Anomalias da Experiência do Eu Fora do Espectro da Esquizofrenia

Baseado num trabalho apresentado oralmente no 7º Simpósio do Serviço de Psiquiatria do Hospital Professor Doutor Fernando Fonseca EPE, que teve lugar a 10 e 11 de Março de 2017.Anomalous Self-Experiences (ASE) are probably the most important contemporary conceptual and empirical research topic in the field Psychopathology of Schizophrenia. The set of these subjective phenomena constitute particular traits of schizophrenic subjects which were shown to be present in the first episode of psychosis, in prodromal and in Ultra-HighRisk states. Outstandingly, such enquiries have raised the standard of the psychopathological examination and endorsed reconsidering that subjective phenomena might increase validity of a psychiatric category without sacrificing reliability. They include changes in thought, self and bodily experience, reality contact and existential orientation. The keynote explored new ways of ASE’s symbolization as is the case of Truman Symptoms and abnormal bodily experiences subsets in Ultra-High-Risk subjects. Also, it further isolated ASE in new settings such as anxiety disorders. The keynote presented the results of three studies including two studies in Ultra-High-Risk subjects and in Panic Disorder subjects characterizing their profile and considering possible differences from schizophrenia. All of them aim to be a necessary first step to sanction a new set of enquiries contemplating other subjective phenomena that might occur in schizophrenia and recognizing the possible role of addressing subjectivity in determining psychopathology of other disorders.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

When It\u27s So Hard to Relate: Can the Legal System Mitigate the Trauma of Victim-Offender Relationships?

This article argues that, in the aftermath of violent crime, a relationship that is both negative and involuntary can form between crime victims and offenders. This relationship fetters the victim to the crime and the criminal, rendering it difficult to recover from the transgression. To illustrate how such a relationship may form and what consequences it may have for victims, this article uses the Oklahoma City bombing as a case study, documenting through the use of original interviews an involuntary relationship in which victims\u27 family members and survivors perceived they were tethered to Timothy McVeigh. This perceived relationship with McVeigh aggravated family members\u27 and survivors\u27 emotional and psychological wounds, delaying their healing. The article further argues that this relationship originated in media coverage of McVeigh that portrayed him as defiant, remorseless, and unemotional, and that it was further developed at trial when family members and survivors were profoundly disturbed by McVeigh\u27s conduct. To minimize the harmful effects of victim-offender relationships, this article proposes that victim services workers educate victims about the possibility of such a relationship, help victims cope with media coverage of the defendant, and assist victims in understanding defendants\u27 behavior during trial. Finally, it recommends that opportunities for voluntary victim-offender mediation be made available to help mitigate the negative consequences of these victim-offender ties

A Constructed Peace: Narratives of Suture in the News Media

In the aftermath of violent crime, survivors are confronted by questions of comprehension, healing, normalcy, accountability, and restoration. These same issues are communicated to audiences via mass media coverage of the crime and ensuing legal proceedings that focuses upon survivors while they are in the public eye - and while those suspected of the crime are in the defendant\u27s chair. Such stories bring a human face to the innocents most affected by the outcome of the proceedings, relaying their involvement in and response to legal developments from arrest to execution. This paper examines these chronicles through the lens of narrative theory, practices integral to human communication and memory. It discusses how the mass media makes use of narrative practices in covering crises, events that in effect demand narration. This paper then focuses upon the suturing potential of narrative, its ability to knit together understandings of crises into beginnings, endings, and points in between. This discussion is illustrated by a content analysis of stories covering Dennis and Judy Shepard, whose son Matthew was brutally slain in 1998, from the time of the murder to the prosecution of the killers and beyond

Lashing Reason to the Mast: Understanding Judicial Constraints on Emotion in Personal Injury Litigation

Arguing from the premise that personal injury plaintiffs and injury evidence do not taint proceedings by encouraging jurors to adjudicate based on emotion rather than evidence, this article reviews and challenges judicial attempts to constrain jurors\u27 emotive responses to an injured plaintiff in three areas of personal injury litigation: voir dire, admissibility of evidence, and restrictions on damages arguments and assessment. The judicial abhorrence of sympathy as a ground for substantive decision making during some phases of the trial clashes with judicial tolerance of the emotion during others, giving rise to a pattern of sympathy in, sympathy out where the propriety of empathic identification decreases as the trial action builds to a stage requiring jury deliberation. Numerous judicial constraints upon emotive identification prove to be unnatural or unworkable because they are grounded in a shallow understanding of emotion and its interpersonal propriety that directly contradicts the role of emotion in lay interpersonal relations. Yet, at the same time lay patterns of emotive response are brought into the adjudicative mix by the jury trial model, which relies upon the judgment of lay jurors who are asked to abandon their socio-cultural understandings of emotional response for a substitute logic of emotive form and content that directly contradicts their pre-existing lay socio-cultural practices. Moreover, although jurors are told that evidence, not empathy, is the proper basis for substantive decision making, the personal injury trial is framed within a lay conception of emotive identification. Jurors are picked on the basis of their potential to identify with the plaintiff, and asked to rely upon life experiences in adjudicating the plaintiff\u27s claim. These inconsistencies compel the conclusion that the role of emotive response in adjudication should be reconceptualized, since it is both a natural and rational response to evidence of injury

Selling ART or Selling Out?: A Response to Selling ART: An Empirical Assessment of Advertising on Fertility Clinics\u27 Websites

Roundtable on Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technology 201

Rebuilding the Closet: Bowers v. Hardwick, Lawrence v. Texas, and the Mismeasure of Homosexual Historiography

In an effort to engage in such specification, this paper will first address the mischaracterization of history in Bowers, which portrays the historic legal and ecclesiastical penalties of what the Court labels as homosexual activities as a continuous, unitary narrative extending from the halls of the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian to the legislative assembly rooms of Georgia and Texas. This illusory perspective portrays the criminalization of sodomy (and therefore the identity of homosexuality itself) as an impossible cultural continuum. The impossibility of this continuum lies not only in its implicit assumption that states and other lawmaking entities throughout history shared the same cultural, moral, religious, and legal principles, but also in its unqualified adoption of the secular state as the successor to religious authority and the seamless secular synthesizing of penitential prohibitions against sexual sin into secular prohibition against sexual crime. This paper will not only demonstrate that the Bowers conception of history as a continuum is in reality a series of discrete communal units, but will also show that the confines of this continuum emphasize only the horizontal progression of time, quashing significant differences in the authority of the entities who enact the laws and more importantly in the laws themselves. This paper will then elaborate upon other broader difficulties with the Bowers decision - difficulties that are characteristic of many homosexual historiographies. The first of these conundrums, the erroneous assumption that sodomy statutes of past centuries were a former species of anti-homosexual legislation, arises from the historic implications of the Court\u27s conflation of homosexual status with the act of sodomy. The second and third of these topics, the collapse of morality into legality and the subsequent collapse of the legal into the social, also necessarily follow from the Court\u27s collapse of status into act. Each of these three conflated concepts will be addressed in the context of the prior historical discussion of legislation prohibiting same-sex activity from Republican Rome to modern America. The paper will then describe how Bowers\u27 faulty historiography was not merely a series of uninformed generalizations but a conscious strategy dictated by the Court\u27s originalist platform that was developed to uphold the majority\u27s interpretation of Georgia\u27s anti-sodomy statute. Finally, the paper will conclude by explicating what impact the language of Lawrence v. Texas will have on future constructions of homosexuality and its histories

Woman Scorned?: Resurrecting Infertile Women\u27s Decision-Making Autonomy

Legal scholarship portrays women as reproductive decision makers in conflicting ways. The distinctions between depictions of infertile women and women considering abortion are particularly striking. A woman seeking infertility treatment, even one who faces no legal obstacles, is often portrayed as so emotionally distraught and desperate that her ability to give informed consent is potentially compromised. Yet, the legal academy has roundly rejected similar stereotypes of pregnant women considering abortion, depicting them as confident and competent decision makers. This Article argues that legal scholars\u27 use of a desperate woman stereotype denies women\u27s ability to critically assess the health risks and life benefits of fertility treatments, particularly when similar stereotypes have been met with scorn in the abortion context. These constructions perpetuate emotional paternalism; undermine the dignity, autonomy, and capacityof infertile women; and justify restrictions on decision making in the Assisted Reproductive Technology context. Infertility may well produce emotional distress; however, the construction of infertile women as governed by desperation unnecessarily impugns their capacity for autonomous decision making. To these ends, this Article examines the contributions that emotion can make to autonomous decision making, and the need for a more relational model of autonomy that acknowledges the socially embedded nature of treatment decisions. Because current constructions of desperate infertile women ignore available clinical research and have serious ideological and practical consequences, it is crucial to unmask and reframe them to prevent them from being incorporated into jurisprudence or legislation