Dignity,Disability, and Lifespan

In the Paraplegia Case, we must choose either to preserve the life of a paraplegic for 10 years or that of someone in full health for the same duration. Non‐consequentialists reject a benefit‐maximising view, which holds that since the person in full health will have a higher quality of life, we ought to save him straightaway. In the Unequal Lifespan Case, we face a choice between saving one person for 5 years in full health and another for 25 years in full health. Frances Kamm has recently unfurled an Equal Respect Argument in an effort to support the position that while we ought to give each person a 50% chance of being saved in the Paraplegia Case, we are morally permitted to save straightaway the person who would live longer in the Unequal Lifespan case. The article tries to show that a Kant‐inspired account of the dignity of persons is far more successful than Kamm's argument in supporting this position. The Kant‐inspired account owes this success to its conceiving of respect for persons not primarily as respect for their pursuit of what is of value for them, but rather as respect for the value in them.     

The epistemology of religiosity: an Orthodox Jewish perspective

This paper focusses on the Rabbinic suggestion that the attitude of awe, rather than any particular belief, lies at the heart of religiosity. On the basis of these Rabbinic sources, and others, the paper puts forward three theses: (1) that belief is not a sufficiently absorbing epistemic attitude to bear towards the truths of religion; (2) that much of our religious knowledge isn’t mediated via belief; and (3) that make-believe is sometimes more important, in the cultivation of religiosity than is mere belief.     

Group Psychotherapy in General Hospitals

This article is an Editor's Introduction to this Special Issue of the Journal on the integration of research and practice in the field of group psychotherapy. The emphasis in this issue is on the clinical application of research instruments to evaluate and to facilitate group experiences. Illustrations are drawn from each of the following six articles to highlight the practical utility of research measures. Moreover, recommendations are offered for how clinicians can incorporate these instruments into their group treatments to structure the therapeutic process.     

Some statistical treatments compatible with individual organism methodology

Consider experimental treatments with consequences so irreversible that baseline performance cannot be recovered. The conventional method of assessing the effects of such treatments by statistical means involves separate experimental and control groups. An alternative proposed here is to administer the experimental treatment to each subject, one subject at a time and in a random order; whenever any subject receives the experimental treatment, those subjects which have not yet received it receive a control treatment. This procedure permits results significant at the one-tailed 0.05 level to be obtained with four subjects; if a two-group procedure evaluated by means of the U test is used, a minimum of six subjects is needed for the same significance level. More generally, the procedure permits equal sensitivity to any experimental effect with over 30% fewer subjects than a two-group procedure. Extensions of the basic method are made to a variety of levels of the experimental treatment and to treatments without irreversible effects, and limitations of the method are discussed.     

Clinicians' judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of the DSM-IV and five-factor models

Clinical utility, or the usefulness of a diagnostic system in clinical practice, has been identified as an important construct in proposed revisions to the diagnostic nomenclature and a significant limitation of dimensional models of personality disorder, such as the 5-factor model (FFM). Only 1 study to date has addressed explicitly the clinical utility of the FFM, and the findings suggested significant limitations. In the current study, 245 practicing psychologists described 3 historic cases using both the FFM and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and then rated each model on 6 aspects of clinical utility. In contrast to prior research, the psychologists in this study considered the FFM to have greater clinical utility than the existing diagnostic categories.