an "artificial advancement of death." AA.

Activity 7.3 Avoiding AIDSActivity 7.4 Who Gets AIDS?; Activity 7.5 Common Questions About AIDS; Activity 7.6 What is AIDS?; Activity 7.7 Women and AIDS; 8 ENCOUNTERING DEATH IN OUR VALUES; 8. Values; Activity 8.1 Values Coat of Arms; Activity 8.2 Values Encouter; Activity 8.3 Values Statement; Activity 8.4 Values Questionnaire; Activity 8.5 Ethical Dilemmas; Activity 8.6 Moral Dilemma; Activity 8.7 Near Death Experience (NDE); Activity 8.8 Afterlife; 9 ENCOUNTERING DEATH AS OUR HELPER; 9 Helping; Activity 9.1 Stages of Dying; Activity 9.2 The Tasks of Mourning.

When the Supreme Court is deciding death, how much does law matter? Scholars long have lamented the majoritarian nature of the Court's Eighth Amendment "evolving standards of decency" doctrine, but their criticism misses the mark. Majoritarian doctrine does not drive the Court's decisions in this area; majoritarian forces elsewhere do. To make my point, I first examine three sets of "evolving standards" death penalty decisions in which the Court implicitly or explicitly reversed itself, attacking the legal justification for the Court's change of position and offering an extralegal explanation for why those cases came out the way they did. I then use political science models of Supreme Court decisionmaking to explain how broader social and political forces push the Court toward majoritarian death penalty rulings for reasons wholly independent of majoritarian death penalty doctrine. Finally, I bring the analysis full circle, showing how broader sociopolitical forces even led to the development of the "evolving standards" doctrine. In the realm of death penalty decisionmaking, problematic doctrine is not to blame for majoritarian influences; rather, majoritarian influences are to blame for problematic doctrine. The real obstacle to countermajoritarian decisionmaking is not doctrine, but the inherently majoritarian tendencies of the Supreme Court itself

Brain death-the condition of a non-functioning brain, has been widely adopted around the world as a definition of death since it was detailed in a Report by an Ad Hoc Committee of Harvard Medical School faculty in 1968. It also remains a focus of controversy and debate, an early source of criticism and scrutiny of the bioethics movement. Death before Dying: History, Medicine, and Brain Death looks at the work of the Committee in a way that has not been attempted before in terms of tracing back the context of its own sources-the reasoning of it Chair, Henry K Beecher, and the care of patients i

While rituals surrounding death may vary by geography, culture, and time, experiencing the loss of a loved one is a universal experience. Death has become a focal point during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, forcing many to unexpectedly confront the profound and enduring reality of loss. Understanding death from a multidisciplinary approach, Facing Death compiles contributions from across fields, methodologies, locations, cultures, and circumstances. Facing Death explores beyond loss solely on an individual level, considering instead helpful or harmful emotional reactions from others. Delving into how older adults who experience loss may find themselves without a support system, while those at a young age might find that their peers do not understand or know how to support them in their bereavement, the authors also consider how causes of death can also affect grieving loved ones on a personal and societal level. For example, how might death by suicide complicate the grieving process as family and friends not only have to contend with the loss itself, but also the associated stigmas and judgements surrounding suicide? How might individuals experience fear and anxiety about death during a prolonged illness? Exploring responses to familial illness and death, this edited collection is a detailed investigation of the subject for any scholar interested in discussions and decisions surrounding end of life care and the grief trajectory after loss.

First session: Programs -- Second session: Logic of the living (She the Living) -- Third session: Transition (Oedipus's Faux Pas) -- Fourth session: The logic of the supplement: the supplement of the other, of death, of meaning, of life -- Fifth session: The indefatigable -- Sixth session: The "limping" model: the story of the Colossus -- Seventh session: [no title] -- Eighth Session: Cause ("Nietzsche") -- Ninth session: Of interpretation -- Tenth session: Thinking the division of labor-and the contagion of the proper name -- Eleventh session: The escalade-of the devil in person -- Twelfth session: Freud's leg(acies) -- Thirteenth session: Sidestep detour: thesis, hypothesis, prosthesis -- Fourteenth session: Tightenings.