What do we owe to each other simply out of respect, or concern, for our common humanity? What can we claim? The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as many states' constitutions embody competing answers to these questions. Different accounts of what we owe to others out of concern for our common humanity ground divergent accounts of the basic minimum just societies and the international community must help people secure. A Minimally Good Life argues that concern for our common humanity requires helping others live minimally good lives when doing so does not require sacrificing our own ability to live well enough. This, it suggests, provides a unified answer to the question of what we must give to, and can demand from, others as a basic minimum. More precisely, Nicole Hassoun argues that people must obtain the things that let them secure the relationships, pleasures, knowledge, appreciation, worthwhile activities, and other things that a reasonable and caring person free from coercion and constraint would set as a minimal standard of justifiable aspiration. That is, as reasonable, caring, free people, we should put ourselves into each other's shoes and think about what we need to live well enough as each person. Hassoun makes this case by engaging with the main competitors in the literature: those that offer different accounts of the basic minimum and the limits of our obligations. She then defends a new way of helping people in present and future generations reach the sufficiency threshold and of responding to apparent tragedy when helping everyone seems impossible.
Every year nine million people are diagnosed with tuberculosis, every day over 13,400 people are infected with AIDs, and every thirty seconds malaria kills a child. For most of the world, critical medications that treat these deadly diseases are scarce, costly, and growing obsolete, as access to first-line drugs remains out of reach and resistance rates rise. Rather than focusing research and development on creating affordable medicines for these deadly global diseases, pharmaceutical companies instead invest in commercially lucrative products for more affluent customers. Nicole Hassoun argues that everyone has a human right to health and to access to essential medicines, and she proposes the Global Health Impact (global-health-impact.org/new) system as a means to guarantee those rights. Her proposal directly addresses the pharmaceutical industry's role: it rates pharmaceutical companies based on their medicines' impact on improving global health, rewarding highly-rated medicines with a Global Health Impact label. Global Health Impact has three parts. The first makes the case for a human right to health and specifically access to essential medicines. Hassoun defends the argument against recent criticism of these proposed rights. The second section develops the Global Health Impact proposal in detail. The final section explores the proposal's potential applications and effects, considering the empirical evidence that supports it and comparing it to similar ethical labels. Through a thoughtful and interdisciplinary approach to creating new labeling, investment, and licensing strategies, Global Health Impact demands an unwavering commitment to global justice and corporate responsibility.
The face of the world is changing. The past century has seen the incredible growth of international institutions. How does the fact that the world is becoming more interconnected change institutions' duties to people beyond borders? Does globalization alone engender any ethical obligations? In Globalization and Global Justice, Nicole Hassoun addresses these questions and advances a new argument for the conclusion that there are significant obligations to the global poor. First, she argues that there are many coercive international institutions and that these institutions must provide the means for their subjects to avoid severe poverty. Hassoun then considers the case for aid and trade, and concludes with a new proposal for fair trade in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. Globalization and Global Justice will appeal to readers in philosophy, politics, economics and public policy.
What do we owe to each other simply out of respect, or concern, for our common humanity? What can we claim? The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as many states' constitutions embody competing answers to these questions. Different accounts of what we owe to others out of concern for our common humanity ground divergent accounts of the basic minimum just societies and the international community must help people secure. A Minimally Good Life argues that concern for our common humanity requires helping others live minimally good lives when doing so does not require sacrificing our own ability to live well enough. This, it suggests, provides a unified answer to the question of what we must give to, and can demand from, others as a basic minimum. More precisely, Nicole Hassoun argues that people must obtain the things that let them secure the relationships, pleasures, knowledge, appreciation, worthwhile activities, and other things that a reasonable and caring person free from coercion and constraint would set as a minimal standard of justifiable aspiration. That is, as reasonable, caring, free people, we should put ourselves into each other's shoes and think about what we need to live well enough as each person. Hassoun makes this case by engaging with the main competitors in the literature: those that offer different accounts of the basic minimum and the limits of our obligations. She then defends a new way of helping people in present and future generations reach the sufficiency threshold and of responding to apparent tragedy when helping everyone seems impossible.
A landmark sociological examination of terrorism prosecution in United States courts Rather than functioning as a final arbiter of justice, U.S. domestic courts are increasingly seen as counterterrorism tools that can incapacitate terrorists, maintain national security operations domestically, and produce certain narratives of conflict. Terrorism on Trial examines the contemporary role that these courts play in the global war on terror and their use as a weapon of war: hunting, criminalizing, and punishing entire communities in the name of national security. Nicole Nguyen advocates for a rethinking of popular understandings of political violence and its root causes, encouraging readers to consider anti-imperial abolitionist alternatives to the criminalization, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals marked as real or perceived terrorists. She exposes how dominant academic discourses, geographical imaginations, and social processes have shaped terrorism prosecutions, as well as how our fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism has led to punitive responses that do little to address the true sources of violence, such as military interventions, colonial occupations, and tyrannical regimes. Nguyen also explores how these criminal proceedings bear on the lives of defendants and families, seeking to understand how legal processes unevenly criminalize and disempower communities of color. A retheorization of terrorism as political violence, Terrorism on Trial invites readers to carefully consider the role of power and politics in the making of armed resistance, addressing the root causes of political violence, with a goal of building toward a less violent and more liberatory world.
Every year 9 million people are diagnosed with tuberculosis, every day more than 13,400 people are infected with AIDs, every 30 seconds malaria kills a child. Many people suffer and die young because they cannot access essential medicines. This book argues that people have a right to access these medicines and proposes some new Global Health Impact labelling, investment, and licensing strategies that encourage pharmaceutical companies to improve global health (global-health-impact.org/new). The idea is to rate these companies based on their medicines' impacts. Highly rated companies will get a Global Health Impact label to use on their products. Socially responsible investment companies and universities might also take the ratings into account in making investment or licensing decisions. After arguing that people do have a right to access essential medicines, this book explores this proposal, its philosophical justification, and its prospects for success"--
A landmark sociological examination of terrorism prosecution in United States courts Rather than functioning as a final arbiter of justice, U.S. domestic courts are increasingly seen as counterterrorism tools that can incapacitate terrorists, maintain national security operations domestically, and produce certain narratives of conflict. Terrorism on Trial examines the contemporary role that these courts play in the global war on terror and their use as a weapon of war: hunting, criminalizing, and punishing entire communities in the name of national security. Nicole Nguyen advocates for a rethinking of popular understandings of political violence and its root causes, encouraging readers to consider anti-imperial abolitionist alternatives to the criminalization, prosecution, and incarceration of individuals marked as real or perceived terrorists. She exposes how dominant academic discourses, geographical imaginations, and social processes have shaped terrorism prosecutions, as well as how our fundamental misunderstanding of terrorism has led to punitive responses that do little to address the true sources of violence, such as military interventions, colonial occupations, and tyrannical regimes. Nguyen also explores how these criminal proceedings bear on the lives of defendants and families, seeking to understand how legal processes unevenly criminalize and disempower communities of color. A retheorization of terrorism as political violence, Terrorism on Trial invites readers to carefully consider the role of power and politics in the making of armed resistance, addressing the root causes of political violence, with a goal of building toward a less violent and more liberatory world.
Strangulating obstruction of the small intestine in the horse is associated with a high mortality rate. Although many intestinal lesions can be treated surgically, more effective strategies are needed to decrease the occurrence of complications related to the intestinal segments that are not amenable to intestinal resection. The aim of this PhD was to determine the feasibility and effect of two novel treatment modalities in equine small intestinal ischaemia. Therefore, ischaemic postconditioning and pharmacological preconditioning with lidocaine and xylazine were investigated in two experimental in vivo studies. By evaluating different variables for intestinal ischaemia reperfusion injury by use of histomorphology, immunohistochemistry and biochemical analysis, the results of this study demonstrate the applicability of these treatments in experimental small intestinal ischaemia in horses.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.