Suchergebnisse

This thesis argues that there is a connection between the secularisation of ethics in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and the rise to moral legitimacy and literary respectability of prose fiction from the mid-eighteenth century onwards. The Introduction traces the separation of ethics from religion from the mid-seventeenth century, when the Anglican Church began to define religion in terms of morality. After 1660, the authority of the Church tended to be subsumed within the authority of the State, and the cause o f moral reform was taken up by lay agencies, and lay writers. In the highly influential Tatler and Spectator, Joseph Addison and Richard Steele argued for an idea of morality and 'politeness' around which the nation could cohere. The dominance of Whig politics ensured the subordinate position o f the Church, and when a challenge to Anglican practice and teaching emerged in the form of Methodism in the 1730s, the Church lacked an effective means of reply. ; TARA (Trinity's Access to Research Archive) has a robust takedown policy. Please contact us if you have any concerns: rssadmin@tcd.ie

SIMPLE SUMMARY: During emergencies, people's decision-making and actions are strongly influenced by their relationship with their animals. In emergency management, a holistic approach is needed which recognises the important interrelationships between animal welfare, human well-being, and the physical and social environment. It is also vital to break down barriers of collaboration between individuals, organisations, and the community. One Welfare, a concept with human–animal-environment interdependencies at its core, provides a framework to achieve this. Successful implementation of a transformative change will require positive strategies to deal with challenges and to ensure that animals are truly integrated into emergency management, not just included as an aside. ABSTRACT: Responding to emergencies requires many different individuals and organisations to work well together under extraordinary circumstances. Unfortunately, the management of animal welfare in emergencies remains largely disconnected from emergency management overall. This is due predominately to professional silos and a failure to understand the importance of human–animal-environment (h-a-e) interdependencies. One Welfare (OW) is a concept with these interrelationships at its core. This paper argues that by adopting an OW framework it will be possible to achieve a transdisciplinary approach to emergency management in which all stakeholders acknowledge the importance of the h-a-e interdependencies and work to implement a framework to support this. Acknowledging that such a transformational change will not be easy, this paper proposes several strategies to overcome the challenges and optimise the outcomes for animal welfare emergency management (AWEM). These include legislation and policy changes including h-a-e interface interactions as business as usual, improving knowledge through interprofessional education and training, incorporating One Welfare champions, and recognising the role of animals as vital conduits into communities.

The purpose of this study was to assess patient preference and product efficacy of three non‐prescription products for the symptomatic relief of xerostomia. The study group consisted of 80 individuals with a complaint of chronic (> six months) xerostomia and an unstimulated salivary flow rate of c 0.1 mL/min. The three products—a sorbitol/xylitol‐sweetened chewing gum, a sorbitol‐sweetened sour lemon lozenge, and a sorbitol/xylitol‐sweetened artificial saliva substitute spray—were assigned in a permuted block randomization scheme. Each product was used for two weeks with an interval of one week between trials. The study did not identify any product to be statistically significant in terms of patient preference. Kruskal‐Wallis testing revealed no statistical significance (P > 0.589) among the products. No product demonstrated marked efficacy in stimulating salivary output. ANOVA analysis followed by Tukey HSD testing revealed no significant difference between the baseline paraffin‐stimulated mean flow rate and the gum‐ and lozenge‐stimulated flow rates.