Moral Assessments and Legal Categories

In this chapter, I examine the discussion around the rational and moral basis for legal categories in postclassical Imāmī Twelver Shīʿī legal theory. The debate was pushed forward by the Akhbārī movement in the 17th century CE; they proposed a novel position concerning the rational basis for the law in which reason can determine certain moral aspects of an action (e.g., a good action can be recognised by reason, and its performance attracts praise), but not legal elements (e.g., that the performance of a good action deserves a reward beyond praise). This leaves, for them, the Lawgiver (that is, God) to connect the moral aspects of an act with its legal consequences (that is punishment for a morally bad action and reward for a morally good action); that causal connection cannot be made by reason alone. Based on these findings, I conclude that Akhbārī moral theory, often read along literalist lines, showcases an adherence to the Muʿtazilī-derived framework common to the Imāmī Twelver Shīʿī theology and law generally, whilst also reserving ultimate legal authority to God.

The Roles of Coenzyme Q in Disease: Direct and Indirect Involvement in Cellular Functions

Coenzyme Q (CoQ) is a key component of the respiratory chain of all eukaryotic cells. Its function is closely related to mitochondrial respiration, where it acts as an electron transporter. However, the cellular functions of coenzyme Q are multiple: it is present in all cell membranes, limiting the toxic effect of free radicals, it is a component of LDL, it is involved in the aging process, and its deficiency is linked to several diseases. Recently, it has been proposed that coenzyme Q contributes to suppressing ferroptosis, a type of iron-dependent programmed cell death characterized by lipid peroxidation. In this review, we report the latest hypotheses and theories analyzing the multiple functions of coenzyme Q. The complete knowledge of the various cellular CoQ functions is essential to provide a rational basis for its possible therapeutic use, not only in diseases characterized by primary CoQ deficiency, but also in large number of diseases in which its secondary deficiency has been found.

Oceanography of the Arabian Sea during the southwest monsoon season Part II: Stratification and circulation

The distribution of mass in the Arabian Sea during the southwest monsoon season, 1963 is presented through several vertical sections and spatial distribution charts of the thermosteric anomaly. The circulation patterns in the upper 200 m are derived. The basic feature of circulation is found to be the formation of several cyclonic and anti-cyclonic cells. Upwelling off the southwest coast of India has been explained on a more rational basis than has been assumed hitherto. It is now attributed partly due to the divergence in the current field and partly due to the cyclonic motion around Laccadive and Maldive Island.

Application of nutraceuticals in managing osteoarthritis and osteoporosis

Background: Several health problems, especially musculoskeletal disorders, are caused by dif-ferences in work cultures and human lifestyles around the world. While the conventional ap-proach to treating such conditions emphasizes a balanced work-life balance and daily exercise, nutraceuticals have proven to be successful. Nutraceuticals are dietary compounds that help sus-tain cartilage metabolism homeostasis, reducing articular pain. Dietary intake of a variety of nutraceuticals is thought to be essential for controlling and, more specifically, preventing osteoar-thritis and osteoporosis. Objective: The current article offers a succinct overview in which data was gathered and searched using specific key-terms related to nutraceuticals, osteoarthritis, and osteoporosis that were available in public domains for analysis and evaluation. Method: The current write-up offers a concise summary of disease and its relevance as to how nutraceuticals are helpful, based on the defined findings and their interpretation. The present re-view also discusses the existing literature, patents, and current studies in the era of nutraceuticals for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis treatment, offering a rational basis for further investigation and research. Result: This article discusses a wide variety of nutraceuticals with possible uses for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis patients. An analysis revealed that nutraceuticals' efficacy has been established. However, further study and investigation are needed to determine their protection. Conclusion: As a result of this analysis, it was concluded that more innovation and technology transfer were required. It was also concluded that greater industry-academic collaboration was required to begin more effective research in the treatment of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis with nutraceuticals.

Killing and Allowing to Die: Insights from Augustine

One major argument against prohibiting euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS) is that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between killing and allowing to die: if we permit patients to die by forgoing life-sustaining treatments, then we also ought to permit euthanasia and PAS. In this paper, the author argues, contra this claim, that it is in fact coherent to differentiate between killing and allowing to die. To develop this argument, the author provides an analysis of Saint Augustine’s distinction between martyrdom and suicide, highlighting the relevance of intention in the assessment of an agent’s actions. As a general matter of ethics, the intentions of agents, not just the outcomes of their actions, matter enormously for drawing distinctions between what is permissible and what is impermissible. Constructing an Augustinian account of this distinction between killing and allowing to die, the author argues that it is coherent to hold that assisted suicide is wrong, while also accepting that it is permissible to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatments.

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

A Sociology of Maori Education - Beyond Mediating Structures

<p>The history of the relationship between Maori (the indigenous minority) and Pakeha (the dominant majority) is one that is encapsulated in processes of mediation. Pakeha resolve issues that favour kawanatanga solutions (article 1 of the Treaty) while Maori recommendations almost always line up with solutions that uphold questions to do with tino rangatiratanga (article 2 of the Treaty). Each takes into account forms of accommodation of the other but these compromise positions are usually the tasks for the public servants who are by definition, working for the government of the day, and therefore, on the side of kawanatanga. The point of articulation is critical in the nature of the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. The legal academic, Alex Frame (2002) describes this position as important for those New Zealanders "who have tried to walk in both worlds, thereby not only honouring and strengthening their own and each other's cultures, but also bringing to life a third and co-existing culture of interaction in Aotearoa". A study of a variety of mediating structures, explores the relationship between Maori and Pakeha and analyses the effects these have on both parties, especially as these pertain to developments in Maori education. An approach to settling the conundrum of prioritising one agenda without creating new grievances for redress is argued throughout the study. It is argued, further, that a major re-think is needed of what an education will mean in order to meet the requirements of a contemporary Polynesian/Western society that both honours the tenets of its foundation document as well as providing a rational basis for meeting commitments in the modern global society.</p>

A Sociology of Maori Education - Beyond Mediating Structures

<p>The history of the relationship between Maori (the indigenous minority) and Pakeha (the dominant majority) is one that is encapsulated in processes of mediation. Pakeha resolve issues that favour kawanatanga solutions (article 1 of the Treaty) while Maori recommendations almost always line up with solutions that uphold questions to do with tino rangatiratanga (article 2 of the Treaty). Each takes into account forms of accommodation of the other but these compromise positions are usually the tasks for the public servants who are by definition, working for the government of the day, and therefore, on the side of kawanatanga. The point of articulation is critical in the nature of the relationship between Maori and Pakeha. The legal academic, Alex Frame (2002) describes this position as important for those New Zealanders "who have tried to walk in both worlds, thereby not only honouring and strengthening their own and each other's cultures, but also bringing to life a third and co-existing culture of interaction in Aotearoa". A study of a variety of mediating structures, explores the relationship between Maori and Pakeha and analyses the effects these have on both parties, especially as these pertain to developments in Maori education. An approach to settling the conundrum of prioritising one agenda without creating new grievances for redress is argued throughout the study. It is argued, further, that a major re-think is needed of what an education will mean in order to meet the requirements of a contemporary Polynesian/Western society that both honours the tenets of its foundation document as well as providing a rational basis for meeting commitments in the modern global society.</p>