La prospettiva filosofica di Ernesto Grassi tra antropologia, logica e ontologia
In: Biblioteca di studi umanistici 22
12 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Biblioteca di studi umanistici 22
Contemporary academic arguments still have the tendency to define the debate between religion and secularity as a dualism between two radically different anthropological or ontological postures toward reality. We can find an example of this approach in Charles Taylor's work A Secular Age, where the debate between religion and secularity is presented as a conflict between belief and unbelief, or transcendence against immanence. We can also see a similar presentation of the problem in Fukuyama's The End of History, where religion is presented as a more primitive, overcome, stage of humanity, that function as a step in something like a Universal History of humanity in the direction of liberal democracies. ; Contemporary academic arguments still have the tendency to define the debate between religion and secularity as a dualism between two radically different anthropological or ontological postures toward reality. We can find an example of this approach in Charles Taylor's work A Secular Age, where the debate between religion and secularity is presented as a conflict between belief and unbelief, or transcendence against immanence. We can also see a similar presentation of the problem in Fukuyama's The End of History, where religion is presented as a more primitive, overcome, stage of humanity, that function as a step in something like a Universal History of humanity in the direction of liberal democracies.
BASE
La liberazione anticipata è un istituto servo di due padroni: nato come incentivo premiale a breve scadenza per favorire un atteggiamento positivo dei detenuti nei confronti dell'opera di rieducazione proposta dall'Amministrazione penitenziaria, è stato affiancato, nel 2013, da una liberazione anticipata "speciale", misura emergenziale temporanea con il precipuo fine di sfoltire in modo controllato la popolazione carceraria in sovrannumero. Il presente elaborato analizza l'istituto nelle sue evoluzioni legislative e giurisprudenziali, onde metterne in luce l'essenza, per poi confrontarla con l'istituto creato ad hoc dal d.l. 146/2013
BASE
In: Energies ; Volume 12 ; Issue 5
This paper investigates the regulatory rules of market transparency which could be applied within the wholesale electricity market and market for frequency and voltage control in the Web-of-Cells (WoC) decentralized power control architecture, which has been developed in the ELECTRA Project to respond the challenges and needs of the future power system (2030+). In this decentralized functional architecture for frequency and voltage control, the European Union (EU) power grid is divided into grid control areas, i.e., cells, which are defined as portions of the grid having adequate monitoring infrastructure and local reserves capacity, allowing voltage and balancing (frequency) problems to be solved at cell level, under the responsibility of a Cell System Operator (CSO) (present Distribution System Operator (DSO)/Transmission System Operator (TSO)). In order to foster the practical realization of the WoC-based architecture, the related wholesale electricity market and market for frequency and voltage control are proposed considering the competitive market principles, including transparency. The critical review of the existing EU regulations dealing with this issue suggests respecting the valid provisions on market transparency while tailoring them into the WoC-based architecture. Moreover, in order to take into account the WoC peculiarities, a set of integrations to the current regulatory rules is also proposed, addressing: (1) disclosure of information in respect to attributes of emerging technologies such as renewable energy sources (RES), distributed energy resources (DER), storage ; (2) provision of generation and load forecast information ; (3) process of procurement of flexibilities ; (4) retail market transparency ; (5) disclosure of privacy-sensitive household attributes ; and (6) disclosure of information on market for frequency and voltage control.
BASE
Intro -- Title Page -- Foreword -- Preface -- Introduction -- Chapter 1: Faith and Religion -- Chapter 2: Secularity and Religion -- Chapter 3: Hegelian and Post-Hegelian Approaches -- Chapter 4: Between Secular and Religious -- Chapter 5: Secular Faiths Today -- Conclusion -- Bibliography.
This paper investigates the regulatory rules of market transparency which could be applied within the wholesale electricity market and market for frequency and voltage control in the Web-of-Cells (WoC) decentralized power control architecture, which has been developed in the ELECTRA Project to respond the challenges and needs of the future power system (2030+). In this decentralized functional architecture for frequency and voltage control, the European Union (EU) power grid is divided into grid control areas, i.e., cells, which are defined as portions of the grid having adequate monitoring infrastructure and local reserves capacity, allowing voltage and balancing (frequency) problems to be solved at cell level, under the responsibility of a Cell System Operator (CSO) (present Distribution System Operator (DSO)/Transmission System Operator (TSO)). In order to foster the practical realization of the WoC-based architecture, the related wholesale electricity market and market for frequency and voltage control are proposed considering the competitive market principles, including transparency. The critical review of the existing EU regulations dealing with this issue suggests respecting the valid provisions on market transparency while tailoring them into the WoC-based architecture. Moreover, in order to take into account the WoC peculiarities, a set of integrations to the current regulatory rules is also proposed, addressing: (1) disclosure of information in respect to attributes of emerging technologies such as renewable energy sources (RES), distributed energy resources (DER), storage; (2) provision of generation and load forecast information; (3) process of procurement of flexibilities; (4) retail market transparency; (5) disclosure of privacy-sensitive household attributes; and (6) disclosure of information on market for frequency and voltage control. ; publishedVersion ; © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
BASE
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 24, Heft 6, S. 5898-5907
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Journal of neurological surgery. Part A, Central European neurosurgery = Zentralblatt für Neurochirurgie, Band 84, Heft 3, S. 219-226
ISSN: 2193-6323
Abstract
Background Completely extradural spinal schwannomas have a unique morphology (dumbbell tumors) with an intra- and extraspinal component. When they compromise two contiguous vertebral bodies or have an extraspinal extension >2.5 cm, they are classified as giant spinal schwannomas. The aim of this study is to present our experience in the surgical management of completely extradural giant spinal schwannomas with a minimally invasive approach.
Methods This study is a case series of patients treated at the Neurosurgery Department of the University Clinical and Provincial Hospital of Barcelona, Spain, between January 2016 and December 2019.
Results Fifteen patients met the inclusion criteria, with thoracic and lumbar spines being the most frequent locations. All patients underwent surgical treatment, with a mini-open interlaminar and far-lateral technique. Total gross resection was accomplished in all patients and spine instrumentation was not necessary.
Conclusions Microsurgery is the treatment of choice for spinal schwannomas, and gross total resection with low morbidity must be the surgical goal. Mini-open interlaminar and far-lateral access is a valid surgical option, with low morbidity in experienced hands, and there is no need for spinal instrumentation.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
BASE
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.
BASE