The Right to Die: A Cross-National Analysis of Agenda Setting and Innovation

1995 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-501 ◽  
Author(s):  
J D Smith ◽  
H R Glick

Through theories of agenda setting and innovation, the origin, development, and enactment of right-to-die policy in four Western nations—the United States, the Netherlands, Germany, and Great Britain—are examined. Different social and government structures produced varied right-to-die politics in each of these countries, although similar issues received more emphasis in Europe. However, it is discovered that policy entrepreneurs, organizations, and governments are important in similar ways in moving the issue from the public to the governmental agenda and to policy innovations in each country. The paper is concluded with a discussion of elements to be included in a model of agenda setting and innovation and with a proposal for the application of theory to a wider range of policies.

2001 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 631
Author(s):  
Kevin Fox Gotham ◽  
Elaine Fox ◽  
Jeffrey J. Kamakahi ◽  
Stella M. Capek

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-245
Author(s):  
Yasmine Dominguez-Whitehead ◽  
Felix Maringe

PurposeThis paper provides a cross-national analysis of PhD supervision models, milestones and examination procedures in order to compare PhD programs and their practices.Design/methodology/approachA comparative approach is employed, which systematically interrogates PhD supervision models, milestones and examination procedures in the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States via a comprehensive review of the practices and literature.FindingsThe findings indicate the ramifications of the different approaches and highlight the benefits and drawbacks associated with the different models.Originality/valueBy making explicit the dominant supervision models, milestones and examination procedures that exist in the United Kingdom, South Africa and the United States, the authors shed light on the somewhat obscure path to earning a PhD degree.


2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 415-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph V. Pergolizzi, Jr, MD ◽  
Robert Taylor, Jr, PhD ◽  
John Bisney, MA ◽  
Jo Ann LeQuang, BA ◽  
Robert B. Raffa, PhD ◽  
...  

Opioids affect the central nervous system and are known to produce dizziness, sleepiness, mood changes, and other actions that in some people have a negative impact on psychomotor or mental performance. The negative effects can be exacerbated in persons who are taking other prescription medications or illegal substances. Opioid-abusing drivers clearly represent an unnecessary danger to the public; although the vast majority of patients taking prescription opioids for pain safely drive to work and other activities, a subset may be impaired, but not be aware of or recognize the problem. The majority of pain patients would likely be surprised to learn that the legal systems in most parts of the world, including most states in the United States, do not differentiate between a pain patient taking a prescribed opioid at the right dose and frequency, and an abuser taking an illegal drug. For example, in some parts of the United States, a driver may be initially stopped for a relatively minor offense and, if the officer notices that the driver is wearing a fentanyl patch, charged with driving under the influence of drugs (DUID). The present narrative review attempts to highlight the existing problem, the different legal thresholds for arrest and prosecution for DUID, and the challenge of trying to have zero-tolerance for driving under the influence of a drug used illegally, while at the same time not arresting legitimate patients who are taking pain medication as prescribed. There is a clear and present need for an integrated assessment and addressing of the current confounding situation.


1937 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 942-948 ◽  
Author(s):  
William C. Johnstone

Hostilities now in progress in the Far East may produce significant changes in the status of foreign concessions and settlements in China. It may be useful, therefore, to classify these areas and to survey their status prior to the present “undeclared war.” Among the several privileges gained by Great Britain, the United States, and France in their treaties with China in 1842–44 was the right of foreign residence in the five ports opened to trade by these treaties: Amoy, Canton, Foochow, Ningpo, and Shanghai. Arrangements for the residence of foreigners and their families in these ports were to be made by the consular officials and the local Chinese authorities acting “in concert together.” These arrangements resulted in the delimitation of areas for foreign residence, generally called “settlements,” which grew into municipalities exempt from Chinese jurisdiction and completely under foreign control. As more ports were opened for trade by the various treaties negotiated after 1844, certain nations requested exclusive areas in many of them. Such areas were generally called “concessions.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document