scholarly journals Final word

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 90-90
Author(s):  
Yu. A. Ratner
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Final Word

The short reports heard by 12 delegates of the congress to a certain extent characterized the work of the congress, modern trends in experimental and clinical oncology.

A Thorough Guide to Mayhem but Not the Final Word on War

1981 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 128-129
Author(s):  
Rosalind L. Feierabend
Keyword(s):  
Final Word

A final word

1984 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 440-440
Author(s):  
Linda S. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
Final Word

Icotinib bei NSCLC-Patienten mit EGFR-Mutationen: Chinesische Eigenentwicklung will auf den Weltmarkt

2012 ◽  
Vol 03 (05) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Alexander Kretzschmar
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Chinese Society ◽  
Sich Eine

Mit Icotinib schickt sich eine weitere, gegen Mutationen des EGF-Rezeptors (EGFRm+) gerichtete Therapie des nicht-kleinzelligen Lungenkarzinoms (NSCLC) an, nach China auch die Zulassung in Europa und USA zu erreichen. Dies berichtete Dr. Sun Yan, Beijing, kürzlich auf der 15. Jahrestagung der Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO). Dafür sind allerdings noch einige Verbesserungen am Studiendesign, vor allem bei der molekularen Charakterisierung der Patienten, notwendig, kritisierte Prof. Tony Mok, Honkong.

Hope and Necessity

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Sarah Pawlett-Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Final Word ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
The Relationship

In this paper I offer a comparative evaluation of two types of “fundamental hope”, drawn from the writing of Rebecca Solnit and Rowan Williams respectively. Arguments can be found in both, I argue, for the foundations of a dispositional existential hope. Examining and comparing the differences between these accounts, I focus on the consequences implied for hope’s freedom and stability. I focus specifically on how these two accounts differ in their claims about the relationship between hope and (two types of) necessity. I argue that both Solnit and Williams base their claims for warranted fundamental hope on a sense of how reality is structured, taking this structure to provide grounds for a basic existential orientation that absolute despair is never the final word. For Solnit this structure is one of unpredictability; for Williams it is one of excess. While this investigation finds both accounts of fundamental hope to be plausible and insightful, I argue that Williams’s account is ultimately more satisfying on the grounds that it offers a realistic way of thinking about a hope necessitated by what it is responsive to, and more substantial in responding to what is necessary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document