Search results

After considering the material before me, I have formed the opinion that it shall be permitted for the petitioner to examine the file under scrutiny. Deliberation on the case did not take place behind closed doors and there is no lawful prohibition to the examination…in addition I accept the position of the respondent, according to which in spite of the fact that a large portion of the details of the affair were published in the judgment…the file contains material whose revelation can cause unnecessary harm to the central witness…the examination considered will be contingent on an undertaking in writing…according to which the petitioner will not publicize anything that will damage the privacy of the victims and their families beyond the damage that already occurred by the court judgment. (Decision of magistrate Yigaal Marzel, 2006 in the matter of C.A 125/50 Yaakobowitz v. Attorney General)

Families conduct their affairs through processes that are built upon those of previous generations and also social capacities such as culture, class, oppression and poverty. The media has played a part in stereotyping the lower classes through their portrayal on the television programmes such as Benefits Street and Jeremy Kyle and tabloid newspaper stories. This chapter is a case study of two families who are at the opposing ends of the social scale, the Horrobin/Carter and Aldridge families. The two families were chosen due to them being linked by marriage in the younger generation. Through the use of genograms, we explore how the families differ in their attitudes towards relationships within their individual families, and also how they relate to each other as separate family groups. Despite the many differences, there are also a number of key similarities, particularly regarding the key females in the families, in terms of family background and snobbery. We also show that there is little family loyalty in the more privileged family and a power differential between the two families (oppressors vs. oppressed) in terms of the crimes committed.

Active travel, such as walking and cycling, has direct physical health benefits for older people. However, there are many barriers to walking and cycling including issues with the maintenance of pavements, sharing the path with other users, lack of public seating and benches, proximity of speeding traffic and narrow pavements. To create better public spaces, it is important to consider safety and accessibility of the public realm but also elements such as character, legibility, adaptability and diversity. The aesthetics of space cannot be overlooked too, in order to attract older people to use the public realm. Issues such as shared space pose different challenges for older people, though research would suggest if traffic volumes are low then sharing space with other users improves for older people.

This chapter explores how hybrid organizations navigate the challenges (and opportunities) associated with advancing unconventional logic combinations. It draws from a study of the 180-year history of sheltered workshops in the United States. Sheltered workshops are hybrids that combine social and commercial logics to provide gainful employment to individuals with disabilities. This chapter theorizes a connection between the governance system – that is, country-based social norms and regulatory settlements – framing hybrids and the agency that allows them the discretion required to advance unconventional combinations. It introduces the term hybrid agency to describe this connection and identifies four types: upstream, midstream, downstream, and crosscurrent. Upstream agency draws from the entrepreneurial vision of charismatic founders. It allows hybrids the discretion to advance unconventional logic combinations in unsupportive times, but it also requires them to observe certain dominant cultural norms. Midstream agency draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources in periods of historical change. It allows access to resources and legitimacy for unconventional combinations. Downstream agency draws from organizational slack possible in supportive times. Slack eases tensions and tradeoffs between conflicting logics but may also fuel mission drift. Finally, crosscurrent agency also draws from hybrids’ adaptation and advocacy skills and resources. It provides hybrids with the opportunity to grapple with challenges in periods of contestation.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide is about changing the law to enable doctors, under certain circumstances, to intentionally kill patients. For proponents the issues have been determining what are “appropriate circumstances” for such activity and gathering up enough political support to win the day on numbers. The community and medical profession have been exposed to years of misinformation about euthanasia, and advocates have become so vocal that contrary positions are now barely heard. Nevertheless, there are enormous adverse implications for all healthcare professionals. Clinical management in the twenty-first century has moved well past scenarios painted to justify killing the patient. The inclusion of killing in the therapeutic armamentarium will cause an inexorable erosion of what is at present an absolute protection for the patient, the doctor, and other healthcare professionals.