A short history of clinical neurology

Author(s):  
Alastair Compston

More than any other branch of medicine, the practice of neurology depends on the classical methods of intuitive conversation, structured examination, and selective investigation. We teach the importance of eliciting an accurate neurological history. The key symptoms at onset are identified and their subsequent course defined. For the experienced clinician, this process becomes routine, efficient, and quick. The competent neurologist is the one who instinctively senses relevant components of the history, appreciates the most likely underlying disease mechanisms, reliably elicits the relevant physical signs, knows which investigations are necessary and assesses their relevance in the clinical context, provides a sensible clinical formulation, and communicates the situation accurately and sensitively to the patient and relatives. Rather than slavishly collecting an encyclopaedia of facts, in which the key issues may be lost in a surfeit of redundant information, the critical components are sifted and the subsequent conversation steered down an algorithm that seeks anatomical, physiological, and pathological explanations for what the patient describes.

Author(s):  
Lisa Bortolotti ◽  
Rachel Gunn

In a clinical context, delusions are symptoms of a number of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia and dementia, manifesting as beliefs that are implausible and resistant to counter-evidence. In the philosophical literature, the nature of delusions (what they are) and their formation (what causes them) have been examined with increasing interest. Different arguments for and against delusions being regarded as beliefs have been put forward, and both the doxastic and the anti-doxastic camp capture some distinctive and puzzling features of delusions. The one-factor theory, the two-factor theory, and the prediction-error theory constitute distinct attempts to describe the causal mechanisms responsible for the formation of delusions and have implications for the management and treatment of delusions in clinical practice. The lively debates surrounding the nature and the causal history of delusions have also shed some light on standard issues in the philosophy of mind, such as what conditions a report needs to satisfy to be regarded as a belief report, and how experience and reasoning interact in generating of hypotheses that can then be accepted as beliefs.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
1957 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-656

"IF THE Government can have a department to look out after the Nation's farm crops, why can't it have a bureau to look after the Nation's child crop?" It was 1903 and Miss Lillian Wald, founder of New York's Henry Street Settlement, was writing to Mrs. Florence Kelley of the National Consumer's League. This was the beginning of the 9-year effort, in Congress and throughout the country, which led to the foundation of the Children's Bureau in 1912. Devotion, preseverance and steadfastness of purpose have marked the Bureau's leadership since its establishment, and Dr. Martha May Eliot, recently resigned Chief, has been an outstanding example of the fearless fighter for better care of children. Her resignation, to become Professor of Maternal and Child Health at Harvard University's School of Public Health, put to a close a period of 31 years in the Bureau, years full of striking progress and accomplishments. Martha Eliot's career and the history of the Children's Bureau are closely interwoven; to understand the one it is important to know the other. A happy coincidence is the recent appearance of a short history of the Children's Bureau providing an interesting and factual chronicle, beginning with the first efforts at the turn of the century to establish an agency for children.


Author(s):  
Stephen R. Anderson

The original distinction, in the opposing views of René and Ferdinand de Saussure, between views of word structure based on the combination of elementary, atomic signs (or ‘morphemes’) on the one hand and relations between complex words on the other, is reviewed. Early work in American linguistics associated with Boas and Sapir is noted, and the later emergence of clearly morpheme-based views in the Bloomfieldian tradition (especially as continued by Harris, Hockett, and others) is reviewed. This picture was essentially taken over unchanged in early generative grammar, although Chomsky (1965) provided (now forgotten) arguments in favor of an alternate non-morphemic view. The re-emergence of interest in morphology in later work has led to a situation in which the two views that can be identified originally in the work of the de Saussure brothers continue to characterize two conflicting scholarly positions.


2020 ◽  
pp. 133-149
Author(s):  
Oleg V. Nikitin ◽  

The publication presents previously unknown letters to Sergey Ozhegov of the late 1940s – early 1960s, which reveal facts of his scientific biography. The aim of this work is to introduce into scientific discourse rare archival documents on the history of Russian linguistics, and also to study linguistic polemics in the USSR in the era of the onslaught of the Marrism of the end of the 1940s. The main methods of studying the material are historical-linguistic, lexicographic, sociolinguistic and linguistic source analysis (search, decoding and commenting on archival texts). In the course of the research of documentary materials, the author has revealed new facts testifying to the change of a vector of scientific views on explanatory lexicography as a whole which, unlike the previous dictionary projects, was not adapted to academic needs, and first of all solved practical problems of explaining the actual lexicon of the 20th century. The article notes that one of the key issues of the dictionary work of that time was the interpretation of Sovietisms, on the one hand, and religious words and expressions, on the other. The archaic vocabulary (“merchant” and church elements) became the object of fierce criticism of Ozhegov’s opponents. Scholars and non-philological readers, polemicizing with Ozhegov, paid special attention to reviews and analysis of semantic, stylistic and cultural-historical realities of dictionary entries. Ozhegov’s respondents also discussed the difficult fate of the dictionary. The published letters contain semi-official reviews from both famous scholars (A.P. Evgenieva, Ya.M. Endzelin, R.R. Gel’gardt, J.V. Loja) and ordinary readers of The Dictionary, they reveal Ozhegov as a person of special gift loving his native language. These letters provide valuable material for the analysis of linguistic homeland studies of the period of struggle between the two ideologies in science. The letters reveal new facts of Ozhegov’s editorial work, discuss the criticism of the publication in the press, note its strengths and weaknesses. The article emphasizes the sociocultural aspect of Ozhegov’s interpretations and the ambiguity of their perception by contemporaries. The Dictionary is included in the context of general linguistic ideas by D.N. Ushakov and L.V. Shcherba. The high pedagogical value of this source is indicated. The published archival materials confirm a unique fact in the scientific practice of the mid-20th century: the emergence of a popular explanatory dictionary reflecting the cultural constants of the time and serving as a reliable tool for self-education. The article is of interest to historiographers of science, lexicologists and lexicographers, linguaculturologists, sociolinguists.


Author(s):  
Rachel Busbridge

Postcolonial political theory is an emerging subfield of political theory, although its parameters and particular meanings are less than clearly defined and subject to contestation. Related to a more general critique of political theory’s traditional Eurocentric bias, postcolonial political theory is motivated by three key issues: first, how colonialism shaped the traditional Western canon; second, the broad silence on colonialism and its legacies in mainstream political theorizing; and third, the tensions, particularly within liberal political theory, between its universal pretentions and culturally specific Western location of articulation. The scope of inquiry in postcolonial political theory is broadly responsive to postcolonialism, a body of thought concerned with tracing, engaging, and responding to the cultural, political, social, and economic legacies of Western colonialism, particularly the period of European colonial rule between the 18th and mid-20th centuries. With a particular emphasis on the relationship between power and knowledge, postcolonial theories and approaches take the development of modernity as coterminous with European colonial and imperial projects, and therefore examine the ways in which modern systems of knowledge are implicated in colonial relations of power. Postcolonial political theory similarly treats political modernity as imprinted by Western colonialism and imperialism, making for distinct political dynamics, problems, and forms of injustice, on the one hand, and shaping the history of European political thought, on the other. In this regard, postcolonial political theory does not just call for a widening of the remit of political theory beyond the traditional European canon to include non-Western texts, voices, and perspectives. It also raises profound questions about the ways in which the categories, ideas, and assumptions of political theory have been complicit in and served to legitimize the domination of colonized peoples and indigenous, non-Western, and subaltern minorities. Postcolonial political theory seeks to articulate alternative modes of theorizing that can better speak to the concerns of justice for the formerly colonized, indigenous peoples, and those affected by the neo-imperial features of the current global order. An important element of this is concerned with methodology, in particular the use of multidisciplinary insights from history, cultural studies, and anthropology, among others, as well as thinkers and texts that would not conventionally be considered “political” according to dominant Western conceptions of politics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-182
Author(s):  
Sanja Milenković ◽  
Jasmina Milanović ◽  
Dragoš Stojanović

The Zemun Hospital - "Zemun" Medical Center is the oldest medical institution in Serbia that has been operating without interruption throughout its existence. Different dates have been noted in the literature related to its opening, but the one most often mentioned is February 25, 1784, and this date has been confirmed by a document found in the Zemun Magistracy. The first sanitary institution formed in Zemun was the Kontumac, which opened as early as 1730. Shortly after that, two confessional hospitals were also opened. The Serbian (Orthodox Christian) Hospital, which started working before 1769, and the German (Catholic) Hospital opened in 1758. In order to improve the work of these hospitals, a decision was made to merge them into one - the Town Hospital, when the General Command ordered the Magistracy of the Town of Zemun to pool the funds of the existing hospitals and commence work on building a new hospital building. Although financially united, the hospitals continued, for a time, to work in separate buildings. The physical merging of the hospitals was finalized in 1795. From that time to this day the Zemun Hospital has been working without interruption, even in wartime. It has today grown into a modern clinical and teaching center.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document