反思医院泄露病人隐私现象

医院泄露病人隐私现象,是阻碍医患关系的和谐发展的绊脚石,是一种医疗领域人文缺失的表现。作为医院要设身处地的多为患者考虑,把尊重病人隐私当成一种常态,作为病人、家属及探视者,要自觉形成保护他人隐私的公德意识。     

Why Not Now? Karlstadt's Whether We Should Proceed Slowly and Avoid Offending the Weak in Matters that Concern God's Will (1524)

Abstract

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt's Whether We Should Proceed Slowly [Ob man gemach faren soll] in 1524 was no best seller, and the work is often overlooked today. However, its author was a prolific publisher, especially of German tracts, in the early sixteenth century. His influence upon other so-called radical reformers remains yet to be measured adequately. Despite the fact that Gemach was written shortly before Karlstadt's expulsion from Electoral Saxony, its thesis resonated strongly with other writers who were disenchanted with the trajectory of reforms in Wittenberg after 1522. A careful analysis of Karlstadt's argumentation reveals a rigorous reliance upon Old Testament texts, and it represents the development of a position that holds the Christian congregation responsible for implementing reforms in worship that are mandated in God's commands. As Karlstadt's response to Luther's Invocavit Sermons (preached in March 1522 and published outside Wittenberg in 1523), Gemach shows what Gordon Rupp called Karlstadt's ‘best polemical writing.'     

Autobiographical narratives of spiritual experiences: Solitude,tragedy, and the absence of materialism

Two studies examined the interaction between subjective well-being (SWB) and meaning in life (MIL) vis-à-vis self-perceptions of actual or potential threats to one's physical and mental integrity, hereby defined as the hostile-world scenario (HWS). Study 1 (N?=?608) showed that the relationship between SWB and MIL strengthened as the HWS increased. Study 2 (Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe; SHARE-Israel; N?=?1665) similarly showed that SWB and MIL were strongly linked as lifetime cumulative adversity, the ultimate realization of the HWS, increased. Study 2 further showed that when one construct (whether SWB or MIL) was low, the other construct acted as a moderator of the effect of cumulative adversity on functioning. In conclusion, although SWB and MIL are more strongly linked under adverse circumstances, they are likely to compensate for each other, perhaps due to their unique operations.     

Beweislastverteilung und Intuitionen in philosophischen Diskursen

Allocating the burden of proof and intuitions in philosophical disputes.– This paper criticises the view that in philosophical disputes the onus probandi rests on those who advance a position that contradicts our basic intuitions. Such a rule for allocating the burden of proof may be an adequate reconstruction of everyday justification, but is unreasonable in the area of philosophy. In philosophy it is not only difficult to determine the plausibility of a proposition, at the same time contradictory claims may be equally plausible. – In contrast to such common sense proposals I try to show that in philosophical disputes the burden of proof does not depend on the material content of speech acts. A speaker simply bears the burden of proof for a proposition p if he has asserted that p and has agreed to justify it. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation

The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I conclude (section 4) by suggesting that the resolution to the dispute between Gilbert and his objectors hinges on the outcome of several foundational theoretical questions identified over the course of the paper.     

The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation

This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better identification of fallacies. The paper ends with a brief overview of current research projects.     

键盘操作的工效学研究回顾

对K键盘、分离键盘、TONY键盘、槽式键盘及和弦键盘等的工效特征 (输入效率、肌肉疲劳、EMG特征和主观舒适感 )进行了比较和总结 ,系统地回顾和分析了键盘启动力和听觉反馈等因素对操作者打字力、肌肉活动水平和主观舒适感的影响效应。在总结近几十年相关研究的基础上 ,提出今后应进一步开展键盘启动力、打字速度和反馈方式等方面的研究。     

Argumentational Integrity: A Training Program for Dealing with Unfair Argumentative Contributions

In this article we present a training program based on the empirical research conducted in the project 'argumentational integrity'. After a brief sketch of the problem dimensions concerning unfair argumentation we give an overview of the training concept and the underlying empirical research. Exemplification of the instructional design is given for the second and the fifth training dimension (standards of argumentational integrity and reactions to unfair contributions). Finally we indicate how the training is to be evaluated and present initial results demonstrating that in comparison with an untrained control group participants in the training significantly improve their skills in identifying and naming argumentative rule violations.     

'I'm Just Saying . . .': Discourse Markers of Standpoint Continuity

Examining discourse markers (Schiffrin, 1987) in two transcribed discussions of controversial issues in an undergraduate 'critical thinking' class, we note frequent uses of 'I'm just saying' and related metadiscursive expressions (I'm/we're saying, I'm/we're not saying, etc.). Our central claim is that these 'saying' expressions are pragmatic devices by which speakers claim 'all along' to have held a consistent argumentative standpoint, one that continues through the discussion unless changed for good reasons. Through close analysis of a series of discourse examples, we show how these discourse markers are used to display continuity, deflect counterarguments, and acknowledge the force of counterarguments while preserving continuity. In a concluding section we reflect critically on the use of these continuity markers with regard to four pragmatic functions that they potentially serve: to specify and clarify argumentative standpoints, to acknowledge a presumption of standpoint continuity, to acknowledge a normative expectation that discussion participants should have standpoints, and to avoid overt disagreement while saving face.     

Drug effects on repeated acquisition: comparison of cumulative and non-cumulative dosing

Pigeons acquired a different four-response chain each session by responding sequentially on three keys in the presence of a sequence of four colors. The response chain was maintained by food presentation under a fixed-ratio schedule. Errors produced a brief timeout but did not reset the chain. Each day there were four 15-minute sessions, with a 10-minute inter-session interval. Cumulative dose-effect curves for phencyclidine, pentobarbital, and d-amphetamine were obtained by giving an injection before each of the four sessions; successive injections increased the cumulative dose in equally spaced logarithmic steps. For comparison, non-cumulative doses of each drug (i.e., doses not preceded by other doses on the same day) were also tested. As the cumulative dose of each drug increased, the overall response rate decreased, the percent errors increased, and there was less within-session error reduction (acquisition). With phencyclidine and pentobarbital, the rate-decreasing and error-increasing effects tended to be greater with a non-cumulative dose than with the corresponding cumulative dose. In contrast, with d-amphetamine, the effects were considerably greater with the cumulative doses. The results indicate that although the cumulative-dosing procedure saved a substantial amount of time in determining dose-effect curves, there were quantitative differences in effects between cumulative and non-cumulative doses.