Your search for: alisdair AND macintyre

This is a revised and expanded edition of a classic in palliative medicine, originally pulished in 1991. With three new chapters and a new preface summarizing the progress in the area of pain management, this is a must-have for those in palliative medicine and hospice care. The obligation of ...

This is a revised and expanded edition of a classic in palliative medicine, originally pulished in 1991. With three new chapters and a new preface summarizing the progress in the area of pain management, this is a must-have for those in palliative medicine and hospice care. The obligation of physicians to relieve human suffering stretches back into antiquity. But what exactly is suffering? One patient with metastatic cancer of the stomach, from which he knew he would shortly die, said he was not suffering. Another, someone who had been operated on for a minor problem - in little pain and not seemingly distressed, said that even coming into the hospital had been a source of pain and suffering. With such varied responses to the problem of suffering, inevitable questions arise. Is it the doctor's responsbility to treat the disease or the patient? What is the relationship between suffering and the goals of medicine? According to Dr Eric Cassell these are cruical questions, but unfortunately have remained only queries void of adequate solutions. It is time for the sick person, Cassell believes, to be not merely an important concern for physicians but the central focus of medicine. With this in mind, Cassell argues for an understanding of what changes should be made in order to successfully treat the sick while alleviating suffering, and how to actually go about making these changes with the methods and training techniques firmly rooted in the doctor's relationship with the patient. Dr Cassell offers an incisive critique of the approach of modern medicine. Drawing on a number of evocative patient narratives, he writes that the goal of medicine must be to treat an individual's suffering, and not just the disease. In addition, Cassell's thoughtful and incisive argument will appeal to psychologists and psychiatrists interested in the nature of pain and suffering.

The current development of biomedical ethics is a source of radical critique not only in the clinic, but also in the classroom. This volume argues that today's moral education is too abstract to be effective and would benefit from the adoption of the practical approach which is typical of biomedical ...

The current development of biomedical ethics is a source of radical critique not only in the clinic, but also in the classroom. This volume argues that today's moral education is too abstract to be effective and would benefit from the adoption of the practical approach which is typical of biomedical ethics--"thinking with cases." In presenting this approach, Radest explores various issues of moral epistemology and advocates the urgency of realism and decision in ethics. The use of a rich and complex literature drawn from biomedical ethics, pedagogy, and philosophy serves to stimulate the reader to think through the moral complexity and ambivalence of modern experience.

In September 1993, Israel and the PLO signed their first peace treaty; in April 1994, South Africa held its first nonracial elections. Jacqueline Rose argues here for the importance of these two arenas of historic conflict to the English literary and cultural imagination and to the new disciplinary ...

In September 1993, Israel and the PLO signed their first peace treaty; in April 1994, South Africa held its first nonracial elections. Jacqueline Rose argues here for the importance of these two arenas of historic conflict to the English literary and cultural imagination and to the new disciplinary boundaries of the humanities today. As in her previous books, her fundamental question is the place of fantasy in public and private identities. But in States of Fantasy she pushes her investigation into what at first glance seem unlikely places. In fact, as she convincingly demonstrates, nowhere demonstrates more clearly than the above regions the need for a psychoanalytically informed understanding of historical process. And nothing makes more visible the unbreakable line that runs between literature and politics than the place of England and its writing in those histories. Her provocative study offers the strongest rebuttal to critics who try to sever the links between the study of literature and culture and the making and unmaking of the modern world.

This inclusive study examines the extraordinarily high rates of political nonparticipation in the United States and the political, historical, institutional, and philosophical roots of such widespread apathy. To explain why individuals become committed to political apathy as a political role, Tom ...

This inclusive study examines the extraordinarily high rates of political nonparticipation in the United States and the political, historical, institutional, and philosophical roots of such widespread apathy. To explain why individuals become committed to political apathy as a political role, Tom DeLuca begins by defining "the two faces of political apathy."The first, rooted in free will, properly places responsibility for nonparticipation in the political process on individuals. Political scientists and journalists, however, too often overlook a second, more insidious face of apathy-a condition created by institutional practices and social and cultural structures that limit participation and political awareness. The public blames our most disenfranchised citizens for their own disenfranchisement. Apathetic citizens blame themselves.DeLuca examines classic and representative explanations of non-participation by political analysts across a range of methodologies and schools of thought. Focusing on their views on the concepts of political power and political participation, he assesses current proposals for reform. He argues that overcoming the second face of apathy requires a strategy of "real political equality," which includes greater equality in the availability of political resources, in setting the political agenda, in clarifying political issues, and in developing a public sphere for more genuine democratic politics. Author note:Tom DeLucais Assistant Professor of Political Science at Fordham College at Lincoln Center. He has been a long-time activist on local and national issues, especially nuclear arms control, and his op-ed pieces on politics have appeared inThe New York Times,New York Newsday,The Nation, andThe Progressive.