Quality of life measurements for patients with chronic suppurative otitis media: Italian adaptation of "Chronic Ear Survey". La misura della qualità della vita in pazienti con otite media suppurativa cronica: adattamento in italiano del “Chronic Ear Survey”

Il Chronic Ear Survey (CES) è una misura specifica della Qualità della Vita (QoL) nei pazienti affetti da Otite Media Suppurativa Cronica (CSOM). È un questionario composto da 13 domande che indagano frequenza, durata e severità dei sintomi associati a questa malattia. Il CES genera tre sottoscale con rispettivo punteggio che riguardano limitazioni nelle attività fisiche e sociali, sintomi e trattamento medico. Attraverso le risposte ottenute dai pazienti è possibile ricavare un punteggio che va da 0 a 100; il punteggio più alto indica una QoL migliore, mentre quello più basso indica una QoL peggiore. Il questionario è stato creato in lingua inglese. Lo scopo del lavoro è di validare in lingua italiana il CES. La traduzione è stata condotta seguendo le linee guida internazionali. La versione italiana del CES (CES-I) è stata proposta a 54 pazienti con CSOM. Nello stesso tempo, è stato somministrato a tutti i pazienti anche il questionario SF-36. Un modello trasversale è stato usato per esaminare la consistenza interna (Cronbach alpha) e la validità esterna (coefficiente di Pearson). Per confermare la validità esterna del CES-I è stato poi analizzato il test di correlazione di Pearson considerando il punteggio totale, le singole sottoscale del CES e le 8 scale dello Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Il coefficiente di Cronbach è stato pari a 0.737. Il coefficiente di correlazione interno ha dato un risultato pari a 0.737 (95% CI: 0.600-0.835, p < 0.001) di media e 0.412 (95% CI: 0.237-0.559, p < 0.001) per le singole misure. Sulla base dei nostri risultati il questionario CES-I è risultato essere concorde con l’originale in lingua inglese e può essere considerato uno strumento adeguato per valutare la Qualità della Vita nei pazienti con CSOM di lingua italianaThe chronic ear survey (CES) is a sensitive and disease specific quality of life (QoL) measurement tool in patients with chronic suppurative otitis media (CSOM). It is a 13-item survey that evaluates the frequency, duration and severity of problems associated with this disease. It is composed of three subscales that describe activity restrictions, symptoms and medical resource utilisation. Based on patient's answers, it is possible to obtain a score resulting in a scale ranging from 0 to 100; the highest indicates the best health, while the lowest denotes poor health. The questionnaire was originally created in English. The aim of this study is to validate the CES questionnaire in Italian (CES-I). Translation was made following international guidelines. The application follows the stages of translation from English to Italian and linguistic adaptation, and grammatical and idiomatic equivalence review. The CES-I and the Short Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) questionnaires were administered to 54 patients with CSOM. A cross-sectional design was used to examine the internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and concurrent validity (Pearson's product moment correlation). To confirm the external validity of CES-I, Pearson correlation coefficient, considering the total score and single subscales of CES and the 8 scales of the SF-36, was calculated. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for internal consistency was 0.737. The intraclass correlation coefficient, measured through mixed effects, was 0.737 (95% CI: 0.600-0.835, p < 0.001) for average measures and 0.412 (95% CI: 0.273-0.559, p < 0.001) for individual measures. According to our results, CES-I is a reliable tool for evaluation of QoL in patients with CSOM among the Italian-speaking population

Questioni sul legalismo

n/

Ancient and Modern Constitutionalism. Constitution and “state of emergency”

La Constitución de los Antiguos puede considerarse básicamente una situación institucional en la cual a un centro de poder soberano que tiene su propia ontología y dinámica, y en cierta medida su propia justificación, se acompaña un cuerpo de reglas dirigidas a limitar, a controlar y a racionalizar las actuaciones de aquel poder soberano. Éste preexiste a la constitución, y es además su garante fáctico. El constitucionalismo de los Modernos hace que el contraste tradicional entre constitucionalismo y democracia resulte en gran medida obsoleto ya que la comunidad política y con ella el Estado y el Derecho son el producto de una acción de los ciudadanos. El constitucionalismo es el proceso de tal iniciativa “desde abajo”. En este artículo se distinguen estas dos visiones del constitucionalismo y su posición respecto al estado de excepciónAncient constitution could be considered basically an institutional situation where a center of sovereign power, with its own ontology and dynamics, and in certain extent its own justification, is enclosed in a body of rules addressed to limiting, controlling and rationalizing the actions of that sovereign power. This one pre-exists to the constitution and it is also its factual guarantor. Modern constitutionalism makes the traditional contrast between constitutionalism and democracy obsolete to a great extent because the political community and with that also the State and the Law are the output of citizens’ participation. Constitutionalism is the process of that initiative “from the bottom”. This is the view defended by neoconstitutionalism. This article antlines and discusses that stance in relation to the state of emergency

The collapse of the rule of law : the Messina earthquake and the state of exception

Globalization is commonly cited as an important factor in theorising legal phenomena in the contemporary world. Although many legal disciplines have sought to adapt their theories to globalization, progress has been comparatively modest within contemporary analytical jurisprudence. This paper aims to offer a survey of recent scholarship on legal theory and globalization and suggests various ways in which these writings are relevant to the project of jurisprudence. This paper argues, more specifically, that the dominant interpretation of globalization frames it as a particular form of legal pluralism. The resulting concept - global legal pluralism - comes in two broad varieties, depending on whether it emphasizes normative or institutional pluralism. This paper goes on to argue that these concepts coincide with two central themes of jurisprudence, namely its concern with normativity and institutionality. Finally, this paper reflects on the feasibility of constructing a ‘general' and ‘descriptive' jurisprudence in light of globalizatio

The theory of law of torture

Este artículo propone una reflexión en relación con la revitalización del discurso justificatorio de la tortura en determinados ámbitos del pensamiento político y de la práctica jurídica en nuestros días. El autor muestra los aspectos básicos de la doctrina que a partir de la sublimación de la posición política y jurídica del jefe del ejecutivo en el nuevo Imperio, desarrolla una estrategia a favor de la legitimidad de la tortura como instrumento de acción política y jurídica. Tras analizar los distintos argumentos que reivindican la licitud de la tortura, se desarrolla la tesis de acuerdo con la cual existe una conexión conceptual entre tortura e ilegalidad, una contradicción fenomenológica entre derecho y tortura

Teorías de la argumentación y conceptos de Derecho. Una aproximación

Publicad

Discutiendo de democracia. Representación política y derechos fundamentales

SUMARIO: 1. Premisa?2. El método democrático.?3. Instituciones y sociedad civil.?4. De nuevo sobre la división de poderes.?5. Transformación social y libertades civiles

Institutional Theories of Law (draft for an encyclopedia concept)

El artículo trata sobre el institucionalismo jurídico como una corriente de pensamiento que se opone a la concepción estrecha del derecho que se sostiene desde el positivismo jurídico. Los principios de esta teoría fueron desarrollados por el jurista italiano Santi Romano, quién sostuvo la equiparación del ordenamiento jurídico como una forma social organizada. Otra vertiente de esta teoría, es la que representa Maurice Hauriou que distinguía entre institucionespersonas e instituciones-cosas y equiparaba con éstas últimas al Estado representativo. El jurista alemán Carl Schmitt es otro representante de esta teoría aunque en una vertiente ilegítima debido a su carácter antiiluminista, irracionalista y antiliberal. La teoría ha sido renovada por los aportes del llamado neo-institucionalismo de Ota Weinmberger y Neil MacCormick, y la teoría institucional de Cornelius Castoriadis.This article is about the juridical institutionalism as theory opposed to the closed conception of law supported from the legal positivismo The principIes for this theory were developed by the italian jurist Santi Romano, who stated the description between the juridical organization as a ordered social form. Another variation for this theory is that one supported by Maurice Hauriou, who distinguished between institutions-persons and institutions-things and put as equivalent these last ones with the representative State. The german jurist Carl Schmitt is another representative from this theory, nonetheless from an illegitimate variation, due to his anti illuminist, irrational and anti liberal character. The theory has been renewed by the academic contributions made by the neoinstitutionalism from Ota Weinmberger and Neil MacCormick, and also by the institutional theory made by Cornelius Castoriadis.Publicad

A dangerous liaison. Torture and Law

La tortura es un “instituto jurídico” de antigua tradición –nos dicen los historiadores del Derecho–. Sin embargo, la modernidad del Derecho consiste en la expulsión de la tortura del ámbito de lo que puede ser permitido y concebido como legal. Esta acción de definición y regulación conceptual de la esfera jurídica, por la cual la crueldad no puede ser permitida, se encuentra ahora en crisis y desafiada tanto en la teoría como en la práctica del Derecho. A este último una vez más se le relaciona con la fuerza, la violencia y el sufrimiento. El sufrimiento, el mal –se nos dice– tiene que ser compensado y reequilibrado con el sufrimiento, con mal. El terror ilegal se combate con el terror legal. Y en todo caso la tortura sólo es un mal menor. Con este artículo se quiere enfocar de manera sintética este nuevo drama del Derecho que ahora se juega frente a nuestros ojos. Y se quiere discutir si la opción de recuperar los “buenos” antiguos tiempos en los cuales el tormento fue parte integrante del proceso judicial es compatible con la autocompresión de los juristas como actores de un ordenamiento constitucional y liberal. ¿Podría de verdad ser el caso que el “estado de excepción” fuera el corazón normativo del Estado de Derecho?Torture is an old “legal institution” –we are told by Legal Historians–. However, Modernity in the law consists in expelling it from the precinct of what is legally conceivable and permitted. This “actio finium regundorum” of the legal sphere, where radical cruelty is not allowed, has recently and unfortunately begun to be challenged and be much less obvious, both in theory and, helas, in practice. Now, sometimes law is again and openly reconnected with violence and evil. Evil – we are instructed – will be compensated and payed back with evil. Illegal terror is fought back with legal terror. In any case torture is a lesser evil. This article would like to shortly introduce to this novel drama and to consider whether rehearsing it as in the “good”old times where torment was just another step of a criminal trial or of an effective “raison d’État” could be fitting our still widespread self-understanding of lawyers as being part and actors within a liberal culture. Could it really be the case that “state of exception” is the hard core of our rule of law

"Juristas, malos cristianos". Abogacía y ética jurídica

Publicad