text:
Bioethics/Introduction

no in order to approach some of the ethical dilemmas in contemporary clinical medicine. Major ethical systems - Kantian, utilitarian, virtue-centered, and care-oriented - all impact on contemporary bioethical discourse.

Some of the questions addressed by bioethics include: When should life-sustaining treatments like breathing machines or feeding tubes be started, continued or stopped? What should family members and health to participate in their own health care decisions?

Some specific fields of bioethics are summarized below:

Medical Ethics and the Law
This field concerns the relationship between clinical bioethics and the law that has evolved as clinical care has become increasingly complex with new medical technologies. It emphasizes legal theories and principles concerning ethical issues in the context of clinical care. Topics include advance directives, proxy decision-making, issues of consent and confidentiality, withholding and withdrawing care, the definition of death, mental competence and related matters.

Ethics of Research and Experimentation
This field concerns the principles of clinical and experimental research ethics and the regulation of research practices, particularly from the perspectives of the Nuremberg code and the Helsinki declaration. Topics include: scientific and research integrity; research with adult and pediatric human subjects; informed consent; vulnerable study populations; privacy and confidentiality of research and clinical records; conflicts of interest; research on animals; and research in third world nations.

Ethical Issues in Death and Dying
This field concerns the ethical issues associated with care of the terminally ill and with death issues more generally. Topics include: death; the definition and diagnosis of brain death; chronic vegetative states; loss of personhood; right-to-life/right-to-die; euthanasia; infanticide; physician-assisted suicide; palliative care; pain management; quality of life and related issues.

Ethical Issues in Health Care Allocation and Government Policy
This field concerns issues related to access to health care resources and on ways of understanding the issues of fairness and justice on an institutional system such as health care. Various models of paying for health care services and the ethical issues inherent in such systems, particularly in settings of limited resources are an important theme. Topics include: use of surrogates, transplantation policy, problems of financing, the allocation of resources, and experimentation.

Ethical Issues of Human Reproduction
This field concerns the various philosophical, legal and ethical issues dealing with human reproduction and considers differing philosophic and ethical positions relating to human reproduction. Topics include genetic engineering, reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, cloning, sanctity of life, the notion of family, etc.

Religion and Bioethics
This field concerns the various philosophical and ethical considerations of different religious faiths in the particular context of bioethics. Issues include: similarities and differences between religious faith and reasoned justification, the role of faith in morality and ethics, and the relationship of certain established faith traditions (e.g., Christianity, Judiasm, Islam) to particular issues in clinical and experimental medicine.

Ethical Relationships and the Health Care Team
This concerns the role of and relationships between various members of the health care team, focusing on their roles and responsibilities and how they influence decision making and communication regarding ethical issues. Issues concern the appropriate ways to resolve interpersonal difficulties such as challenging or disobeying a superior, reporting or stopping inappropriate behavior, and expressing moral or ethical judgments.

Bioethics Committees and Consulting
This field concerns the workings of hospital and university bioethics committees, institutional review boards, and bioethics consultants, focusing on understanding of nature, purpose and structure of these committees and of the role of bioethicists in such committees. National and international guidelines dealing with experimentation with human subjects, especially the Nuremberg code, are considered.

Ethical Issues in Genetics
This field concerns the bioethical issues present in the rapidly developing area of genetic technology, including the nature and methods of DNA analysis, the concept of genetic disease, genetic testing / screening for various diseases, genetic engineering of plants, animals and humans, and cloning. Social policy issues related to genetically modified foods are also important concerns.

 * Autonomy, Informed Consent and the Death of Therapeutic Privilege: Lessons Learned from the Jehovah’s Witnesses
 * Principlism
 * Bioethics and Moral Theory
 * Utilitarianism

PRINCIPLISM
One particulary popular approach to the analysis of bioethical problems is sometimes known as the “Georgetown School” of bioethics, named after Georgetown University where much of the early work on bioethics originated. This approach to bioethics emphasizes the principles of autonomy (respecting the decisions of autonomous persons), justice (fairness in the distribution of benefits and risks), nonmalfeasance (the duty to avoid causing harm); and beneficence (the duty to provide benefits and to balance benefits against risks). This approach is sometimes also known as "principlism".

“There are a set of principles or ideals which people use as a common ground for bioethics. They include the autonomy of individuals to make choices, while respecting the choices of others, justice. In all things we do, the ideal is to avoiding doing harm, and trying to do good” (Macer, 1999). Each of the following principles plays a key role in the composition of bioethics: respect, beneficence, justice, and do no harm. Individuals have autonomy (the right to make ones own decisions about their own actions freely and without concern) and we should respect people for the simple reason that they are counterparts to our health community. Beneficence is defined as having benefits that are proportionate to risks. For example, in researching treatments for a certain health problem, potential side effects should be weighed against the potential benefits and the weight distribution should be somewhat of an equal balance. Justice is seen as the even distribution of risks/benefits throughout the general public. In biomedical research, groups should potentially benefit and/or potentially be exposed to risk at the same rate of other groups unless there is some factor that justifies unequal distribution. And lastly, there is the principle of do no harm. This principle is quite clear in that certain ideas should not be presented nor should experiments/treatments be performed if we know that they will ultimately produce harm.

BIOETHICS AND MORAL THEORY
Central to bioethics is moral theory. Moral theory can be approached from many viewpoints [1]. The deontological approach to morality (from the Greek word deon, or duty) is based on specific obligations or duties. These can be positive (such as to care for our family) or negative (such as not to steal). This approach is also sometimes called nonconsequentialist since these principles are held to be obligatory regardless of any good or bad consequences of that might result. For example, it is wrong to kill even if it results in great benefit.

Philosophers have subdivided deontological theories into a number of categories, of which the concept of the “categorical imperative” developed by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is the best known. He said that we must “treat people as an end, and never as a means to an end”, by which he meant that we should always treat people with humanity and dignity, and never use individuals as “mere instruments” as a means to our own happiness. Another version of the categorical imperative is: "Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law." Other deontological approaches include “duty theory” (defining duties to God, duties to oneself, and duties to others), “rights theory” (concerned with rights that all people have, and which the rest of us must respect), and a more recent theory developed by W.D. Ross, which emphasizes prima facie duties.

The consequentialist approach to moral theory determines moral responsibility by weighing the consequences of one’s actions. According to the consequentialist view, correct moral actions are determined by a cost-benefit analysis concerning the consequences of an action.

Several subtypes of consequentialism have been proposed: (1) the view that an action is morally correct if its consequences are more positive or favorable than negative to the person performing the action (ethical egoism), (2) the view that an action is morally correct if the consequences of that action are more positive than negative to everyone except the person doing the action (ethical altruism), and (3) the view that an action is morally correct if the action’s consequences are more positive than negative to everyone (utilitarianism).

Any good moral theory should have a set of traits that defines them as being good. These characteristics are needed to avoid a number of philosophical flaws that might otherwise occur. These include: bias, cultural imperialism / cultural ideology, prejudice, racism, sexism and other defects in logic and thinking. I would hold that the following are desirable traits of any good moral theory. (1) It should be consistent – i.e., yielding similar results in similar settings. (2) It should be universal - i.e., if the theory applies to one individual, then it should apply to all individuals. (3) It should be intuitive – i.e., the theory fits our moral intuition.

Other individuals might add other characteristics to this list, such a need for the theory to be understandable by nonphilosophers (certainly a requirement for any practical theory), or the need for the theory not to be based on any religious teachings (although I feel that this is already covered by my requirement (2) above). Others might add the requirements of being time-invariant (that the principles hold true over time) and trans-cultural (that the principles apply to all cultures), but I view these also as being covered by requirement (2). Still others might state that any moral theory must respect all forms of human life, no matter how degraded., while animal rights advocates might emphasize that a moral theory must necessitate respect for all sentient life forms, not just humans. Finally, Princeton’s Professor Peter Singer would likely take issue with my third requirement that a moral theory be intuitive – his moral positions are often taken to be unintuitive and repugnant when first explained, especially in the matters of euthanasia and infanticide, although he makes his case forcefully and lucidly in his many writings.

Professor Paul Taylor, well-known for his writings in the domain of environmental ethics, argues that six characteristics are necessary for a philosophical principle to be a moral rule: (1) generality, (2) universality, (3) priority, (4) disinterestedness, (5) publicity, and (6) substantive impartiality. While his focus is on environmental ethics as opposed to bioethics, it can be seen that his views are substantially similar to mine once the meaning of the terms he uses are fully understood [2].

Beauchamp and Childress offer a number of useful notions on morality in the first chapter of their classic bioethics text [3], but their focus is not on developing a list of specific characteristics as, for example, Taylor has done. Still, their second chapter discusses this matter at some length, introducing requirements of clarity, coherence, completeness, simplicity, explanatory power, justificatory power and practicability. Finally, with respect to people's personal beliefs in the development of a good ethical theory, as discussed in requirement (3) above, a good moral theory should be intuitive with respect to existing beliefs, but only when the personal beliefs meet the other requirements of consistency, time-invariance etc. as discussed above.

UTILITARIANISM
Why does the moral theory of Utilitarianism seem to falter when it is applied to questions of social or individual justice?

Utilitarianism is a school of philosophical thought frequently identified with the writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In more recent years it has undergone a number of refinements, such as “Preference Utilitarianism”, advocated by Professor Peter Singer. Classical Utilitarianism advocates the principle of providing “the greatest happiness to the greatest number” as the basis for assessing the morality of various actions, while “Preference Utilitarianism” advocates the principle of meeting the preferences  of the greatest number of people. Thus good variously consists in providing maximal happiness (or satisfying people's preferences, in the case of Preference Utilitarianism) and the rightness of an action depends directly or indirectly on its yielding such outcomes. However, while Utilitarianism has had a strong influence of the intellectual landscape of philosophical discourse and, in particular, in ethical theory, Utilitarianism is often seen to falter when it is applied to questions of social or individual justice. In particular, Utilitarianism sometimes violates common-sense notions of justice. Because Utilitarianism seeks to maximize the total amount of a particular “utility” (like happiness or preferences) over an entire society or social group, it seeks whichever arrangement achieves maximum utility. But such an arrangement might be achieved by distributing benefits and burdens in a way that violates common notions of justice. For instance, the use of slaves might greatly help maximize the net happiness in a society, but common-sense notions of justice almost always take slavery to be wrong (with apologies to both Aristotle and Thomas Jefferson, who were both great intellectuals yet were slave owners).

Another serious criticism of Utilitarianism is that under the goal of maximizing happiness or some other utility, the wishes and desires of sadists and perverts are lumped in with the wishes and desires of everyone else when an overall determination of utility is made. By espousing a system in which the satisfaction of all desires are to be maximized, Utilitarianism can end up violating our intuitive precepts of natural justice. John Rawls takes the position that we must reject Utilitarianism and instead develop a deeper understanding of what is right and wrong as a basis for making ethical decisions. What is needed, Rawls argues, is moral theory with justice at its core. That being said, other philosophers have proposed extensions to the classical utilitarian model to deal with some of the limitations identified above. One example is “Negative Utilitarianism”, a moral philosophy aimed at producing the least amount of suffering throughout the world.

EQUITY ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE
In offering medical services there are often two kinds of health care systems to consider. First, in many countries there is a public system (funded primarily by taxes) that is usually accessible yet often limited in its resources. Then there is often also a private health care system, funded primarily via payments by private insurance or by occasional private individuals paying cash. Some countries have a predominantly public health care system (for instance, the Canadian system is almost entirely public, except for cosmetic procedures and the like), while some countries like the USA have a predominantly private health care system. The British system has both a public National Health Service as well as a thriving private system that has arisen in the face of the many shortcomings present in the National Health Service.

While resource limitations are a problem with all health systems, the problem is usually far worse in the public systems funded through taxation. As a result, many individuals involved in health policy research are seeking to determine which clinical services are most valuable and appropriate and which ones are of more limited value. Their motivation is to make the best use of public funds by only offering those procedures known to be most effective, and not offering procedures that are of very limited or no benefit.

The fact is that some common medical practices have no rational clinical basis in the sense that they provide no benefit relative to the potential risks. Perhaps the best known example is that of newborn circumcision, which is still carried out in 27% of Canadian newborn boys [1]. Other practices such as “female circumcision” can be frankly mutilating and even downright harmful, yet may be considered acceptable or even desirable in some cultures [2]. In a public health care system with limited resources, it makes sense either not to offer such procedures (in the case of male circumcision) or to explicitly forbid them when they are obviously harmful (as in the case of female circumcision). This is not to suggest that all clinically unnecessary procedures should always be unavailable – only that they should not be offered by the public health care system funded by tax money.

The Oregon Health Plan (OHP) [3] has been widely heralded as a landmark innovation in public health care policy that rations public medical resources by a system of prioritizing funding for health care. This is done through a process of systematically ranking publicly offered medical services, an approach that has drawn substantial international interest as a rational model of medical resource allocation.

In 1989, Oregon enacted legislation to provide basic health care to all residents on Medicaid, their public health care system. This required that services be prioritized to determine what would or would not be covered – effectively establishing a rationing plan. To do this, the Oregon legislature created a Health Services Commission charged with producing a list of health care services ranked in priority “according to comparative benefits of each service to the entire population being served.” They heard testimony of numerous panels of physicians from every specialty and assessed how well each treatment that might be offered affected quality of life. From this they established a “cost-effectiveness value” for each “condition-treatment pair”. The final product was a priority list of 709 condition-treatment pairs in ranked order. Based on the available state funds, a line was drawn on the list - any treatment above the line was covered; any treatment below the line was not. This turned out to be at the 587th condition-treatment pair.

While the Oregon system is not without its critics [4], the plan strikes me as a particularly fair and rational approach based on a process of public consultation coupled with clinical efficacy research. I would advocate this model as a good starting point for meeting the various needs and demands of a diverse population. This is not to suggest that the plan would necessarily apply to all residents – only those getting publicly-funded health care would be participate, and wealthier individuals with private insurance would participate in a different (more generous) plan.

Finally, there are a number of practices that are harmful to patients to the extent that they should be forbidden even when well-meaning individuals sometimes seek them. These include the previously mentioned practice of female circumcision, a number of dangerous quack remedies [5], and possibly the practice of euthanasia. Deciding which ineffective or potentially harmful practices should be tolerated (as we do with male circumcision), and which ones should be forbidden (as with female circumcision) is not always an  easy task, but application of the principle of nonmalfience is certainly one approach that has special merit. Still, the principle of nonmalfience may sometimes be in direct conflict with the principle of patient autonomy in the cases of patients seeking ineffective or dangerous treatments. In my book, the principle of nonmalfience takes absolute priority. After all, was it not Hypocrites who said “First do no harm.”

Appendix
The International Society for Equity in Health (www.iseqh.org) seeks to “promote equity in health and health services internationally through education, research, publication, communication and charitable support.” It is concerned with exactly the sort of questions that have been raised here: How does one ensure fairness in access to health care resources? What procedures should not be made publicly available in a socialized health care system? How do we deal with cultural and economic factors that impact on the demand for health care services? They begin by offering two working definitions:

Equity in Health: The absence of systematic and potentially remediable differences in one or more aspects of health across populations or population groups defined socially, economically, demographically, or geographically.

Inequity in health: Systematic and potentially remediable differences in one or more aspects of health across populations or population groups defined socially, economically, demographically, or geographically.

Also, the journal for the society, the International Journal for Equity in Health (http://www.equityhealthj.com), features a small number of articles that are helpful to address these issues. These and other sources identify a number of questions that need answering:
 * How is fairness in a health care system to be assessed?
 * Should health equity be measured at the individual or the group level?
 * To what extent are health status inequalities sensitive to the type of health measure used?

The interested reader is referred to these resources for more information.

DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
''"In a situation of unmet need, with patients dying daily for the want of a donor liver, what is fair to all patients is to have approximately the same opportunity of receiving a donor liver." Jeffrey Crippin MD, Baylor University''

Beauchamp and Childress (4th Edition, page 228) discuss various standards of fairness in the context of distributive justice. These are:
 * 1) To each person an equal share
 * 2) To each person according to need
 * 3) To each person according to effort
 * 4) To each person according to contribution
 * 5) To each person according to merit
 * 6) To each person according to free-market exchanges

These standards of fairness may be explored in the context of three commonly described models of distributive justice:
 * Egalitarian model - where individuals have equal access to goods and services
 * Utilitarian model - where goods and services are provided to those who are likely to benefit the most
 * Libertarian model - where individuals rights and resources govern access to goods and services

Which model one agrees with most will depend to some extent on whether one views health care as a right (implying a right to universal access to health care), views health care as a need  (where people with the greatest need have highest priority and  people with similar needs treated similarly ), or  views health care as a market commodity.

Let us now consider the words of Dr. Crippin: "In a situation of unmet need, with patients dying daily for the want of a donor liver, what is fair to all patients is to have approximately the same opportunity of receiving a donor liver." While a single sentence of this kind is usually inadequate to express a complex philosophical position, Dr. Crippin’s statement appears to be an expression of an Egalitarian model. In this model of social justice, one gives equal consideration to all interests while treating everyone as equals. As a result, individuals in need have equal access to goods and services. Note also that when Beauchamp and Childress write “To each person an equal share” they are invoking an Egalitarian model of medical services.

Notice that Crippin does not explicitly emphasize the degree of need in his statement. He does not say: "In a situation of unmet need, with patients dying daily for the want of a donor liver, what is fair to all patients is to have those individuals in greatest need to be given priority over those patients with a lesser need." Such an approach would reflect a Utilitarian model, in which medical resources are provided on the basis of maximal medical benefit. In the Libertarian model medical services are merely a market commodity subject to free-market conditions, and a fair distribution of medical resources occurs as long as they are distributed without force or fraud in a free-market economy. When Beauchamp and Childress write “To each person according to free-market exchanges” they are invoking a Libertarian model of medical services.

One common view is that any ethically appropriate model for organ allocation must take into account issues related to benefit and need., and that those patients who both have a strong need for a transplant and will strongly benefit from a transplant should get priority over patients with either less of a need or who would be expected to obtain less of a benefit. This is a Utilitarian viewpoint based primarily on clinical factors. And, in fact, this is more or less how things are done in the real clinical world. For instance, according to the American Medical Association [1] criteria for organ allocation include:

 * 1) The likelihood of benefit to the patient;
 * 2) The impact of treatment in improving the quality of the patient’s life;
 * 3) The duration of benefits;
 * 4) The urgency of the patient’s condition; and
 * 5) In some cases, the amount of resources required for successful treatment

This particular set of criteria for organ allocation appears to me to be a particularly well thought out set of Utilitarian principles that is superior to the simpler Egalitarian model advocated by Crippin in that if takes into factors like benefit, quality of life and urgency that are not explicitly addressed by the Egalitarian model. I would cast my vote for this approach.

Reference

[1] http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2387.html

MEDICAL FUTILITY THEORY
Starting Point: The Case of Helga Wanglie

Helga Wanglie broke her hip in December 1989 after a fall in her home. She was 86. She was treated in hospital and moved to a nursing home, but a month later she was readmitted for respiratory complications and needed to be placed on a ventilator. Attempts to wean her were unsuccessful. As a result, she was transferred to a long-term care facility that specialized in ventilated patients. While there, she suffered a cardiac arrest with anoxia that resulted in severe, irreversible brain damage. She remained in a persistent vegetative state. Meanwhile, she also remained in a state of permanent ventilator dependency.

Because of her dismal prognosis, the medical staff suggested that her family consider termination of treatment. However, the family decided against any withdrawal of care, as she was apparently heard to have said "If anything happens to me, I want everything done". The matter went to court. In its decision, the court rejected the hospital's position and turned over full guardianship to Helga's 87 year-old husband. Helga Wanglie died of multisystem organ failure on July 4, 1991. Medical bills totaled approximately $750,000 [1-3].

If one were searching for a case to use for starting a classroom discussion on futile care theory, this case would be an excellent starting point. Few clinicians would disagree that Helga Wanglie’s case was completely hopeless, and almost all would also agree that there would be no clinical value in continuing extraordinary measures such as mechanical ventilation. Yet Helga Wanglie’s husband fought for continued treatment of his wife despite these facts. His conflict with the medical profession highlights many of the issues involved in futile care ethics.

Medical Futility Theory
The concept of futility has had historic importance in medicine. According to Drane and Coulehan [4], for Hippocratic physicians, attempting a futile treatment was a display of ignorance. They also note that contemporary ethical standards published by the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) show continuity with this tradition: "Physicians should not provide or seek compensation for services that are known to be unnecessary or worthless." Drane and Coulehan recognize, however, that patients and their families may not agree:

‘Traditionally, applying the principle that physicians do not provide treatments when the interventions at their disposal do not produce medical benefits has been relatively straightforward. However, with the growing importance of patient autonomy and informed consent in treatment decisions, ethicists must now balance this principle with the principle of patient self-determination.‘

‘A patient's right to choose or refuse treatment is limited by the physician's right (and duty) to practice medicine responsibly. Bizarre or destructive choices made by a patient are not sacrosanct simply because the patient made them. In some cases, physicians may choose not to act on patient decisions that appear to be unreasonably destructive.’

‘Physicians also have a right to refuse to provide futile treatments (i.e., interventions that might be physiologically effective in some sense but cannot benefit a patient). Patients themselves have a right to provide input into what would constitute a "benefit" for them, but physicians should be able to decide when a particular treatment is futile based on their knowledge of the treatment's effects and its likely impact on a patient's quality of life.’

Ethical principles dealing with medical futility can be developed based on the traditional bioethical principle of beneficence, as well based on traditional physician values identified above. Under the principle of beneficence, which directs physicians to apply their skill and knowledge only for the good of their patient, physicians should not provide treatment known not to produce clinical benefits. Some authors go further. For example, McGee et al. [5] state: “Withholding futile treatments supports the ethical principles of both nonmaleficence (do no harm) and beneficence (relieve suffering).” Finally, the Catholic Health Association of the United States has issued a statement of principles on the issue that emphasizes similar principles.

Modern arguments against futile care generally center on two issues. First, futile care has no possibility of achieving a good outcome and serves only to prolong death. No physical or spiritual benefit comes from such care. Futile care also prolongs the grieving process and frequently raises false hope. Also, futile care can be very difficult on caregivers, who may see themselves as forced to act against the best interests of their patient [6,7].

Secondly, in a setting of limited resources, futile care involves the expenditure of resources that could be used by other patients with a good likelihood of achieving a positive outcome. This second argument would appear to be strong in those nations with socialized health care systems.

Families Seeking Futile Care
The above not withstanding, families occasionally seek to ensure that their loved ones get heroic or extraordinary care even in the absence of any likelihood of clinical benefit. However, in most of these cases the family eventually comes to realize that there is no possibility of a good outcome from such efforts, and end up agreeing with the clinical team. But not always.

One famous case is that of Baby K, an anencephalic infant. The infant’s mother wanted the hospital to continue with advanced supportive care (primarily ventilatory support) against the wishes of the clinical team, and sought legal support for her position. Ms. H. knew of her baby's condition from the second trimester of her pregnancy, but, motivated by a strong religious conviction that "all life is precious" and that God alone should decide how long the baby would live, she remained adamant that Baby K. be kept alive as long as possible.

The hospital’s position was that such care would be futile. At the trial [Matter of Baby K. 16 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994), n. 9 at 598.], expert testimony was given to demonstrate that provision of ventilator support for anencephalic infants goes beyond the accepted standard of care. The legal team for Baby K's mother adhered to a religious sanctity-of-life principle as the basis for their case. In the end, in a particularly controversial decision, the U. S. District Court ruled that the hospital caring for Baby K must put her on a mechanical ventilator whenever she had trouble breathing. In particular, the court interpreted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to require continued ventilation for the infant. The wording of this act requires that patients who present with a medical emergency must get "such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition" before the patient is transferred to another facility. The court took the position that "it is beyond the limits of our judicial function to address the moral or ethical propriety of providing emergency stabilizing medical treatment to anencephalic infants. We are bound to interpret federal statutes in accordance with their plain language..." As a result of the decision, Baby K was kept alive much longer than most anencephalic babies, living to age 2 ½.

The cases of Baby K and Helga Wanglie vividly demonstrate how family and clinical caregivers may sometimes see matters very differently. Such differences usually reflect very different philosophical vistas, and cannot always simply be dismissed as being based on ignorance on the part of the family. For instance, some people take the “santity of life” argument to its extreme, arguing that all efforts to sustain life should be made wherever clinically possible, no matter how degraded that life may be. While much has been written to refute this position (see, for instance, the writings of Peter Singer [8]), such (usually always secular) counterarguments generally have little or no impact on individuals invoking such arguments based on personal religious beliefs.

Some other individuals may argue that clinical care should be a market commodity that one should be able to purchase just like cruise vacations or luxury automobiles, as long as the purchaser of the clinical services has the necessary funds and as long as other patients are not being denied access to clinical resources as a result. In this model, Helga Wanglie should be able to get ICU care until funding vanished.

In my view, this market-oriented viewpoint is either naïve or wrong in several respects. First, in almost all such cases the funding comes from insurance carriers, who must avoid “wasting” funds to ensure that adequate funds are available for other clients. Secondly, competition for ICU resources can be intense, and providing ICU care to patients who will not benefit from them only makes access more difficult for patients for which ICU care would prove to be clinically beneficial. Finally, to view clinical care is a mere market commodity or service is to detach it from its underlying dignity and humanity.

The Case Against Medical Futility Theory
Are there, then, any potential problems with futile care theory? Could it be that the issues are not be as cut and dried as the clinical community would have it?

In this respect, it is helpful to consider matters from the perspective of those who disagree with the traditional clinical view regarding futile care. For Helga Wanglie and her husband, all human life - even a degraded and permanently unconscious human life – is still taken to be valuable, regardless of any considerations of quality of life. Similarly, the mother of Baby K no doubt saw her infant’s life as infinitely valuable, even if incapable of a conscious existence.

One criticism of futile care theory is that the caregivers sometimes see things only from the perspective of their training, and thus seek to be the only decision-makers in these matters. However, as noted by Weijer and Elliott [9], for clinicians to be the sole decision-makers in these situations amounts to saying to families, "Your values don't count."

Weijer and Elliott [9] go on to note that different viewpoints concerning the goals of treatment may form the basis for disagreements between families and clinicians:

“… judgments of futility make sense only in relation to a specified goal: an intervention may be futile if the aim is to cure an underlying disease but effective if the aim is to keep the patient alive. Yet in the most controversial cases in which futility is invoked the disagreement between doctors and families is not about the probability that an intervention will work but about the goals that it will serve.”

“… the concept of medical futility is a tarbaby. It cannot do what it is asked to do, and trying to force the issue won't produce a solution; it will produce a mess. When patients or families demand treatment that is unlikely to produce a good outcome doctors ought to disclose carefully the treatment options, the likely outcomes, and the probabilities of attaining those outcomes. Clearly, both the doctor's judgment and that of the patient (or family) are essential to the decision making process. … This can be achieved only by an open and frank dialogue. Invoking futility ensures, if anything, that this will not occur.” Another problem confronting futile care theory is that invoking the principle of futility is sometimes direct conflict with the principle of patient autonomy. As the case of Helga Wanglie illustrates, when families make end-of-life decisions in conflict with caregivers, and the case ends up in courts, the courts are often strongly influenced by concerns for patient's right to autonomy. As Weijer and Elliott note [9]: “Futility is not the ethical trump card that some would like it to be.”

Another problem with futile care theory is that even defining the notion of clinical futility can be challenging. McGee et al [5] emphasize that various definitions are used in the literature:

“The term medical futility has been used to describe life-or-death situations in which proposed treatments will fail to prolong quality life, achieve the patient's key goals for medical care, achieve a critical physiologic effect on the body, or result in a therapeutic benefit for the patient. Another definition of futility states that "if a treatment merely preserves permanent unconsciousness or cannot end dependence on intensive medical care, the treatment should be considered futile." In an attempt to give a quantitative definition of futility, some have suggested that treatments with less than a 1% chance of benefiting patients should be considered futile.” The Ethics Committee of The Society of Critical Care Medicine has attempted to clarify the concept of futility with a policy statement. They emphasize, among other things, that care that is extremely unlikely to be beneficial is not necessarily futile in nature [10]. They write:

“Treatments should be defined as futile only when they will not accomplish their intended goal. Treatments that are extremely unlikely to be beneficial, are extremely costly, or are of uncertain benefit may be considered inappropriate and hence inadvisable, but should not be labeled futile. Futile treatments constitute a small fraction of medical care. Thus, employing the concept of futile care in decision-making will not primarily contribute to a reduction in resource use. Nonetheless, communities have a legitimate interest in allocating medical resources by limiting inadvisable treatments. Communities should seek to do so using a rationale that is explicit, equitable, and democratic; that does not disadvantage the disabled, poor, or uninsured; and that recognizes the diversity of individual values and goals. Policies to limit inadvisable treatment should have the following characteristics: a) be disclosed in the public record; b) reflect moral values acceptable to the community; c) not be based exclusively on prognostic scoring systems; d) articulate appellate mechanisms; and e) be recognized by the courts. Healthcare organizations that control payment have a profound influence on treatment decisions and should formally address criteria for determining when treatments are inadvisable and should share accountability for those decisions.“

Finally, futility theory may be challenged on a statistical basis. While scenarios like providing ICU care to the brain dead patient or the anencephalic patient when organ harvesting is not possible or practical are easily identifiable as being completely futile, many other situations usually taken to be futile are far less clear. For instance, should surgeons attempt a heroic clinical rescue in a 99 year old unconscious patient with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm, even though survival with a good outcome would be so very unlikely as to warrant publication of the case as a clinical case report? Various bleak clinical scenarios will vary in their degree of futility. For instance, when elderly patients sustain large third degree burns, mortality is almost guaranteed. This is similarly true for elderly patients sustaining massive trauma. But in many of these cases it can still be very difficult to accurately predict outcome [11, 12].

As Weijer and Elliott note:

“… problems will arise with any criterion that allows doctors to rely solely on their own experience. Their recollections are biased towards cases with a poor outcome. Moreover, doctors' judgments about individual cases are not accurate enough to allow them to claim reliably that a given person has (for instance) less than a 1% chance of responding to treatment. While the agreement of several colleagues about a prognosis may improve the judgment's reliability, support from the literature may be lacking. Even if empirical data exist on a particular intervention, the vast majority of "negative" clinical trials have a sample size that is too small to provide strong enough evidence to rule out a small treatment effect.”

References, Sources and Notes

 * 1) In re the conservatorship of Helga M. Wanglie, No. PX-91-283, District Probate Division, 4th Judicial district of the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota.
 * 2) http://web.archive.org/19990824232320/www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Oasis/2919/cases.html
 * 3) http://www.missouri.edu/~philwb/wanglie.html
 * 4) James F. Drane, PhD, & John L. Coulehan, MD . The Concept of Futility. Patients Do Not Have a Right to Demand Medically Useless Treatment. Health Progress 1993. http://www.chausa.org/PUBS/PUBSART.ASP?ISSUE=HP9312&ARTICLE=B
 * 5) McGee DC. Weinacker AB. Raffin TA. The patient's response to medical futility. Archives of Internal Medicine. 160(11):1565-6, 2000 Jun 12.
 * 6) Ronald M. Perkin, MD. Stress and Distress in Pediatric Nurses: The Hidden Tragedy of Baby K.  http://www.llu.edu/llu/bioethics/update12_2.htm
 * 7) For a somewhat different view from that of Perkins (above) consider the perspective of Dagi. Dagi argues against making the emotional needs of the caregiver an overriding consideration in clinical ethics, arguing that the claim of health care workers to be a professional “places legitimate constraints on the extent to which they may be permitted to have their needs and wants influence the ethical dialectic.” T. F. Dagi, "Compassion, Consensus, and Conflict: Should Caregivers' Needs Influence the Ethical Dialectic?" The Journal of Clinical Ethics 3 (1992): 214-18.
 * 8) Peter A. Singer. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Values. St. Martin's Griffin (New York) 1994
 * 9) Weijer C. Elliott C. Pulling the plug on futility. BMJ. 310(6981):683-4, 1995 Mar 18.
 * 10) The Ethics Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Consensus statement of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Ethics Committee regarding futile and other possible inadvisable treatments. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:887-891.
 * 11) Dawson NV, Arkes HR. Systematic errors in medical decision making: judgement limitations. J Gen Intern Med 1987; 2:183-7.
 * 12) Poses RM, Bekes C, Copare FJ, Scott WE. The answer to "What are my chances, doctor?" depends on whom is asked: prognostic disagreement and inaccuracy for critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1989; 17:827-33.

VIRTUE IN HEALTH CARE
''"Virtue is harder to be got than a knowledge of the world; and, if lost in a young man, is seldom recovered." John Locke'' ''Wisdom is knowing what to do next; virtue is doing it. David Star Jordan''

According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy [1] “virtue theory is the view that the foundation of morality is the development of good character traits, or virtues”. According to this model, a person is good or virtuous to the extent that he or she has virtues and lacks vices. Another way of looking at the matter is to state that there are certain ideals, such as the pursuit of excellence or dedication to the common good, which we should strive for and which permit the full development of our humanity. Virtues may be viewed as attitudes or character traits that enable us to develop this potential.

The virtues of everyday life include generosity, fidelity, self-control, honesty, truthfulness, integrity, bravery, courage, justice, patience, prudence, fortitude, tolerance, and countless others. In fact, some virtue theorists have identified over 100 virtuous character traits.

However, different social groups may emphasize different “virtue sets”. For instance, the Boy Scout virtues are “ trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverend” [2]. By contrast, some other social groups (Satanists and Hell’s Angels members come to mind) would not consider all of these character traits to be virtuous [3]. Indeed one man’s virtue may be another man’s vice, as in the often-used term “generous to a fault”.

Minogue details five virtues [4] that are associated with medicine. He holds these to be:
 * 1) Compassion
 * 2) Courage
 * 3) Tolerance
 * 4) Honesty
 * 5) Faithfulness (or Fidelity, or Loyalty)

Missing in this list is a trait that most patients want above all in a physician or nurse – competence. The importance of professional competence as a virtue has been emphasized elsewhere. For instance, the College of Human Medicine at Michigan State University has developed a set of “desirable professional attributes” that are used as examples of “professional virtue” for guiding medical students [5]. These attributes fall into six categories:
 * 1) Competence
 * 2) Honesty
 * 3) Compassion
 * 4) Respect for Others
 * 5) Professional Responsibility
 * 6) Social Responsibility

While there is considerable overlap in these lists (for instance, both lists include compassion and honestly as desirable traits, and  Minogue’s “tolerance” trait is similar to the “respect for others” trait in the College of Human Medicine list), the differences are nonetheless striking. Also, some individuals do not regard “courage” as an especially important trait in clinical practice, except in the context that exercising honesty and responsibility in hostile settings can sometimes require considerable courage. Some individuals would argue that both these lists should be combined to make a list of virtues for physicians. The combined list one might then propose would be:
 * 1) Competence
 * 2) Honesty
 * 3) Compassion
 * 4) Respect for Others
 * 5) Professional Responsibility
 * 6) Social Responsibility
 * 7) Courage
 * 8) Loyalty

Yet it is also appropriate to consider even more virtues that might apply, such as resourcefulness, patience, integrity, wisdom and prudence. To the extent that these traits overlap with the list above it is not necessary to explicitly list them. Still, they are important clinical virtues.

One interesting issue is whether the traits of the virtuous physician and the traits of the virtuous nurse are similar. Many individuals would argue that they are indeed similar, that there are no more differences between the traits of the virtuous physician and the traits of the virtuous nurse then there are between the virtuous traits of the various medical specialties. There are, of course, differences between what nurses and physician do, just as there are differences between the various medical specialties do. But perhaps these differences are so great that different sets of virtues are necessarily implied. Both groups have the same goals in mind for their patient, and both groups share a similar clinical worldview. The fact that one group frequently implements orders from the other is not, in my view, an overriding issue. Nor perpahs should one regard it as particularly relevant that nurses are often said to come from a tradition of caring, while physicians are often said to come from a tradition of science and reason. The reality is that both traditions are major influences on both nurses and physicians in today’s clinical world.

BIOETHICS AND TOBACCO
Tobacco is a legal product and smoking it is a legal practice, at least in most locales. Yet it is understood by all to be unhealthy and a cause of/contributing factor to several diseases leading to disability and death. One interesting question is whether the life-long smoker's right to national health insurance (such as the US Medicare system) to cover the treatment of lung cancer should be forfeited because of this self-destructive behavior.

According to the World Health Organization one out of every two long-term smokers will ultimately be killed by tobacco [1]. They note that “in developed countries, half will be killed in old age, after age seventy, but the other half will be killed in middle age, before age seventy, and those who die from smoking before age seventy will lose more than 20 years of life expectancy”. In the USA, a 1998 study by Leonard Miller, professor of social welfare at the University of California Berkeley and Dorothy Rice, professor emeritus of health economics at the UCSF School of Nursing found that “smoking-related Medicaid costs amount to $12.9 billion per year, or $322 billion in 25 years without inflation”, a figure that they noted “does not include the financial impact of cigarette smoking on Medicare or private insurance companies” [2].

About 75% of Americans do not smoke, yet everyone pays for the cost of treating tobacco-related illnesses via higher insurance premiums and taxes. Many people argue that it is not fair that non-smokers have to pay many billions of dollars in health insurance premiums and taxes for the medical treatment of smokers. Given the well-established link between long-term tobacco use and lung cancer, this has led some individuals to suggest that life-long smokers should be denied Medicare or Medicaid health insurance coverage for the treatment of lung cancer.

However, such a policy may be both impractical and unethical.

First, while there is no doubt that health care costs are higher for smokers, the extra health care costs to Medicare and Medicaid associated with smoking can be recovered simply by increasing the price of cigarettes. This would be a particularly effective alternative to denying Medicare services to smokers, since there is strong data to suggest that raising the cost of cigarettes is one of the most effective ways of reducing consumption.

Secondly, tobacco smoking is hardly the only form of self-destructive behavior. Other self-destructive practices that one might focus one include the following:
 * excessive alcohol consumption
 * not wearing seatbelts while driving
 * participation in unsafe sexual practices
 * excessive food consumption leading to morbid obesity
 * use of dangerous recreational drugs such as cocaine or heroin
 * participation in dangerous sports without sufficient attention to safety issues

In the interests of fairness, if one were to deny Medicare services to smokers, it would also be necessary to deny Medicare services to individuals who sustain clinical insults as a result of other self-destructive behavior. It should be apparent that this would be a logistical nightmare.

Third, if life-long smokers on Medicare health insurance should be denied coverage for the treatment of lung cancer, they should also be denied coverage for other diseases strongly linked to smoking: coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bladder cancer, and even age-related macular degeneration (AMD), a leading cause of blindness.

Fourth, the US government has not made a concerted effort to reduce tobacco use. Industry commentators often point out that there is an incestuous relationship between the tobacco industry and US government. While the idea of regulating tobacco use and creating a "smoke-free" society remains a popular dream in Washington, the reality is that the federal government and the 50 states eagerly consume a steady flow of sin taxes generated by the sale and consumption of tobacco products. Furthermore, and most amazingly, Washington continues to subsidize the growth of tobacco. Some critics suggest that the US federal government should clean up its own house first before implementing draconian Medicare policies of the nature suggested.

Fifth, there are many causes of lung cancer besides tobacco smoking, and some forms of lung cancer (e.g. small cell cancer) are not related to smoking at all. Radon exposure, exposure to asbestos, and even dietary factors may account for many cases of lung cancer. In fact, the only form of lung cancer that is unequivocally linked to smoking is squamous cell carcinoma.

Finally, medicine has a humane tradition of being nonjudgmental and caring for all regardless of social worth or social standing. Public policy should reflect this. Some critics suggest that setting into place a policy whereby a life-long smoker's access to Medicare for the treatment of lung cancer should be forfeited is inhumane in the extreme. Such action says to the patient that he or she is unworthy of our clinical attention, and is in clear violation of the principle of beneficence.

title: Bioethics/Introduction


text:
User:Ekinner/sandbox

Cloud Computing
Cloud computing is a model that allows for the use of computing resources, such as servers or applications, without the need for much interaction between the owner of these resources and the user using them. Typically, this is offered as a service making it another example of Software as a Service, Platforms as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service depending on what functionality is offered. Key characteristics include on-demand access, broad network access, and the capability of rapid scaling. Cloud computing is also being talked about regarding energy conservation. Allowing thousands of instances of computation to occur on one single machine instead of thousands of individual machines could be a way to save energy. It would also ease the act of transitioning to more renewable energy because you would only need to power one server farm with a set of solar panels or wind turbines instead of millions of peoples' homes. However, computing being done from a centralized location has its own challenges. One of the major ones is security. With cloud computing companies having no obligation to tell you what data they have on you, where it's being kept, or how they are using it. Laws in the modern day are not yet equipped to handle these circumstances. In the future, lawmakers in many countries will have to push to regulate cloud computing and protect the privacy of users. Cloud computing is also a way for individual users or small business to benefit from economies of scale. While currently the cloud computing infrastructure is too underdeveloped to benefit the scientific community, within a few years of development it could also be used to help smaller research groups get the computing power they need to answer a lot of the world's questions.

Quantum Computing
Quantum computing is an area of research that brings together the disciplines of computer science, information theory, and quantum physics. The idea of information being a basic part of physics is relatively new, but there seems to be a strong tie between information theory and quantum mechanics. Whereas traditional computing operates on a binary system of ones and zeros, quantum computing uses qubits. Qubits are capable of being in a superposition, which means that they are in both states, one and zero, simultaneously. This means the qubit is not somewhere between 1 and 0, but actually the value of the qubit will change depending on when you measure it. This trait of qubits is called quantum entanglement and is the core idea of quantum computing and is what allows quantum computers to do the large scale equations they are used for. Quantum computing is often used for scientific research where a normal computer does not have nearly enough computational power to do the calculations necessary. A good example would be molecular modeling. Large molecules are far too complex for modern computers to calculate what happens to them during a reaction, but the power of quantum computers could open the doors to further understanding these molecules.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Ekinner/sandbox


text:
Hymns Ancient and Modern

Hymns Ancient and Modern is a hymnal in common use within the Church of England, a result of the efforts of the Oxford Movement. The hymnal was first published in 1861. The organization publishing it has now been formed into a charitable trust, Hymns Ancient and Modern Ltd, and it publishes a wide range of hymnals as well as other theological and religious books and magazines, under imprints including the acquired publishers Canterbury Press and SCM Press.

Hymn singing
By 1830 the regular singing of hymns in the dissenting churches (outside the Church of England) had become widely accepted due to hymn writers like Isaac Watts, Charles Wesley and others. In the Church of England hymn singing was not an integral part of Orders of Service until the early 19th century, and hymns, as opposed to metrical psalms, were not officially sanctioned. From about 1800, parish churches started to use different hymn collections in informal services, like the Lock Hospital Collection (1769) by Martin Madan, the Olney Hymns (1779) by John Newton and William Cowper and A Collection of Hymns for the Use of The People Called Methodists (1779) by John Wesley and Charles Wesley.

Oxford Movement
A further impetus to hymn singing in the Anglican Church came in the 1830s from the Oxford Movement, led by John Keble and John Henry Newman. Being an ecclesiastical reform movement within the Anglican Church, the Oxford Movement wanted to recover the lost treasures of breviaries and service books of the ancient Greek and Latin churches. As a result Greek, Latin and even German hymns in translation entered the mainstream of English hymnody. These translations were composed by people like John Chandler, John Mason Neale, Thomas Helmore, Edward Caswall, Jane Laurie Borthwick and Catherine Winkworth. Besides stimulating the translation of medieval hymns, and use of plainsong melodies, the Oxford Reformers, inspired by Reginald Heber's work, also began to write original hymns. Among these hymnwriters were clergy like Henry Alford, Henry Williams Baker, Sabine Baring-Gould, John Keble and Christopher Wordsworth and laymen like Matthew Bridges, William Chatterton Dix and Folliott Sandford Pierpoint.

Accomplishment of the Hymns Ancient and Modern
The growing popularity of hymns inspired the publication of more than 100 hymnals during the period 1810–1850. The sheer number of these collections prevented any one of them from being successful. A beginning of what would become the Hymns Ancient and Modern was made with the Hymns and Introits (1852), edited by George Cosby White. The idea for the hymn-book arose in 1858 when two clergymen, both part of the Oxford Movement, met on a train: William Denton of St Bartholomew, Cripplegate, co-editor of the Church Hymnal (1853) and Francis Henry Murray, editor of the Hymnal for Use in the English Church Denton suggested that the 1852 Hymnal for use in the English Church by Francis Murray and the Hymns and Introits by George Cosby White should be amalgamated to satisfy the need for standardisation of the hymn books in use throughout England.

Besides their idea, Henry Williams Baker and Rev. P. Ward were already engaged on a similar scheme for rival books. Given the lack of unanimity in the church's use of hymns, Henry Williams Baker thought it necessary to compile one book which would command general confidence. After ascertaining by private communications the widespread desire of churchmen for greater uniformity in the use of hymns and of hymnbooks in the services of the Church, Sir Henry Baker, vicar of Monkland in the diocese of Hereford, early in 1858 associated himself for this purpose with about twenty clergymen, including the editors of many existing hymnals, who agreed to give up their several books to try to promote the use of one standard hymn book. In October of that year an advertisement in The Guardian, the High Church newspaper, invited co-operation, and over 200 clergymen responded.

In January 1859 the committee set to work under the lead of Henry William Baker. An appeal was made to the clergy and to their publishers to withdraw their individual collections and to support this new combined venture. They founded a board, called the "Proprietors", which oversaw both the publication of the hymnal and the application of the profits to support appropriate charities, or to subsidise the purchase of the hymn books by poor parishes. The superintendent was William Henry Monk. One of the advisors, John Keble, recommended that it should be made a comprehensive hymn-book. This committee set themselves to produce a hymn-book which would be a companion to the Book of Common Prayer. Another intention of the founders of Hymns Ancient and Modern was that it would improve congregational worship for everybody. A specimen was issued in May 1859. In 1860 a trial edition was published, with the imprimatur of Dr Renn Hampden, Sir Henry Baker's diocesan. The first full edition with tunes, under the musical editorship of Professor W. H. Monk, King's College, London, appeared on 20 March 1861.

Sources for the Hymns Ancient and Modern
The Hymns Ancient and Modern was a rather eclectic collection of hymns that included a broad series of hymns from different religious traditions, in order to achieve a standard edition. Sources included:

 * the translations from Greek by John Chandler in his Hymns of the Primitive Church.
 * the translations from Latin by John Mason Neale in his Hymnal Noted (Novello, Ewer and Company, 1851) and the Accompanying Harmonies to The Hymnal Noted, together with Thomas Helmore, (1852), the Mediaeval Hymns and Sequences (first edition 1851), and the Hymns of the Eastern Church, translated with Notes and an Introduction (1870, first edition appeared in 1865)
 * the translations from Latin by Edward Caswall in his Lyra Catholica: Containing All the Hymns of the Roman Breviary and Missal (1851)
 * the translations from German by Catherine Winkworth in her Lyra Germanica, Hymns for the Sundays and chief festivals of the Christian Year, Translated from the German (1855 edition)
 * the translations from German by Jane Laurie Borthwick in her Hymns from the land of Luther: translated from the German (first edition in 1853)
 * the churchly hymns from the Oxford Movement. In the Preface of the 1861 edition of the Hymns Ancient and Modern John Keble's The Christian Year: Thoughts in Verse for the Sundays and holidays throughout the year, 1837 (first edition appeared in 1827) was mentioned explicitly.
 * the hymns from the evangelical stream (dissenters and Methodists); composers included the clergy William Hiley Bathurst, Horatius Bonar, Henry Francis Lyte, John Henry Newman, and lay persons like Sarah Flower Adams, Cecil Frances Alexander, William Henry Havergal, Frances Ridley Havergal and Jane Eliza Leeson. In the Preface of the 1861 edition of the Hymns Ancient and Modern William Henry Havergal's Old Church Psalmody, (1849) was mentioned explicitly.

Henry Williams Baker wrote and translated many of the hymns which it contains, and his ability, his profound knowledge of hymnology, and his energetic discharge of the duties of chairman of its committee for twenty years, mainly contributed to its success. Not all the hymns in these sources were already provided with tunes. Therefore, composers like William Henry Monk, the editor of the 1861 edition, John Bacchus Dykes and Frederick Ouseley, John Stainer, Henry Gauntlett and Edmund Hart Turpin provided new hymn tunes. Among the hymns with newly-composed tunes were Eternal Father, Strong to Save and Praise to the Holiest in the Height (John Bacchus Dykes), Onward, Christian Soldiers (Arthur Sullivan) and Abide with Me (William Henry Monk).

The Hymns Ancient and Modern was austere in style and conformed to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. It also established the practice of writing tunes for specific texts and publishing both texts and tunes together rather than in separate collections, which had been the practice until then. Roughly, the hymns were arranged in the order of the Prayer Book. More specifically, there were separate sections grouped according to liturgical criteria: hymns for the daily offices, Sunday, the church year, Holy Communion and other sacraments, and the various feasts. Furthermore, the Hymns Ancient and Modern was the first influential book to attach "Amen" to every hymn.

Impact
Hymns Ancient and Modern experienced immediate and overwhelming success, becoming possibly the most popular English hymnal ever published. The music, expressive and tuneful, greatly assisted to its popularity. Total sales in 150 years were over 170 million copies., by 2024 nearly 200 million As such, it set the standard for many later hymnals like The English Hymnal which first appeared in 1906 and was succeeded by The New English Hymnal in 1986.

Early editions
The first edition, musically supervised by William Henry Monk, was published in 1861 by Novello & Co, with 273 hymns. They also published the 1868 Appendix; but following negotiations, the whole publishing project was placed in the hands of William Clowes and Son later that year. It was revised in 1875 by Monk to produce the second edition, to which Charles Steggall added several supplementary hymns in 1889. In 1904 a "new and revised edition" was published, edited by Bertram Luard-Selby. After many complaints about the difference between this and its predecessors, Charles Steggall's edition was republished in 1906 as the "Complete edition".

Standard edition
In 1916 the "old complete edition" was republished for the last time, with a second supplement by Sydney Nicholson. In 1922, the "standard edition" was published, more strongly based on the "old complete edition" than the less popular "new and revised edition". This also was edited by Nicholson, who was the musical editor until he died in 1947.

Revised edition
In 1950 the "revised edition" was published, with G. H. Knight and J. Dykes Bower having both edited since the death of Nicholson. Many hymns were weeded out from the 1950 edition as the editors wished to make space for more recent compositions and to thin out the over-supplemented previous versions. Bower was organist at St. Paul's Cathedral, whilst Knight held the same post at Canterbury.

New Standard Edition
In 1975 the proprietors formed a limited company and a registered charity, and in 1983 published the "New Standard Edition". This consisted of 333 of the 636 hymns included in A and M Revised (AMR) and the entire 200-hymn contents of 100 Hymns for Today (HHT, 1969) and More Hymns for Today (MHT, 1980).

Common Praise
In 2000 Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd, through its subsidiary the Canterbury Press, published a new hymnal, this time called Common Praise. This was printed by William Clowes Ltd. of Suffolk.

Sing Praise
In September 2010 Canterbury Press and the Royal School of Church Music published Sing Praise, subtitled "Hymns and Songs for Refreshing Worship", containing 330 recently written hymn, song and short chant compositions. The selection was designed to complement Common Praise in particular, but also other hymn books in current use.

Ancient and Modern
In March 2013 Canterbury Press published Ancient and Modern, so reverting to the original title without the word "Hymns", but also subtitled Hymns and Songs for Refreshing Worship, a new edition designed for contemporary patterns of worship. It contains 847 items, including some items from Common Praise and Sing Praise, ranging from psalm settings to John L. Bell, Bernadette Farrell, Stuart Townend and others. In 2014 the British organist John Keys completed recordings of organ accompaniments of all the hymns in the book.

Publisher
In 1989 Hymns Ancient & Modern Ltd. bought Church Times, the Church of England's periodical, and bought SCM Press in 1997. Other imprints include Canterbury Press. In 2007 it became the distributor for St Andrew Press, the Church of Scotland's publishing house.

Japanese edition
The Japanese edition of Hymns Ancient Modern, called Kokin Seika Shū (古今聖歌集), was published in 1902 by the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (NSKK), with the subsequent several revisions. It was used until 2006, when it was replaced by NSKK Hymnal (日本聖公会聖歌集).

title: Hymns Ancient and Modern


text:
User:MichaelBillingtonBot~enwikiversity/Feeds

 * - Colloquium

 * - User talk:MichaelBillington

 * - User:JWSchmidt/Blog

 * - User:Chrismo/Blog

 * - User:MichaelBillingtonBot/Blog

 * - User:MichaelBillington/Blog


text:
Tension Filter

Tension Filter (or stylized as >Tension Filter<) is the debut studio album by haloblack, released on November 1, 1994 by Fifth Colvmn Records.

Reception
John Bush of AllMusic says "the group breathes life into somewhat tired industrial-rock, even though the requisite metal guitars, distortion and drum programming are nothing new." Last Sigh Magazine recommended the album for fans of Nine Inch Nails 1989 album Pretty Hate Machine and described it as "a great mix of synth and guitar work and is chockfull of electronic sound – perfect for the industrial/electronic scene." Sonic Boom agreed with the comparison for the "sheer depth, power, and stark originality" of the compositions and said "Bryan manages to bring a guitar into his music with a depth and a sound that only people like Trent Renzor can dream of."

Personnel
Adapted from the Tension Filter liner notes.

haloblack
 * Bryan Barton (as Bryan Black) – vocals, instruments, editing, production
 * Bill Morrisette – production, guitar (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9)
 * Damien Ray – instruments, production, additional programming (7)

Additional performers
 * Malik – guitar (10)
 * Krayge Tyler – guitar (4, 6, 7, 10)
 * Jim Marcus – additional vocals (4)

Production and design
 * Tom Baker – mastering
 * Van Christie – production and engineering (4, 5, 6, 10)
 * Steve "Mud" Krayson – editing
 * Mary Lawing – cover art
 * Jim Marcus – production
 * Jason McNinch – engineering (4, 5, 6, 10)
 * Jordan Nogood – design
 * Sabrina A. Rahaman – photography
 * Chis Satenger – editing
 * Carl White – production, engineering and mixing (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9)

title: Tension Filter


text:
Talk:French battleship Condorcet

Citation bot denied access
I've disabled citation bot until I find out why publisher data is being removed from one journal citation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:French battleship Condorcet


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools/US/Iowa

Notability
Since Wikipedia has removed the notability exemption for public schools, this list will be difficult to complete. I've finished the list of school districts in Iowa, and added basic information for the high school within the the district page where applicable. RickH86 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
Kavalar

Kavalar (Кавалар; Кьвалар) is a rural locality (a selo) in Kilersky Selsoviet, Dokuzparinsky District, Republic of Dagestan, Russia. The population was 129 as of 2010. There are 2 streets.

Geography
Kavalar is located 3 km south of Usukhchay (the district's administrative centre) by road. Demirar and Chuvalar are the nearest rural localities.

Nationalities
Lezgins live there.

title: Kavalar


text:
Little Rocky Hill, New Jersey

Little Rocky Hill is an unincorporated community located within South Brunswick in Middlesex County and Franklin Township, Somerset County, in the U.S. state of New Jersey. The community is located atop a small hill east of the borough of Rocky Hill. The Middlesex–Somerset county line runs through the community along Old Road though elsewhere it follows Route 27. Carters Brook runs through the area flowing south.

title: Little Rocky Hill, New Jersey


text:
Talk:Old Swinford Hospital

Start
Just want to know why Dean Headley was taken off the old boys list --enock 17:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * seems to be back now Qleem 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

infobox, refs, pics?Victuallers 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Bruno
I've removed Frank Bruno as I attended the school for 7 years and never heard mention of his name as an Old Foleyan. All sources I can find re: Bruno tell me he grew up in the London area. I notice that the addition of him was down to a user called 'Mwroffe' - if this IS actually the Mr. M. W. Roffe who is currently headmaster, I apologise and please feel free to revert the edit as you see fit. My suspicion is, however, that this could be a case of someone assuming an identity! Will2710 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Will, I doubt very much that Melvyn had anything to do with the Bruno addition, so you were perfectly correct in deleting it. Incidentally, if you wish to do a bit of editing, you might add that Peter Jones has been appointed the new Headmaster. The school is currently advertising for a new Deputy Head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk • contribs) 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

State rather than independent
Altered the intro paragraph to show that it is a state (taxpayer funded) school rather than an independent (private fees funded) school. I guess that it's confusing with the state boarding status, but it isn't an independent school if it's a state boarding school.Angelamaher (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sir Christopher Wren?
I take issue with the claim made that, based simply on design features of the tower lantern, the original school building was designed by Sir Christopher Wren.

Firstly, Old Swinford Hospital was not a 'modern' building at the time of building (1667-1670) There was evidence when the attics at the rear of the building were demolished in the early 1950's that Thomas Foley had made use of 'recycled' timbers in the roof - the bricks were in all likelihood made in his own brickyards on the Lye road. It is most unlikely that an architect of the eminence of Sir Christopher Wren would have been involved in a building as rustic and basic as Old Swinford Hospital. On stylistic grounds he may have been influential in the design for the neighbouring St Thomas' Church.

Secondly, an early 19th century print of Old Swinford Hospital shows, quite clearly, a two storey brick building with a central tower capped by a simple pyramidal tiled roof, fronted by a walled yard.

In the mid/late 19th century the front of the old building was raised to three storeys to provide additional accommodation. The raising of the roof level neccesitated the raising of the height of the central tower (the line where the new and old brickword join is clearly visible). The 'classical' lantern was added at that time as an ornamental feature.

I was a boarding pupil in the early 1950's when the old attics at the back of the old block were demolished and the rear of the building raised to the same level as the front. The old roof timbers were very evidently recycled. At that date the tower had begun to tilt and it was feared it would collapse - it was discovered that it was 'balanced' on a decaying oak beam not designed to take the additional weight of the several tons of 19th century brick and wooden lantern. All very exciting to a rabble of 13 year olds who relished the thought that the school might fall down!! We burnt the old timbers on bonfire night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It is my understanding that the architect is known. I have altered "thought" to "claimed": I expect that the claim has been made is verifiable.  While Thoams Foley certainly owned some of the land that was an early source of firebricks, they are not what the school was built of.  I certainly do not know of evidence that he ran his own commercial brickyards.  The use of recycled timbers (of that is what they were) does not rule out Wren being the designer: the claim is not that he built the school.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

 * As the claim is obviously utter tosh, shouldn't it just be removed? When I was there it was known that the building had been changed from two-storey to three in the 19th century (when its sister was built IIRC) so the Wren-like bits had to be additions.  I don't remember any suggestion back then that the building was Wren.  Allen Brown (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Examination wise?
"Examination wise," in the fifth paragraph of the Academics section, seems to grate on the ear, and is of questionable grammical construction. Any one else think that this is the case? enock 15:02, 11 April 2009 (PST)

 * A little yes [I was responsible for the original paragraph]. Perhaps "In terms of examinations" would be better?? Formula1fanatic (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Houses
There are now 7 houses (one opened this year, 2009), the 7th is Potter House. I will add details as to changes in the other houses soon (e.g. baxter housmaster, tie details etc.) Please could someone edit the page to include this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauranbill (talk • contribs) 10:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Former Houses
I see that in the houses section there is now discussion of former houses at the school, with Lyttelton House being added. I was hoping someone could back me up, or correct me if I am wrong, but at some point was there a house called Stone House? I am sure that I remember reading on the Foley Trophy winners board that Stone had won it. I could be wrong, but again it would be an additional bit of information for the article if there was.

Formula1fanatic (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I only added it because it was my old house. That was 1972 to 1977. Foster, Foley, Lyttelton, Dudley, Chance and one other but I can't remember it. Four were boarding houses and two were for day boys. This is original research! 22:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenbrown (talk • contribs)

Fair enough, I was in Baxter myself. I thought mentioning the older houses were just interesting little bits for the article. Formula1fanatic (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There definitely was a Stone House - It was the other day pupil's house along with Chance. Two of the Old Folean's committee members attended it. See http://www.oldfoleyans.com/committee.htm. Maybe someone can explain what happened to them. Maybe day pupils are assigned to the boarding houses now?Tastybento (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Old Swinford Hospital


text:
Surviving (album)

Surviving is the tenth studio album by American rock band Jimmy Eat World. The album was released on October 18, 2019, through RCA and Exotic Location Recordings. After touring in support of Integrity Blues (2016) concluded in mid-2017, the band began writing new material. Following various tours throughout 2018 and early 2019, the band recorded their next album in their home studio in Arizona, with co-producer Justin Meldal-Johnsen. Described as an alternative rock, arena rock, emo, pop rock, and pop punk record, Surviving was compared to the band's earlier albums Chase This Light (2007) and Damage (2013).

Preceded by a co-headlining US tour with Third Eye Blind, "All the Way (Stay)" was released as a single in September 2019. The band appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live! prior to the release of Surviving. It was promoted with a music video for "555", and tours of the UK and the US till the end of the year.

Surviving reached number 90 on the US Billboard 200. Outside of the US, it charted in Australia, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the UK. "Love Never" achieved some airplay, appearing on the Billboard Alternative and Rock Airplay charts.

Background and production
Jimmy Eat World released their ninth album Integrity Blues in October 2016. The band promoted it with headlining tours in Europe and the United States, and a supporting slot for Incubus, leading up to an appearance at the Reading and Leeds Festivals in mid-2017. Though they started writing new material around the release of Integrity Blues, the band started working substantially towards a new album following its touring cycle. In May 2018, Jimmy Eat World released a 7" vinyl single that consisted of new songs "Love Never" and "Half Heart", both of which were produced by Justin Meldal-Johnsen. Between May and July, the group embarked on two US tours, which bookended a stint in Europe. Following this, they played a variety of festivals between July and October. In January and February 2019, the band supported Frank Turner on his UK arena tour; around the trek, the band play two heading shows.

Jimmy Eat World recorded their next album at their own studio in Arizona with Meldal-Johnsen co-producing. Adkins used his Fender Telecaster Thinline running through a Marshall cabinet, with minimal effects, while guitarist Tom Linton used his Gibson SG running through an Orange cabinet. They recorded 14 tracks, though some never made it beyond having basic tracks. The band decided to write more songs, hoping that they would match what the band had already finished. Drummer Zach Lind said in May 2019 that the group's new album had been mixed and mastered. He mentioned "Love Never" was remixed for inclusion on the album.

Composition
Musically, the sound of Surviving has been described as alternative rock, arena rock,  emo, pop rock, and pop punk, drawing comparison to the band's own Chase This Light (2007) and Damage (2013) albums, as well as the work of the Foo Fighters. The heavy guitar sound recalled the guitars heard in Bleed American (2001). When the band was listening to a pre-show playlist, songs from Mötley Crüe's Dr. Feelgood (1989) were played, which they admired for its production. With Surviving, the members attempted to make their own version of that. The political commentary heard on Bleed American and Futures (2004) is continued in the tracks "Criminal Energy" and "Congratulations". Discussing the themes, Adkins said: "Everything comes down to a choice - a really simple choice. You're either going to do the same thing that you're doing or you're going to do something different."

The opening title-track talks about moving forward and not letting one's self be defined by the past. It features one guitar riff that is heard throughout the entire song, as well as different drum parts for each section. "Criminal Energy" features hair metal-esque guitar riffs. Adkins heard the phrase while in Germany. He said: "[I]t’s something like moral sickness that you are unlucky to have or lucky you don’t have." The dance-rock track "Delivery" is about acknowledging important memories as they happen. The electro-influenced "555" channeled was the band's attempted at pop rock in the vein of Imagine Dragons. It utilizes 808s, a synth bass, alongside R&B-style vocal phrases from Adkins. Adkins named it "555" after he envisioned a person unable to catch a break with the universe being against them. "One Mil" is about letting opportunities pass one by; the acoustic intro was recorded through Adkins' iPhone in the garage of their studio, and transferred it into the Pro Tools session file. The chorus was reminiscent of the Futures track "Work".

"All the Way (Stay)" features a saxophone solo, played by Fitz and the Tantrums member James King, as well as vocals from Rachel Haden. It talks about building up an image of yourself, and failing to meet it, until you let the real you show through. On the saxophone, Adkins said the band had wanted to include a gag that is heard in 1980s music, which is include a solo from an instrument that isn't heard anywhere else in the song. "Diamond" is about dealing with small changes in life, and making improvements. Adkins employs the usage of gemstones forming in the earth as a metaphor for change that doesn't happen overnight. It was one of the songs that came out of the writing period partway through the recording. The guitar riff evolved out of Adkins' idea to write a 1980s-esque rock song. The ending features a gong played by Lind, which was given to the band by Chase This Light engineer Chris Testa. "Love Never" incorporates guitar bends; Adkins said it was about the assumption of what love is, against the true reality of it.

The penultimate song "Recommit" evokes the sound of Garbage. It talks about fighting against what society tells one they should be doing. The closing track "Congratulations" sees the band change into thrash metal with its minute-long breakdown, which recalled "Pass the Baby" from Integrity Blues. Consequence writer Ben Kaye noticed that it featured the words "clarity" and "future", names of their past releases, "so it’s not inconceivable Adkins was reconciling his modern outlook [on life] with that of his younger self by referring to early album titles". The song includes vocals from AFI frontman Davey Havok, which were recorded through an iPhone. Before asking Havok, Adkins felt the backing part sounded like something AFI would do. Jimmy Eat World stayed in contact with AFI when both acts appeared on the 2001 Warped Tour. With the intro to "One Mil" in mind, Adkins told Havok to record it through his phone instead of going to a studio. Adkins said the track "ponders what happens when rigid ideology meets disaster."

Release
Between June and August 2019, the group went on a co-headlining US tour with Third Eye Blind, with support from Ra Ra Riot. In early September, the band performed at the Gunnersville Festival in the UK. On September 23, Surviving was announced for release the following month, and "All the Way (Stay)" was released as a single. A music video was released for the song, directed by Daniel Carberry. It shows two parallel adventures of drifters, who play pool, smoke in bowling alleys, and get naked in laundromats. On October 10, the band appeared on Jimmy Kimmel Live!, where they played "All the Way (Stay)" and "Love Never". Surviving was released on October 18, 2019; analysing the artwork, Kaye viewed the album as "making your way forward when you’re 'holding on but just barely,' like you’re working through the maze of life". On the same day, a music video was released for "555", which was directed by Michael Gill. Adkins said he had always admired the music video for "Bop 'Til You Drop" (1984) by Rick Springfield, which featured a reptilian overlord that eventually gets defeated by his workforce. With the video for "555", Adkins donned the role of an evil galactic master who is in charge of an army that tends to his bidding.

Following this, the band played two release shows in the UK, before embarking on a US tour in November with support from Pronoun. On January 29, NPR Music released a Tiny Desk Concert of the band performing "Love Never" and "All the Way (Stay)". In August and September, the group were planning to go on a headlining US tour, with support from the Front Bottoms, Turnover and Joyce Manor. However, it was later cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After initially being scheduled as a headlining act for the 2020 Two Thousand Trees Festival, the festival was moved to July 2021.

Reception
Surviving received generally positive reviews from music critics. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from critics, the album received an average score of 78, which indicates "generally favorable reviews", based on 10 reviews.

AllMusic reviewer Neil Z. Yeung said Jimmy Eat World forgo "late-era stagnation with the balanced, advanced Surviving." He found it to be "straightforward and relatable, cycling through highs and lows as powerfully as anything on Clarity or Futures". Sputnikmusic staff member SowingSeason proposed that a "better title might have been Thriving, because this record continues their remarkably consistent run and proves that they are still very much at, or at least near, the top of their game." Clash writer Dave Beech said that in spite of the album's short length, "it feels succinct, even elegant. Striking the balance perfectly between Classic Jimmy Eat World and a band with their eyes to the future". Jodie Sloan of The AU Review wrote that the album was "yet another showcase of solid songwriting and killer sounds." She said the "fact that Surviving sits so neatly amongst its predecessors says much about the work Jimmy Eat World have put in over the years in creating and refining a sound that is uniquely their own."

Kerrang! Tom Shepherd said that while it "might sound a tad overblown ... these grand, skyscraping episodes are frequent on Surviving". It is an album that "isn’t trying too hard to be anything more than a strong collection of Jimmy Eat World songs – and on that level it expertly delivers." Punknews.org staff member Renaldo69 said the album "deliver[s] another simple yet elegant rock and roll novella from a band not afraid to embrace tomorrow while still sticking to the core roots of old." Pitchfork contributor Thora Siemsen wrote that "listeners might find themselves wanting more risks. But the album on the whole is a solid, self-aware addition to Jimmy Eat World’s catalog". Exclaim! writer Eva Zhu said "it's not their best work." She elaborated that if one was a "diehard fan, you could give Surviving a chance, but if you're only a fan of their pop punk and emo efforts, it's best to skip this one." Will Richards of NME noted that was little "musical deviation" from the band's previous works, however, "‘Surviving’ sees the drums hitting harder, and the guitars packing a greater punch, audibly backing up these lyrics of hope and rebirth in their own way". DIY reviewer Ben Lynch said "Suggestive of a life just clinging on, ... the title to Jimmy Eat World's 10th album felt more than a little foreboding ... ‘Surviving’ was intent on going down a route with decidedly less sheen." Loudwire named it one of the 50 best rock albums of 2019.

Surviving peaked at number 90 on the US Billboard 200. Outside of the US, it charted at number 21 in the UK, number 44 in Germany, number 56 in Australia, number 70 in Switzerland, and number 72 in Austria. "Love Never" charted at number 31 on Alternative Airplay, and number 46 on Rock Airplay.

Track listing
All tracks written by Jimmy Eat World (Jim Adkins, Rick Burch, Zach Lind and Tom Linton).

Personnel
Personnel per booklet.

Jimmy Eat World
 * Jim Adkins – lead vocals, guitar
 * Rick Burch – bass guitar, backing vocals
 * Zach Lind – drums, percussion
 * Tom Linton – backing vocals, guitar

Additional musicians
 * Robin Vining – background vocals (tracks 5 and 10)
 * Rachel Haden - background vocals (track 6)
 * James King - saxophone (track 6)
 * Davey Havok - background vocals (track 10)
 * Justin Meldal-Johnsen – keyboards

Production
 * Justin Meldal-Johnsen – producer, engineer
 * Jimmy Eat World – producer
 * Mike Schuppan – engineer
 * Dave Schiffman – engineer
 * Jim Adkins – engineer
 * Ken Andrews – mixing
 * Dave Cooley – mastering
 * Nick Steinhardt – art direction
 * Ryan Sanders – art direction
 * Oliver Halfin – photography

title: Surviving (album)


text:
Spanish/Lesson 7

Grammar - Preterite (el pretérito indefinido)
The following table shows the preterite of regular verbs. Regular -er and -ir verbs follow the exact same pattern. Note that the nosotros form is the same as in the present tense for -ar and -ir verbs, so you have to know the context to figure out the time. Also, note that the last letter of comí and viví has an accent mark.

Here is a list of common verbs that have an irregular preterite:

Exercise: Preterite

Grammar - Imperfect (el pretérito imperfecto)
The following table shows the imperfect of regular verbs. Note that regular -er and -ir verbs follow the exact same pattern:

There are only three verbs that are irregular in the imperfect:

Grammar - Preterite vs. Imperfect
Spanish has two tenses that correspond to the English simple past. Roughly speaking, the Preterite is used to tell What happened - it refers to a specific event.

The Imperfect is used to tell How things were - it refers to the general situation.

Exercise: Preterite vs. Imperfect

title: Spanish/Lesson 7


text:
Talk:Greek classics

"Ancient Greek"
There are two types of Ancient Greek:
 * Koine (ie. marketplace Greek; also used in the Bible)
 * Classical Greek (ie. the Greek that the Classics are written in; Homer, Plato, that sort of stuff)

It should be mentioned which of the two is being taught
 * There are a lot more than two types of Ancient Greek. Attic Greek is the most frequently used (Plato, Aristotle, Euripides), but Homeric Greek and innumerable other dialects are commonly used. An discussion of Greek dialects should be an aspect of any course taught in Ancient Greek.<IP_ADDRESS> 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Greek classics


text:
Cookbook talk:Pasta Marinata

This module, or a earlier version of it, was previously published in the Wikipedia article Pasta marinata. The page history at the time the page was moved is listed below.

 * (cur) (last) 13:19, 30 Jun 2004 Gtrmp
 * (cur) (last) 13:37, 5 Jan 2003 Renata
 * (cur) (last) 08:51, 25 Feb 2002 Conversion script m (Automated conversion)

title: Cookbook talk:Pasta Marinata


text:
4192: The Crowning of the Hit King

4192: The Crowning of the Hit King is a 2010 documentary film that follows the exploits and achievements of Pete Rose, a baseball player. The film, directed by Terry Lukemire, is narrated by J. K. Simmons. The film stars Marty Brennaman, Tony Pérez, Mike Schmidt, and Pete Rose himself, who relay the struggle and effort it took to make history through America's favorite pastime.

Synopsis
On the evening of September 11, 1985, before a sellout crowd at Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, Pete Rose stood on the edge of history. With one swing he would collect more hits than anyone in the history of the game he loved. 4192: The Crowning of the Hit King is a love letter to baseball that highlights the playing career of one of the game's most honored and controversial stars. It is a story that began in 1963 when Rose ran to first base on a walk. It spanned more than two decades and brought numerous individual awards as well as three World Series titles. But there is more to this story than just awards. It is about baseball and what drove this man to chase what many thought was an unbreakable record and become "The Hit King."

Cast

 * Pete Rose - As Himself
 * Marty Brennaman - As Himself
 * Tony Pérez - As Himself
 * Mike Schmidt - As Himself
 * J.K. Simmons - Narrator

title: 4192: The Crowning of the Hit King


text:
Back to Home

Back to Home (, Also Called - Welcome To Moon Village) is a 2019 Taiwanese television series created and produced by SETTV. It stars Hsieh Kunda, Cosmos Lin, Wu Nien-hsuan, Li Jia-yu and Yang Kuei-mei. Filming began on 20 January 2019 and ended on 11 July 2019. It was first broadcast on 5 May 2019 on TTV and aired every Sunday from 10 pm to 11.30 pm.

Main cast

 * Hsieh Kunda as Bi Guo-jian 畢國建
 * Ruan Bai-hao as child Guo-jian
 * Cosmos Lin as Nan Yue-li 南月禮
 * Song Ting-yi as child Yue-li
 * Yang Kuei-mei as Zhou Hui-min 周慧敏
 * Wu Nien-hsuan as Ma Wei-hai 馬威海
 * Li Jia-yu s Xia Ou 夏鷗
 * Akio Chen as Xia Shou-fu 夏守富
 * Judy Liu as 4th sister Ma 馬四姐
 * Alice Huang as Xu Feng-yin 徐鳳音

Supporting cast

 * Cheng Ping-Chun as Bi Yong-wang 畢永望
 * Liu Han-qiang as Uncle Wu 午叔
 * Wu Xin-yun as Ma Yu-shan 馬玉姍
 * Liao Wei-bo as Xia Zhi 夏志
 * Yu Cheng-hsin as Ah Jiong 阿冏
 * Chris Chen as Kang You-di 康又迪
 * Chen Yu-xiang as young You-di
 * Wu Chia-Shan as Grandma Kang 康奶奶
 * Kuo Tzu-chien as Guo Fu-cheng 郭富城
 * Angel Hong as Zhuo Zi-mei 卓子玫
 * Jack Lee as Mai Qing-zhe 麥青哲
 * Ray Fan as Lu Yan-qin 呂燕琴

Guest actors

 * Michael Tao as Director Tang 唐董
 * Josh Lin as Master Da Long 大隆師傅
 * Jason Chan as Guo-jian's assistant
 * Leo Lee as Allen (Yue-li's ex-boyfriend)
 * Claire Yen as Amy (Allen's fiancé)
 * Eunice Han as Ah Ru 阿如
 * Chiu Yi-Feng as manager
 * Mu Qi as shop assistant
 * Joyce Godenzi as Hui-min's friend
 * Yen Yung Lie as Mr. Wu 吳先生
 * Crowd Lu as Guo Xue-fu 郭學福 (Fu-cheng's son)

Soundtrack

 * Self-complacement 愛情怎麼了嗎 by Crowd Lu
 * Vulnerability 如果我沒有傷口 by Jolin Tsai
 * Song of Summer 夏天的歌 by Crowd Lu
 * Imperfect Rainbow 殘缺的彩虹 by Cheer Chen
 * Bromance 華生 by Cheer Chen
 * Perfect Time 下次見 by Vast & Hazy
 * Happiness Awaits 預告幸福 by Alina Cheng
 * You Make the Sun Shine 陽光燦爛的原因 by Alina Cheng

Ratings
Notes:
 * 1) Competing drama on rival channels airing at the same time slot are:
 * 2) *CTS - Best Interest
 * 3) *CTV - The Next Season 2, Golden Melody
 * 4) *FTV - Music of Taiwan
 * 5) *EBC - Hot Door Night, Half and Half
 * 6) The data was investigated by AGB Nielsen, and the audience surveyed was viewers over four years old watching TV.

title: Back to Home