Search Results

This chapter reviews the history of several causes of death on the Navajo reservation. It is noted that tuberculosis therapy brought about the decline in its morbidity and mortality. Additionally, the factors contributing to the decline in infant mortality include improved medical therapy and nutritional status. It is also shown that adult mortality has been reduced primarily by medical measures, whereas infant and child mortality have declined as a result of less specific changes. It may be said that postneonatal mortality rates are highest in the poorest populations; circulatory diseases, followed by gastrointestinal diseases and accidental deaths, are highest in wage work populations; and infectious diseases and symptoms and ill-defined conditions are somewhat ambiguously placed, evidently affecting children in poor populations as well as adults in wage work populations.

Losing a sibling or even a parent can have a rather profound effect on a child. However, there are some deaths that can easily induce trauma in a child, specifically sudden and unexpected deaths. Two examples of such deaths are accidental deaths and murders, particularly where the child witnesses the accident or the murder. This chapter discusses what it is like to work with traumatically bereaved children and looks at the concept of ‘traumatic stress reactions’.

This chapter discusses the case of stagehand Guillaume Langlois who in March 1830 was obliged to account for his role in the accidental death by cannon-fire of his friend and colleague Jehan Hemont. It discusses Langlois' recollection of the events and King Charles' decision to absolve him of all criminal wrongdoing in the fatal accident that had caused the death of his friend Jehan. This chapter explains that this case raised serious legal questions about liability, responsibility and morality at the theater and it is also relevant to the four types of intentionality, which include actual, achieved, declared, and perceived intentions.

This chapter discusses the case of Perrin Le Roux, a stagehand who was accidentally killed by Fremin Severin during a rehearsal of the play Miracle of Théophile in June 1384. This is similar to the case of Guillaume Langlois in terms of special effects gone awry and the king's absolution. This chapter suggests that Severin's case not only provided insights into the nature of both work performance and legal work product, it also justifies the assertion that there is no such thing as accidental impersonation. It also argues that this case concept of the rehearsal makes sense only in light of intentionality.

The argument presented in this book is that among Navajo Indians, medical therapy was of enormous value in treating some of the most important infectious diseases but is and will continue to be of questionable value in reducing mortality from the causes that are now of major significance—accidental and other violent deaths. It also addresses what it means when a society defines conditions as diseases instead of something else. It is noted that the social role of the hospital changed as disease patterns changed. The data also reveal that medical therapy has been effective in some important instances in less developed nations and in segments of the populations of developed ones. However, they indicate that the triumphs of the past may not be predictive of equal success in the future. An overview of the chapters included in this book is offered.

This chapter discusses the case of Henry D'Anoux who fell on his knife while dancing and accidentally killed himself during a wedding reception in October 1504. It explains that D'Anoux has been known to perform acrobatics, somersaults, tumbling and mime with a knife dangling in his buttocks. The analysis of this case provides a new understanding of theatrical performativity which in turn facilitates a critical reassessment of the concept of intentional fallacy.

This chapter revaluates the concept of intentional fallacy in relation to the accidental deaths related to the theater discussed in the first part of this volume. It suggests that there is no intentional fallacy when it comes to the theater by looking to the critical (mis)fortunes of the intentional fallacy itself. This chapter also argues that the text-bound dismissal of intentionality reveals an almost agentless quality that is characterized by three fallacies of logic and morality alike.

The production of “major films” was an insistent preoccupation of Soviet cinema’s regulatory bodies both at government and at Party levels. A director regarded as particularly successful in this respect was Gleb Panfilov. His 1975 film, May I Speak?, addressed issues of personal responsibility. The balance of public and family duties, which were of enormous importance in political debates at the time the screenplay was written, and its sympathetic portrait of a leading official were reassuring to commentators at Goskino and in Party offices at various levels. Panfilov was, unlike most younger artists at Lenfilm, a member of the Party and valued his parents’ Communist principles. The argument of some post-Soviet commentators—that May I Speak? represents a veiled attack upon its protagonist, Elizaveta Uvarova—is difficult to sustain. Yet Uvarova remains an ambiguous figure, and the treatment of her is enigmatic, not least in terms of gender identities, as the discussion here shows.

Valuable armchair arguments are shaped by significant reservoirs of knowledge, albeit knowledge that lies in their background, rather than the foreground. So understood armchair arguments are essential to any serious investigation of the issue of gun control. They help establish the burden of proof: they show what it is reasonable to believe if the rights-based arguments and the empirical evidence are less than compelling. They inform the arguments about the serious right to bear arms. They are essential in seeking and evaluating empirical evidence: they enable researchers to know how to structure empirical research and how to interpret their findings.

Putative authorities espouse incompatible claims about the costs and benefits of permitting extensive private ownership of guns. In the face of this disagreement, what is a conscientious citizen or legislator to do? I explain how one might determine if a reputed authority really is an authority. I then explore ways to evaluate the experiments and findings of prominent gun researchers. I first discuss the two pillars of the pro-gun arguments and explains why both are wanting. It then evaluates the pro-control arguments. I show why, their claims, although suggestive, are not wholly persuasive. I further, explain why there we also cannot obtain rock solid empirical evidence of the benefits of control.