Medicine During the Civil War Essay -- essays research papers fc

Medicine During the Civil War 1861-1865   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  When Walt Whitman wrote that he believed the â€Å"real war† would never get into the books, this is the side he was talking about (Belferman 1996). Yet, it is important that we remember and recall the medical side of the conflict too, as horrible and terrifying as it was (Adams 1952). Long before doctors and people knew anything about bacteria and what caused disease was the time of Civil War medicine. Doctors during the Civil War (always referred to as â€Å"surgeons†) were incredibly unprepared. Most surgeons had as little as two years of medical school because very few pursued further education. At that time, Harvard Medical School did not even own a single stethoscope or microscope until well after the war. Most Civil War surgeons had never treated a gun shot wound because they were accustomed to treating minor head colds and sore throats. Many had never performed surgery or even held a scalpel. Medical boards let extremely unqualified students practice medicine due to much needed help for wounded soldiers on the battlefield. â€Å"Some ten thousand surgeons served in the Union and about four thousand served in the Southern Confederacy (Cunningham 1958).†   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  By far, the deadliest thing that faced the Civil War soldier was disease and infection. For every soldier who died in battle, two died of disease (Cunningham 1958). Among the long list of terminal and fatal diseases that plagued the battlefield as well as the operating table and hospitals were dysentery (a severe form of diarrhea which was very common among the soldiers), measles, small pox, malaria, pneumonia, and â€Å"camp itch† which was caused by skin disease and insects. Malaria was usually brought on by camping in damp areas, where mosquitos were prone to. There were many factors that came into play which explained why disease spread so rapidly. Among the explanations were as follows: inadequate physicals before entering the Army, the fact many troops came from rural areas, neglect of camp hygiene, insects and rodents in the area, exposure to other infected individuals, lack of clothing and shoes, and poor conditions of food and water. Many unqualifi ed recruits entered the Army and diseases cruelly weeded out those who should have been excluded by physical exams prior to recruiting (Shildt 1986).   Ã‚  &... .... The many men and women, North and South, who served in the hospital and sanitary services during the war were proud of their achievements (Adams 1861-1865). The morbidity and mortality rates of both armies showed marked improvement over those of other 19th century wars. The physicians and sanitarians held down the disease fatalities to levels that their generation considered more than reasonable. It was a gruesome business for doctors and patients alike; yet without the doctors and nurses in blue and gray, much of the young manhood of America at mid century might not have survived for the work of rebuilding. (Adams 1861-1865) Works Cited Adams, George W. Doctors In Blue,†Medical History of the Union† Baton Rouge:University of Louisiana Press, 1952 Belferman, Mary â€Å"On Surgery’s Cutting Edge in the Civil War† The Washington Post, June 13, 1996 Cunningham, H.H. Doctors in Gray, Baton Rouge: University of Louisiana Press, 1958 Coco, Gregory A. A Strange and Blighted Land-Gettysburg, The Aftermath, 1995 Schildt, John W. Hunter Homes McGuire:Doctor in Gray, 1986 Adams, George W. â€Å"Fighting for Time† The National Historical Society’s-The Image of War 1861-1865 Volume IV

Essay on Language and Dialogue in Catch-22 -- Catch-22

Use of Language and Dialogue Catch-22      Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Catch-22 is probably best discussed in terms of its language. The prose style Heller employs is original and distinctive, appropriate and well implemented (Pearson 277).† One application of that prose style is dialogue; Heller uses dialogue to manifest the themes of the novel. Some of the themes best shown in the dialogue of the characters are Heller's hatred of war, and his perceived idiocy in military and in bureaucracy. Scattered throughout the book are several dialogues which share numerous characteristics. Some particular conversations are especially demonstrative of these elements. Heller uses these dialogues to communicate his ideas to the reader. In chapter XXXVI, several military police officers pick up the camp's Chaplain, take him to The Cellar, and interrogate him. The dialogue between the three MPs and the Chaplain is typical of dialogues throughout the book in many ways and the conversation reflects numerous themes central toCatch-22. The inter rogation scene offers many insights into the meaning of Catch-22and the dialogue therein is especially important. The camp Heller describes is bureaucratic in the worst possible way and the conversation exhibits those characteristics of bureaucracy that Heller most loathes: illogical operation, inability to take action, lateral actions (in which no real gain is made), and a maelstrom of regulations which work against each other.    One way the interrogation scene mirrors the themes of the book is that the logicemployed by the military police officers is totally illogical. Heller presents thisas a major theme in his novel: throughout the book, the thought processes of agents of themilitary make no sense whatsoever and tho... ...ph Heller": Copyright 1996 by Charles Scribner's and Sons New York, NY.    Frank, Mike. "Enos and Thanatos in Catch-22." Contemporary Literary Criticism. Ed. Roger Matuz. Vol.11. (77-87) Detroit: Gale, 1990.    Hasley, Louis. "Dramatic Tension in Catch-22." Contemporary Literary Criticism. Vol. 8 (173) , Ed. Roger Matuz. Detroit: Gale. 1990.    Heller, Joseph. The Chelsea House Library of Literary Criticism. Twentieth-Century American Literature Vol. 3. New York. Chelsea House Publishers, 1986.    Heller, Joseph. Catch-22. New York: Dell Publishing, 1955, 1961    Kennard, Jean E. "Joseph Heller: At War with Absurdity." Contemporary Literary Criticism.(75-87) Ed. Roger Matuz. Detroit:L Gale 1990.    Pearson, Carol. "Catch-22 & the Debasement of Language."Contemporary Literary Criticism. (277) Matuz . Detroit: L Gale 1990.

The Effects of Clinical Instructors on Nursing Students

The effects of nurse instructors – or preceptors, as they are called in the nursing field — on nursing students in clinical settings can range from helpful to detrimental. Depending on the preceptor, the student may come away from the clinical teaching experience either confident or uncertain about herself as a nurse and her skills and may view nursing as either a positive or negative experience. Effective characteristics of clinical instructors in nursing are applicable to other health areas, such as physical therapy, radiography, and speech pathology. Confidence †¢ Most students who are beginning clinical instruction are anxious. They are afraid they won't perform procedures on their patients adequately and that they will make mistakes that might cause patient suffering. An effective instructor will develop a relationship with the student that is reassuring, nurturing and confidence-building. He will praise good work and create an atmosphere in which the student is allowed to make mistakes, learn from them and develop initiative. Role Model †¢The effective clinical instructor is a role model for the clinical student. She performs patient care with the student, observing or participating in accordance with established standards. The instructor exhibits leadership skills by delegating tasks, setting priorities and making decisions. The student, observing this role model, will identify with the instructor and work to imitate the skills exhibited. Relationship †¢The relationship the instructor develops with the student is critical for effective instruction. The instructor should be available to the student for questions and advice by providing a phone number for the student with questions, concerns or anxieties. The instructor should develop, with the student's input, regularly scheduled conferences to provide feedback on the student's progress, discuss student objectives and consider how they are being met. The instructor also should praise the student's good work and point out problems. Negativity †¢An instructor that is negative about nursing, the clinical environment and other staff members may harm the student's perception of nursing and its environment. When the instructor complains about hospital practices, the nursing profession or the clinical environment, he is encouraging the student to develop a negative attitude toward the field. As a role model, that is just what the instructor should not do.

Don’t Complain

Often heard people complain why my face is not beautiful, why the weather is so bad, why I live in such a poor family †¦ why should we complain about it? Just like what Maya Angelou said:†if you don't like something, change it. If you can’t change it, change your attitude. Don't complain. † I remember I read an article about Helen Keller. The day she became blind and deaf she was only 18 months old! At the beginning she was really sad and very easy to get angry, but after a few weeks, she composed herself. She began to find her own path in life.Miss Sullivan began to teach Helen vocabularies and how to touch Braille; Helen had generated a great interest in knowledge. Ultimately, she was admitted to Harvard University with honors. She didn't complain what she doesn’t have; she changed her attitude towards life and became successful. Another example, Hawking was a British  theoretical physicist, and author. He was suffering from Lou Gehrig's disease and paralysis soon. After a few years, Hawking lost his ability of speaking also. Hawking was being detained in a wheelchair for 40 years; the disease has made his body completely deformed.Even so, Hawking has not given up, he was tenaciously survived. Despite his debilitating illness, he has done ground-breaking work in physics and cosmology and his several books strive to make science accessible to everyone. He didn't have the ability to change his adversity, but he kept a good attitude and he didn't complain; he became success. For those things that you can’t change, there is no need to complain, change your attitude might be a better option. You cannot change your appearances, why don’t you give it an indulgent smile; you cannot change the weather, why don’t you change your mood; attitude is everything!

Evaluate Social Identity Theory Essay

Social identity theory is designed by Tajfel and Turner (1979) to explain how it is that people develop a sense of membership and belonging in particular groups, and how the mechanics of intergroup discrimination. Several interconnected mechanisms are at work with social identity theory. The core idea is that people tend to seek out-group membership as an affirmation of self-esteem, but that membership in a group alone is not enough to build self-esteem. To feel more self esteem, people have to believe that they are in the right group, which creates the need for a positive distinction from other groups. There are three cognitive processes that are Social Categorisation, Social Identification and Social Comparison. Tajfel and his colleagues divided some schoolboys in to 2 different groups, they allocated them randomly into the groups but the participants thought that the groups were defined by their preferences to paintings. They had to give out points to the in-group and the out-group but were not allowed to give points to themselves. The participants would favour people in their group rather than the participants of the other group. In many cases the participants would sacrifice points for their group just to increase the difference between the groups. The participants would give 7 points to their own group and give the other group 1, although they could have given 13 to each group. This shows that you can be easily be put in a group for a minor thing and you would stick together and go against the other group and see them as the enemy without having any real reason. Caroline Howarth carried out the second research. The participants all lived in the Brixton area, which was seen as a poor and violent place and also where a lot of black people were thought to have lived there and were thought of being the main cause of violence. Within the first set of focus groups (total of 7), she asked teenagers to talk about Brixton, she asked them to ‘tell me about Brixton – what it is like for you to live here and how people outside Brixton think about Brixton’. Howarth used a topic guideline to ensure that central research questions were always covered (on community, inclusion, exclusion, identity, ethnicity, the media, prejudice, racism, the school). The organisation of focus groups into friendship groups made it possible for participants to discuss these experiences with admirable confidence, maturity and understanding. It can, nonetheless, be difficult for the social researcher to access such sensitive material. When the moderator is an outsider and when research participants assume (often correctly) that the researcher has little experience of the kind of discrimination and challenges to self-esteem that pervade their lives, mistrust and suspicion may harm the research relationship. The girls answered positively and were happy to be from Brixton and did not want to move away and did not see any problems. This would shock people, as they would have thought people would move away if they had the chance. They are creating a social identity, as they are happy to be a part of the Brixton identity. There are some problems with this study as there are some ethical issues, they were deceived as they were lied to in the Tajfel study as they were just randomly picked and had nothing to do with their views on the paintings. Whereas the Howarth study they were not deceived which is a good way to carry out a study but they might have lied with their answers to please the examiner and have changed their behavior to be positive and not how that even the people who live there think the same as everyone else. Both of these studies are valid as the research supports the theory and the results can be applied to everyday life. The Tajfel study shows how people at school in the playground group and pick the group they have the most in common with and communicate with them and if they do not seem to have anything in common they would not stay there. The second study by Howarth can also be applied in everyday life as people create social identity all the time, if a place is thought of negatively by people who do not live their then the people who do can make a social identity and be happy and have positive thoughts about this area and not agree with the others. The theory seems to be a good and plausible theory as the research supports the theory that people automatically divide the social world into the in-group (people like me) and the out-group (people who are not like me). The people see the people in their group as similar to them but 2 different groups seem to be so different from each other when not in all cases they are that different from each other.

Asses the Contribution of Functionalism to Our Understanding Essay

Functionalist views are based on that society is a system of interdependent parts held together by a shared culture or consensus. They believe that every part of society performs functions that help keep society running effectively. They use the example of a body to explain the way society runs as each part of our body has to work together in order for us to stay alive this is the same as society according to a functionalist. Education according to Emilie Durkheim (1903) consists of two main functions, creating social solidarity and teaching specialist skills. Social solidarity is the sense of being part of a group or society. Functionalists believe this is key to making education run accordingly as without social solidarity people would only self indulge in their own desires. Education helps to create social solidarity as it helps transmit societies culture, beliefs and values from ‘generation to generation‘keeping society running correspondingly. Schools also act in preparing children for society in real life by teaching the concepts of working together with people you do not always no. his links with working as in work you have to work coherently with people who you will not know. Specialist skills are having the necessary skills to perform their role in education to the ‘bride way’ towards working life. Education helps children prepare for this through teaching children in different a range of subjects which they will then come to specialise in the subjects they are good in which will in turn help them earn mon ey in society in later life. Education also according to functionalists gives all children an equal opportunity to develop on their own individual talents also known as meritocracy which is achieving through your own effort. Davis and Moore (1945) argue that education sorts children into their future educational roles by sorting their ‘aptitudes’ and ‘abilities’ which also links to social solidarity as to do certain jobs you need the necessary qualification and experience. However there are criticisms of functionalists and education. Melvin Tumin (1953) put forward a circular argument and criticises David and Moore by putting forward such questions as ‘how do we know what job is more important? ’ answer ‘because it’s highly Rewarded’ and why are some jobs higher rewarded than others? ’ answer ‘because they are more important’. Marxists believe that society only transmits the ideology of the ruling class therefore it disadvantages the working classes in education. One example is that Marxists prepare the working class for there jobs through education therefore it is only transmitting values of the ruling class. Also Marxists believe that the state is controlled by the ruling classes who transmit the ideology state apparatus which is that it maintains control through controlling people’s ideas, values and beliefs through religion, mass media and the education system. This criticises the functionalist view as social solidarity is meant to transmit these values and beliefs which according to Marxists are only means to control the working class. Meritocracy according to Marxists is a myth as we are controlled by the higher classes and we cannot achieve our status we ascribe our status. Another big criticism of functionalism in education is that functionalists believe that everybody at school behaves and accepts all that is taught when this is not the true case. It does not explain why some people come to fail examinations if everybody works in a general ‘consensus’. Dennis Wrong (1961) refers to this as ‘puppets in society’. The new right believe that the state fails to prepare the young for work as the state discourages choice and competition. Another disadvantage is that functionalists cannot explain under-achievement and inequality of opportunity in education. In conclusion Functionalism has a good general understanding of Education but it has quite obvious flaws as not everybody is going to get on in society so it is impossible to have a general consensus. Also the disadvantages of Functionalism in education seem to out weigh the positives therefore functionalism does not give a real positive understanding of education.

Moral Relativism Essay

At first glance, moral relativism appears to be an appealing, well though out philosophical view. The truth of moral judgments is relative to the judging subject or community. The basic definition of moral relativism is that all moral points of view are equally valid; no single person’s morals are any more right or wrong than any other person’s. As you look closer at the points that moral relativists use to justify their claims, you can plainly see that there are, more often than not, viable objections that can be made against the moral relativist’s arguments. Moral, or ethical, relativism is made up of two types of relativism: cultural and individual relativism. Cultural relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to a culture, to a way of life that is practiced by a whole group of people. Individual relativism says that right and wrong, good and evil, are relative to the preferences of an individual. Cultural and individual relativism support the claim that there are no â€Å"universal moral truths† in the world. Universal moral truths are morals that apply to all societies and cultures. I believe that morality is relative to culture simply since our morals develop from the surroundings in which we are raised. Our parents, culture and societal experiences build our individual views on what is moral and immoral. Perceptions are formed through example, especially when we are children as we learn what is right and wrong through our parents and how they react to situations. The theory behind ethical relativism states that ethical standards are not concrete for all societies and times, but rather are relative to the standards of individual societies and time periods. I disagree with this theory because societies should be judged by their moral beliefs on the foundations that time doesn’t change what is morally right and wrong and their should be more emphasis based on the individual rights as opposed to respecting the morals of that individual’s society. Allowing us, as a society, to say that a time or a location makes any ethical belief or theory practiced by the masses of that time/place right and that should be respected by people of other cultures is ignorant. There are a set of universal rights all human beings should enjoy no matter the location or time period, and those cultures that violate these rights shouldn’t be embraced for being different but rather shunned upon for not recognizing the universal basic rights of the indi vidual, despite the fact that it is hard to say what are ALL of these basic human rights. Ethical relativism places more emphasis on the society and not enough on the individual of that society. For example lets say that in some imaginary culture it is perfectly normal to kill or maim people if they annoy you. Ethical relativism says that being of a culture where this is not an accepted practice I cannot say that this is wrong, rather I must respect their culture thereby placing more emphasis on respecting a culture then the rights of the individuals to life no matter how annoying they happen to be. In a system where everything is relative there can be no set ethical belief because then no one is bound by any universal set code of ethics. Nothing is ever immoral since actions can’t be compared to a standard and thus nothing is immoral and nothing is moral. Societies should be judged by their moral beliefs because time and place doesn’t change what is morally right and wrong and more emphasis should be given to the individual rather than to the society. Ethical relativism contradicts the point of ethical theory in that there is no universal standards therefore n o action is moral, and vice versa no action is immoral. Society defines what is moral at a certain point in time. Morality is adaptive and can change over time, however it is still dependent upon its culture to decide whether it is accepted or not accepted. For example, in the early twentieth century, pre-marital sex was considered a huge sin and looked down upon with disgrace. A person’s entire character was jeopardized if they had participated in pre-marital sex. Today however, although pre-marital sex is not considered virtuous, society does not cast aside those who have sex before marriage. It is considered normal as a matter of fact to have several partners before marriage, that is, if you even decide to get married (another topic that has lost importance over time). Benedicts also gives an example to further prove her point that morality and or normality is culturally relative. She gives the example of a man in a Melanesian society who was referred to as â€Å"silly and simple and definitely crazy† because he liked to share and to help people and do nice things for them. In the United States, these are virtuous qualities. If you are stingy and not helpful you are looked down upon, but in this contrasting society, to share and be helpful is so disgraceful that one is ridiculed for possessing those traits or even condemned for them. One who believes that morality is relative could give further example of traits that are despised in one culture but admired in a different culture. History and evolution provide codes of what is accepted in a culture, things such as sorcery, homosexuality, polygamy, male dominance, euthanasia, these things are completely dependent upon its society to define its morality. Within this world that we live on, there is an enormous amount of people. Each of these people belongs to different cultures and societies. Every society has traits and customs that make it unique. These societies follow different moral codes. This means that they may have different answers to the moral questions asked by our own society. What I am trying to say is that every society has a different way of analyzing and dealing with life’s events, because of their cultural beliefs. This claim is known as Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism is the correct view of ethics. (a) Different societies have different moral codes. (b) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another. (c) The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many. (d) There is no â€Å"universal truth† in ethics-that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times (e) The moral code of a society deter mines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society. (f) It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures (Pojman). Above are six claims that help explain the notion of Cultural Relativism. In Rachel’s article, the Eskimos practice infanticide as well as the killing of elders. The elders are too feeble to contribute to the group but; they still consume precious food, which is scarce. This practice is necessary for the survival of the group. The males within the Eskimo tribes have a higher mortality rate because they are the hunters and food providers. The killing of female infants helps keep the necessary equilibrium for the survival of the group. So, this infanticide and killing of elders does not signal that Eskimos have less compassion for their children, nor less respect for human life; it is merely recognition that murder is sometimes needed to ensure that the Eskimos do not become culturally extinct (Pojman). To continue with the subject of murder, there are many questions about murder that our own society faces. Within our own society there are conflicting views on topics such as abortion, capital punishment and, euthanasia. To some these acts are considered to be murder, to others they are necessary to our society. The point of this conflict is that even within our own society, there is a discrepancy between what is morally right or wrong. There is an exception to every so-called moral absolute. This eliminates the possibility of Moral Absolutism, and proves there is no universal truth (Pojman).Ruth states that homosexuals deal with many conflicts that are culturally based (Pojman). For example, in our western society, the Catholic religion believes that is a sin for individuals to partake in homosexual activity. By this I mean, the tendency toward this trait of homosexuality in our culture exposes these individuals to all the conflicts that coincide with this choice of lifestyle. Some of these conflicts include hate groups that partake in â€Å"gay bashing†, public ridicule and even laws against homosexuals taking wedding vows. This differs from what Ruth explains about how in American Indian tribes there exists the institution of the berdache (Pojman). These are men who, after puberty, take up the dress and occupations of women and even marry other men. These individuals are considered to be good healers and leaders in women’s groups. In other words, they are socially placed and not ridiculed by other members of their society. This is an example of how different societies have different moral codes. Ruth states within her article how every society integrates itself with a chosen basis and disregards itself with behavior deemed uncongenial (Pojman). This means societies will choose their own moral standards and ethical codes and, disregard actions that do not lie within the boundaries of these moral standards and ethical codes. She goes on to say that our moral codes are not formed by our inevitable constitution of human nature. We recognize that morality differs in every society. Our own culture and environment will dictate these codes. This explains why different people have different moral standards, because behavior is culturally institutionalized.