Suchergebnisse

Investigates the international practice of providing medical care to convicts to imprisonment. Based on the results of the analysis of domestic legislation and the current foreign practice, the author makes the following conclusions. The concept of development of the penal system of the Russian Federation until 2020 in the aspect of providing medical care to convicts cannot be implemented in full because of problems in the field of material and technical, personnel, medical, resource support of correctional institutions. The study of the experience of foreign countries shows that the penal system uses both the model of sending patients to external medical institutions and the model by which medical personnel are sent from the national service to the prison. In a number of countries, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Sweden have adopted mixed funding through the national health service and prison administration, and in England and Wales, Iceland, Cyprus, Norway funding is provided through the national health system. An analysis of practice shows that in Belgium, Ireland, Lithuania, it is generally not accepted to transfer prisoners from places of detention to hospitals for treatment, in England and Wales, Bulgaria, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and France, the hospitals themselves are responsible for the safety of the transfer of prisoners. In the rest of the countries, the security of the transfer is ensured by prison guards or the police. The author concludes that the introduction of national standards for the management of patients, including a wide range of diseases, into the penitentiary system of Russia presents significant difficulties. One of the main obstacles is the structure of the medical service of the penitentiary system, the analogue of which does not exist in public health. With such a volume of health care, the existing structure of material and technical equipment, the staff of the medical unit, as well as insufficient funding do not allow to fully adhere to medical and economic standards.

The article considers the mechanisms of assimilation of new knowledge in science - scientific communication (in particular, scientific discussion), justification, understanding. Scientific communication gives the results of individual cognitive acts a universal and necessary character. In scientific discussions, arguments are accumu-lated for the scientific community to choose more promising knowledge, and prerequisites for the recognition of new knowledge are formalized. Justification acts as a mechanism for giving knowledge an intersubjective character. As a result of establishing the conformity of new knowledge to those elements of science, the truth of which has already been proved, and checking the new knowledge for compliance with the criteria of truth and methodological regulators, the characteristics of the foundation – the truth and effectiveness of established knowledge, the characteristics of scientificity – are transferred to the new, justifiable knowledge. nderstanding is the mechanism of assimilation, which ensures the harmonization, conformity of new and old knowledge. Representation of the meaning of knowledge objects in content coincides with its introduction into already exist-ing more general scientific systems, for example, in a discipline, branch of knowledge, which ensures the har-monization of new and old knowledge.

The article describes the recognition factors of new knowledge in science. Relevance of the topic is determined by the growing for more than half a century influence of science on the development of all spheres of social life. The classification of the factors of assimilation of new scientific ideas on various grounds is given. Due to the distinction between internal and external regularities of science development, internal and external factors of new knowledge acceptance are distinguished, which is further concretized in their division into those condi-tioned by the logic of science development itself, worldview and socio-psychological. Since the assimilation of a new theory takes place in the process of its formation, factors that exist at the moment of the new theory's creation and those that are created as the theory itself develops are outlined. Examples from the history of sci-ence are presented, on the basis of which it is concluded that the untimeliness and inadequacy of the assess-ment and perception of new theories is associated with the non-simultaneity of the formation of recognition factors of different types. Relatively painless and calm assimilation of the new in science occurs when there is a unity of the above factors.