scholarly journals Inevitably Comparative, but Not Inevitably Positive: the Study of Jews and Judaism within the Field of Religious Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 475-481
Author(s):  
Rachel Gordan

Abstract This essay considers the study of Judaism within the framework of Lincoln and Freiberger’s calls for comparative studies. As a minority religion, Judaism usually requires comparative thinking, as scholars consider Judaism within the context of a majority religion. Study of post-WWII American Judaism, in particular, invites comparison, because it marks the high-tide era of “Judeo-Christianity,” in which Judaism was newly considered America’s “third faith,” on a purportedly equal status with Protestantism and Catholicism, thus inviting comparision between the three religions and other traditions outside the small circle of midcentury “American religions.” This postwar, tri-faith status of Judaism reveals some of the costs and benefits of thinking comparatively: when comparison is undertaken with an eye toward creating or maintaining equality among religions, the results may include erasure of distinctions between traditions. The study of Judaism demonstrates some of the politics and ideological motivations of comparative thinking about religion, as well as its potential risks and benefits as explained by Lincoln and Freiberger.

2019 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 056-061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nieves Vanaclocha ◽  
Vicente Chisbert ◽  
Vicent Quilis ◽  
Federico Bilotta ◽  
Rafael Badenes

AbstractSedation is an essential therapeutic strategy in the care of neurocritical patients. Intravenous sedative agents are the most widely used, with promising alternatives (dexmedetomidine, ketamine, and volatile agents) to propofol and midazolam arising. Studies designed to evaluate superiority and avoid biases are required. A neurological awakening test is safe in most patients. Potential risks and benefits of limiting deep sedation and daily interruption of sedation in these patients remain unclear. The aim of this review was to report recent clinical evidence on sedation in this subgroup of patients, focusing on its effects on clinical prognosis.


EP Europace ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. i173-i173
Author(s):  
Tolga Aksu ◽  
Erdem Guler ◽  
Kivanc Yalin ◽  
Ebru Golcuk ◽  
Ozcan Kazim Serhan

Author(s):  
Eric Jou ◽  
Andrew Kailin Zhou ◽  
Jamie Sin Ying Ho ◽  
Azeem Thahir

Abstract Purpose There are growing concerns with the widely used glucocorticoids during the Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic due to the associated immunosuppressive effects, which may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and worsen COVID-19 patient outcome. Heavily affecting orthopaedics, the pandemic led to delay and cancellation of almost all surgical cases, and procedures including perioperative intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) saw similar decreases. However, the benefits of ICI treatments during the pandemic may outweigh these potential risks, and their continued use may be warranted. Methods A literature search was conducted, and all relevant articles including original articles and reviews were identified and considered in full for inclusion, and analysed with expert opinion. Epidemiological statistics and medical guidelines were consulted from relevant authorities. Results ICIs allow a targeted approach on the affected joint and are effective in reducing pain while improving functional outcome and patient quality-of-life. ICIs delay the requirement for surgery, accommodating for the increased healthcare burden during the pandemic, while reducing postoperative hospital stay, bringing significant financial benefits. However, ICIs can exert systemic effects and suppress the immune system. ICIs may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection and reduce the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccinations, leading to important public health implications. Conclusion Perioperative ICI treatments may bring significant, multifaceted benefits during the pandemic. However, ICIs increase the risk of infection, and perioperative COVID-19 is associated with mortality. The use of ICIs during the COVID-19 pandemic should therefore be considered carefully on an individual patient basis, weighing the associated risks and benefits.


2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 290-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederico Leon Arrabal Fernandes ◽  
Alberto Cukier ◽  
Aquiles Assunção Camelier ◽  
Carlos Cezar Fritscher ◽  
Cláudia Henrique da Costa ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT The treatment of COPD has become increasingly effective. Measures that range from behavioral changes, reduction in exposure to risk factors, education about the disease and its course, rehabilitation, oxygen therapy, management of comorbidities, and surgical and pharmacological treatments to end-of-life care allow health professionals to provide a personalized and effective therapy. The pharmacological treatment of COPD is one of the cornerstones of COPD management, and there have been many advances in this area in recent years. Given the greater availability of drugs and therapeutic combinations, it has become increasingly challenging to know the indications for, limitations of, and potential risks and benefits of each treatment modality. In order to critically evaluate recent evidence and systematize the major questions regarding the pharmacological treatment of COPD, 24 specialists from all over Brazil gathered to develop the present recommendations. A visual guide was developed for the classification and treatment of COPD, both of which were adapted to fit the situation in Brazil. Ten questions were selected on the basis of their relevance in clinical practice. They address the classification, definitions, treatment, and evidence available for each drug or drug combination. Each question was answered by two specialists, and then the answers were consolidated in two phases: review and consensus by all participants. The questions answered are practical questions and help select from among the many options the best treatment for each patient and his/her peculiarities.


Author(s):  
Megan Margiotta ◽  
Timothy Ambrose

When caring for neurosurgical patients, many will either be started on a new antiepileptic medication or will be continued on a regimen that had been started prior to hospitalization. Because of this, it is important for a hospitalist to be familiar with the potential risks and benefits of these medications, even though they may be initiated by a neurosurgeon or neurologist. This chapter discusses several common antiepileptic drugs and their uses in the inpatient setting. This is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion; as of this writing, there are at least 27 unique antiepileptic medications available in the United States alone, with more being studied and produced.


1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Steiner ◽  
Eduardo Bruera

A strong and often polarized debate has taken place during recent years concerning the consequences of dehydration in the terminally ill patient. When a patient has a severely restricted oral intake or is found to be dehydrated, the decision to administer fluids should be individualized and made on the basis of a careful assessment that considers problems related to dehydration, potential risks and benefits of fluid replacement, and patients’ and families’ wishes. This review discusses the assessment of hydration status in the terminal cancer patient and the options for fluid administration in the cases where evaluation of the patients’ condition has led to this indication. These include different modes of hypodermoclysis, intravenous hydration, use of the nasogastric route, and proctoclysis. Arguments for and against rehydration have been previously addressed by other authors and fall outside the scope of this review.


BMJ ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 333 (7563) ◽  
pp. 349-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Davies ◽  
Rory Collins

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document