The Counselor as “Chicken”

Is the counselor a wrestler who struggles with a client—adversary? This article argues for taking a one-down position rather than fighting or confronting.     

Patterns of couple interaction during the transition to parenthood

Using latent transition analysis, this study identified Constructive and Destructive marital problem‐solving patterns in couples prenatally and at 3, 12, and 24 months postbirth. Most couples remained in the same group across the 2 years (27.5% and 52.2% who started as Destructive and Constructive, respectively). Always Destructive spouses reported more depressive symptomatology and more negative and less positive views of marriage than Always Constructive couples. Mixed wives mirrored Always Constructive wives in their depressive symptomatology and concurrent views of marriage; mixed husbands mirrored Always Constructive husbands in their depressive symptomatology and Always Destructive husbands in their concurrent views of marriage. Mixed couples divorced or separated at the highest rates (35.7%), while Always Constructive couples tended to remain married (93.1%).     

Informed Consent and the Requirement to Ensure Understanding

It is generally held that doctors and researchers have an obligation to obtain informed consent. Over time there has been a move in relation to this obligation from a requirement to disclose information to a requirement to ensure that that information is understood. Whilst this change has been resisted, in this article I argue that both sides on this matter are mistaken. When investigating what information is needed for consent to be informed we might be trying to determine what information a person would need in order to consent at all, or we might be trying to determine what information a person needs in order to make an informed choice about whether or not to consent. I argue that the obligation to ensure understanding only applies to information generated by the first type of enquiry; but that much of the information generally thought necessary in order for consent to be informed is only required if our concern is with the second type of enquiry. For this reason it is neither the case that doctors and researchers should ensure all the information they provide is understood, nor is it the case that their only obligation is to disclose it.     

RESCUING RELIGIOUS NON‐REALISM FROM CUPITT

Don Cupitt's version of religious non‐realism based as it is on linguistic constructivism, radical relativism and the view that culture forms human nature has been attacked with devastating effect by realists in the last few years. I argue that there is another strand in Cupitt's thinking, his biological naturalism, that supports a different version of religious non‐realism and that he failed to see this possibility because of his global non‐realism and commitment to the strong programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge. Cupitt's biological naturalism should have led smoothly into evolutionary psychology, which has an account of religious belief that supports a non‐realist interpretation. Evolutionary psychology shows that religious beliefs are natural, normal and about matters of the deepest significance to humans. They gain their character from the operation of evolved structures of the mind and cannot be reduced to other sorts of belief. I argue that the form of religious non‐realism that emerges from taking biological naturalism seriously has a future because it respects the nature of religious belief and seeks to build on its capacity as a unique source of meaning in people's lives. There is also enough common ground with religious realism for there to be genuine dialogue between the two.