Reports of Collective Investigation in the Anatomical Departments of the Catholic University Medical School, Dublin, and Trinity College, Dublin

1891 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 481-498
2012 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navroop Johnson ◽  
Declan Lyons

AbstractObjective: This study was conducted to gauge the attitude of fifth year medical students to psychiatry as a potential career choice and to determine if an eight-week clinical attachment had any impact on this.Methods: We surveyed a cohort of fifth year medical students from Trinity College Dublin. A purpose designed, self-completed questionnaire was used to establish a number of variables and was given to students on the first and last day of their attachment in psychiatry. Participation was optional and responses were confidential. Questionnaires were distributed following an explanation of the purpose of the study.Results: The survey was applied to 118 fifth year medical students. The most significant finding of the study was the increase in number of students choosing psychiatry (17%) as a possible career upon completion of the attachment as compared to before (4%). The majority of the students considered psychiatry as a mainstream specialty with little change in this perception pre and post attachment. Almost all of the students believed that a psychiatry posting would improve their communication skills when dealing with patients.Approximately half of students chose medical subspecialties as career choice prior to their psychiatry posting but this declined afterwards. There was a small increase in the number of students wanting to become GPs and those who were undecided about their potential career choice.With regards to deterrents to doing psychiatry, the principal one was the belief that psychiatry was too depressing and stressful. Lack of interest, adverse career prospects and financial considerations featured in a minority of student answers.Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that psychiatry remains less attractive to students as a career compared to some other specialities but a clinical attachment may be an important means of raising interest in psychiatry as a career.


1898 ◽  
Vol 44 (184) ◽  
pp. 222-223

By the death of Professor Haughton, which took place on October 31, 1897, the University of Dublin has lost one of its most remarkable ornaments and Irish social life one of its most striking figures. Haughton was a man who, under more favourable circumstances (viz., most especially if he had been blessed with a lesser measure of early success), might have been capable of almost any intellectual feat. His versatility and the agility of his intelligence alone amounted to genius. In the humdrum region of university teaching in which unhappily he early lost himself he always seemed the most brilliant pioneer. Unfortunately he yielded to the temptations—to diffusion and lack of concentration—to which a versatile genius is particularly exposed, and consequently he did not really lead in any of the numerous subjects which he illuminated. One example is afforded by his ill-fated remark on Darwin's epoch-making work that it contained nothing new that was true and nothing true that was new. Haughton's knowledge, often profound, always acute, dies with him, for he has written little that will last: his sparkling wit and genial good-fellowship will survive in the memory of those who were favoured with his personal acquaintance. One great work will, we hope, long bear testimony to his zeal for knowledge and his disinterested public spirit. To him is due the revival of the so-called “School of Physic in Ireland” (Medical School of Trinity College, Dublin), and we trust the debt which that school owes him will never be forgotten. Dr. Haughton exhibited much interest in the work of our Association at the Dublin meeting of 1894, though the feeble condition of his health even then precluded his taking any active part in our proceedings.


1993 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo Rodríguez-Farré ◽  
Marcel Roberfroid ◽  
Giovanni N. Fracchia

The experts taking part in the Workshop were: E. Rodríguez-Farré ( Coordinator); G.N. Fracchia, (Secretary); M. Adolphe, École des Hautes Études, Paris, France); P.H. Bach (University of East London, UK); M. Baeder (Hoechst Ltd, Hattersheira, Germany); R. Bass (BGA, Berlin, Germany); H.G. Baumgarten (Frei Universität, Berlin, Germany); H. Bazin (DGXII, CEC, Brussels, Belgium); P. Bentley (Ciba-Geigy, Basle, Switzerland); A. Boobis (Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London, UK); J. Castell (Hospital La Fé, Valencia, Spain); J.P. Contzen (DGXII, CEC, Brussels, Belgium); A. Cordier (Sandoz Pharma Ltd, Basle, Switzerland); J. Diezi (Université de Lausanne, Switzerland); L. Dubertret (INSERM U-312, Creteil, France); P.M. Fasella (DGXII, CEC, Brussels, Belgium); J.H. Fentem (FRAME, Nottingham, UK); A. Guillouzo (INSERM U-49, Rennes, France); I. Kimber (Zeneca, Macclesfield, UK); T. Krieg (Universität zu Koln, Germany); A. Mantovani (Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy); K. Miller (BIBRA, Carshalton, UK); J.P. Morin (INSERM U-295, Rouen, France); D. Paul (Fraunhofer Institut für Toxikologie und Aerosolforschung, Hannover, Germany); P.W.J. Peters (Riijkinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiene, Bilthoven, The Netherlands); J. Picard (Faculté des Sciences, Louvain la Neuve, Belgium); D. Poggiolini (Ministry of Health, Rome, Italy); C.M. Regan (University College, Dublin, Ireland); C.A. Reinhardt (SIAT, Zurich, Switzerland); B. Robaire (McGill University, Montreal, Canada); M. Roberfroid (Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium); V. Rogiers (Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Belgium); J. Rueff (Istituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Lisbon, Portugal); H. Spielmann (ZEBET, Berlin, Germany); H. Stolte (Medizinische Hochschule, Hannover, Germany); J. van Noordwijk (European Pharmacopeia Commission, Bosch en Duin, The Netherlands); E. Walum (University of Stockholm, Sweden); D.C. Williams (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland); and M. Yaniv (Institut Pasteur, Paris, France), and their contributions are gratefully acknowledged.


2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 225-242
Author(s):  
Cal Revely-Calder

Critics have recently begun to pay attention to the influence Jean Racine's plays had on the work of Samuel Beckett, noting his 1930–31 lectures at Trinity College Dublin, and echoes of Racine in early texts such as Murphy (1938). This essay suggests that as well as the Trinity lectures, Beckett's later re-reading of Racine (in 1956) can be seen as fundamentally influential on his drama. There are moments of direct allusion to Racine's work, as in Oh les beaux jours (1963), where the echoes are easily discernible; but I suggest that soon, in particular with Come and Go (1965), the characteristics of a distinctly Racinian stagecraft become more subtly apparent, in what Danièle de Ruyter has called ‘choix plus spécifiquement théâtraux’: pared-down lighting, carefully-crafted entries and exits, and visual tableaux made increasingly difficult to read. Through an account of Racine's dramaturgy, and the ways in which he structures bodily motion and theatrical talk, I suggest that Beckett's post-1956 drama can be better understood, as stage-spectacles, in the light of Racine's plays; both writers give us, in Myriam Jeantroux's phrase, the complicated spectacle of ‘un lieu à la fois désert et clôturé’. As spectators to Beckett's drama, by keeping Racine in mind we can come to understand better the limitations of that spectatorship, and how the later plays trouble our ability to see – and interpret – the figures that move before us.


2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 112-119
Author(s):  
Chiamaka Enyi-Amadi ◽  
Emma Penney

This critical exchange is based on a conversation between the authors which took place during the Irish University Review Roundtable Discussion: Displacing the Canon (2019 IASIL Conference, Trinity College Dublin). As authors we give first-hand accounts of our experience writing, editing, and teaching in Ireland, attempting to draw out concerns we have for the future of Irish literature and Irish Studies that specifically relate to race. The conversation here suggests that race directly impacts what we consider valuable in our literary culture. We both insist on decentring universalism as a governing literary critical concept and insist on the urgent application of critical race analysis to the construction of literary value systems in Ireland.


Romanticism ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-101
Author(s):  
Brandon C. Yen

Through hitherto neglected manuscripts at Trinity College Dublin, the Bodleian Library, and the Wordsworth Trust, this paper explores the relationship between William Wordsworth and his Irish friends William Rowan Hamilton and Francis Beaufort Edgeworth around 1829. It details the debates about poetry and science between Hamilton (Professor of Astronomy at Trinity College Dublin and Royal Astronomer of Ireland) and Edgeworth (the novelist Maria Edgeworth's half-brother), in which Wordsworth was embroiled when he visited Ireland in the autumn of 1829. By examining a variety of documents including letters, poems, lectures, and memoirs, a fragment of literary history may be restored and a clearer understanding may be reached of the tensions between poetry and science in Wordsworth's poetry, particularly in The Excursion, and of the Irish provenance of a memorable passage in ‘On the Power of Sound’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document