Suchergebnisse

1. Informed consent and the social regulation of caregiver involvement in end-of-life care / Diego Llovet -- 2. Judgement, care, and informed consent / Philip Walsh -- 3. End-of-life conflicts, the law and Arendt's political thinking / Kieran Bonner -- 4. The time of a life : ethics and care in the case of a young First nation's girl / Stuart J. Murray and Tad Lemieux -- 5. Univeristy-community development amongst urban Aboriginal peoples : case study of the healing of the seven generations Canoe Project / Ginette Lafranier -- 6. Postcolonial negotiations : care, aboriginal rights, and the challenge of democracy / David Lynes -- 7. End-of-life as a symbolic order : age in an era of mechanical reproduction / Alan Blum -- 8. Good patient-bad patient : the ethical imaginary of cancer / Deborah Lynn Steinberg -- 9. The clinical epistemology of Ludwig Binswanger (1881-1966) : psychiatry as a science of the singular / Elisabetta Basso -- 10. Critique of solution-focused brief therapy / Carlos Neves -- 11. Rethinking the concept of care / Han Zhang.

AbstractAn external evaluation documented what occurred in an inaugural summer camp to teach high school students how to preserve religious freedom by learning about and acting on the history and current state of church–state separation and other first amendment issues. Camp designers hoped to promote religious diversity values and civic engagement in youth. An analytic vignette grounded in an inductive analysis of observations, interviews, and document collection represents the competing demands of responsive and critical approaches to evaluation. Balancing obligations to promote the social well‐being of society with responsibilities to clients and other stakeholders presents challenges that can be met only by identifying priorities with clients in ongoing dialogue. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc., and the American Evaluation Association.

Background: This paper describes a Bosnian refugee, a survivor of war and ethnic cleansing, during a 3-year follow-up in a psychiatry clinic. Discussion: This case throws light on the tension between medicotherapeutic and sociomoral ways of understanding the effects of such experiences, and of the limitations of morally and politically neutral psychiatric categories and technologies. Suffering always invokes questions of values: in this case the clinical picture represented a moral protest at what had been done with such impunity, and a refusal to accommodate to a world which now seemed unintelligible. The clinical picture also embodied the collective outrage, and sense of unfinished business, which many back in Bosnia itself were carrying in the wake of the 1995 Dayton peace accords which effectively legitimised the lines of ethnic cleansing. Conclusions: DSM or ICD diagnoses of depressive disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder turned out to lack validity and explanatory power. Claims that victims of war and atrocity typically have an unmet need for mental health services are overstated. Recovery from the effects of war may depend on reestablishing a sense of intelligibility, a task that must primarily go on in social space rather than mental space.

In a time when conservative politicians challenge the irrefutability of scientific findings such as climate change, it is more important than ever to understand the conflict at the heart of the "religion vs. science" debates unfolding in the public sphere. In this groundbreaking work, John H. Evans reveals that, with a few limited exceptions, even the most conservative religious Americans accept science's ability to make factual claims about the world. However, many religious people take issue with the morality implicitly promoted by some forms of science. Using clear and engaging scholarship, Evans upends the prevailing notion that there is a fundamental conflict over the way that scientists and religious people make claims about nature and argues that only by properly understanding moral conflict between contemporary religion and science will we be able to contribute to a more productive interaction between these two great institutions.

In a time when conservative politicians challenge the irrefutability of scientific findings such as climate change, it is more important than ever to understand the conflict at the heart of the "religion vs. science" debates unfolding in the public sphere. In this groundbreaking work, John H. Evans reveals that, with a few limited exceptions, even the most conservative religious Americans accept science's ability to make factual claims about the world. However, many religious people take issue with the morality implicitly promoted by some forms of science. Using clear and engaging scholarship, Evans upends the prevailing notion that there is a fundamental conflict over the way that scientists and religious people make claims about nature and argues that only by properly understanding moral conflict between contemporary religion and science will we be able to contribute to a more productive interaction between these two great institutions.