A Feminist Critique of the Sexual Dysfunction Nomenclature

No abstract available for this article.     

西方哲学史撰作中的分期与标名问题

本文分引论、通论、分论和结论四部分。在“引论”中,作者首先介绍了康德和黑格尔对哲学史的看法,但作者认为两种看法都有一定问题,就是康德把哲学史看得太轻闲,而黑格尔则把哲学史订得太封闭。在“通论”中,为了探讨哲学史撰作的意义根本,作者列举了一些要目,作为反省的据点,其中包括：康德就“学院意义的哲学”与“世界意义的哲学”的区别、哲学活动的“处境”问题、哲学史撰作涉及的处境差距、哲学史的过去与未来导向、哲学史的主动性和进步问题、哲学史的分期和标名及种种有关的复杂性、哲学史的发展与脉络问题等等。在“分论”中,为了说明上述要目对哲学史的撰作和理解的深远影响,作者列举了西方哲学史各种最具代表性的分期和标名,以显出其中所可能涉及的种种复杂性,并作出初步的批判的反思。在“结论”中,作者带出“实质”和“虚灵”两种哲学史撰作风格的区别(前者为史实导向而后者为意义导向),并指出必须能于前者之上进一步发展后者,哲学史家才能于哲学史的撰作中取得方法上的主动和让哲学史的意义空间得到有创意的开拓。     

Beyond the Tower of Babel: A Nomenclature for Suicidology

Suicidology finds itself confused and stagnated for lack of a standard nomenclature. This paper proposes a nomenclature for suicide-related behavior in the hope of improving the clarity and precision of communications, advancing suicidological research and knowledge, and improving the efficacy of clinical interventions.     

Implementation of a Suicide Nomenclature within Two VA Healthcare Settings

Suicide and suicide attempts are significant issues for military, Veterans Affairs (VA), and civilian healthcare systems. The lack of uniform terms related to self-directed violence (SDV) has inhibited epidemiological surveillance efforts, limited the generalizability of empirical studies of suicide and non-lethal forms of SDV, and complicated the implementation of evidence-based assessment and treatment strategies for individuals with suicidal thoughts and/or behaviors. The Department of Veterans Affairs recently adopted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) SDV Classification System (SDVCS). This paper describes an implementation study of the SDVCS in two VA Medical Centers. The Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) 19 Mental Illness Research, Education and Clinical Center (MIRECC) training program for the SDVCS, including the SDVCS Clinical Tool (CT), will be discussed. Although preliminary data suggest that the CT and SDVCS are generally perceived as being acceptable and useful, further work will likely be required to facilitate widespread adoption. Potential next steps in this process are presented.     

New Nomenclature for Sexually Abusive Youth: Naming and Assessing Sexually Violent and Predatory Offenders

New nomenclature is presented identifying two subsets of sexually abusive youths currently not defined in the literature or in existing models or risk assessment tools: sexually violent youth (YSV) and predatory sexually violent youth (YPSV). Distinctively and qualitatively different, these youths are more dangerous, manifest higher levels of coercion (e.g., threats of bodily injury, use of weapons), or are predatory sexually violent toward strangers or casual acquaintances. Discussed is the innovative, empirically guided risk assessment tool Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Children and Adolescents (Ages 19 and Under) (MEGA) (Miccio-Fonseca, 2006a Miccio-Fonseca, L. C. August 2006a. Multiplex Empirically Guided Inventory of Ecological Aggregates for Assessing Sexually Abusive Children and Adolescents (Ages 19 and Under)—MEGA, August, San Diego, CA: Author.  [Google Scholar]) for assessing the level of risk for all youths (male and female) under the age of 19 years, including YSVs and YPSVs.     

Standardized Human Pedigree Nomenclature: Update and Assessment of the Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors

In 1995, the Pedigree Standardization Task Force (PSTF) of the National Society of Genetic Counselors (NSGC) proposed a system of pedigree nomenclature. Recently, the PSTF (now called the Pedigree Standardization Work Group or PSWG) sought evidence that the published symbols met the needs of health professionals, were incorporated into health professional training and were utilized in publications. We searched PubMed and reference lists of select publications, reviewed the Instructions for Authors of several journals, searched the websites of professional societies, sought comment from the membership of the NSGC, and looked at recommendations and training practices of various health professional organizations. Many journals still do not cite specific standards for pedigrees, but those found cited the PSTF nomenclature. We did not find significant objections or alternatives to the 1995 nomenclature. Based on our review, we propose only a few minor stylistic changes to the pedigree symbols. The pedigree nomenclature of the NSGC is the only consistently acknowledged standard for drawing a family health history. We recommend regular and continued review of these pedigree standards to determine if additional symbols are needed to accommodate changes in clinical practice to ensure that the symbols continue to meet the needs of health professionals and researchers as well as adhere to evolving ethical and privacy standards. All health professionals, trainees, and researchers should be made aware of the utility of using a common pedigree nomenclature in clinical practice and publication. This will become particularly important as electronic medical records become more widely utilized.