1,702 research outputs found
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
Law as a Reflection of Her/His-Story: Current Institutional Perceptions of, and Possibilities for, Protecting Transsexuals\u27 Interests in Legal Determinations of Sex
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
Regarding Pained Sympathy and Sympathy Pains: Reason, Morality, and Empathy in the Civil Adjudication of Pain
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
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
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
Why Rebottle the Genie? : Capitalizing on Closure in Death Penalty Proceedings
Closure, though a term with great rhetorical force in the capital punishment context, has to date evaded systematic analysis, instead becoming embroiled in ideological controversy. For victims who have rubbed the rights lamp for years, inclusion in capital proceedings and accompanying closure opportunities are perceived as a force with the potential to grant wishes of peace and finality. Scholars, however, argue for rebottling the closure genie lest closure itself prove false or its pursuit violate a defendant\u27s constitutional rights. In order to effectively appraise the relationship of closure to criminal jurisprudence, however, and thus to decide whether and to what extent closure is an appropriate adjudicative goal, it is necessary to more thoroughly investigate the concept and develop a theory of closure. This Article provides an argument against rebottling the closure genie, a task not only seriously implausible but unsound under principles of communicative theory. Proposing that closure is an authentic cultural and communicative construct that has become indelibly linked to capital proceedings, this Article advocates a shift in focus to more practical questions. This Article first summarizes how legal scholarship has described closure up to this point, and then examines how courts utilize the rhetoric of closure to effect change for victims \u27families in a variety of contexts. It then reviews widespread scholarly opposition to utilizing criminal law to pursue therapeutic ends. Thereafter, this Article seeks to broaden the contemporary understanding of closure by exploring how members of one victim population-Oklahoma City bombing victims \u27families and survivors-have described closure in intensive face-to-face interviews. These reflections provide the foundation for theorizing closure as a communicative concept composed of two interdependent behaviors: intervention and reflexivity. While intervention is an interpersonal component that urges victims \u27families to take action to effect change and pursue accountability,reflexivity is an interpersonal component that nudges them to contemplate and work through grief emotion, and trauma after a loved one\u27s murder. Finally, this Article considers the pragmatic ramifications of applying a communicative theory of closure
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
- …