Truth and Art: Keatss Ode on a Grecian Urn :: Ode on a Grecian Urn Essays

Keats's "Ode on a Grecian Urn" offers a paradoxical concept of Beauty. It describes the frozen beauty portrayed on the Urn as sweeter than reality, for its expiration is a locked impossibility. The lover's kiss is sweeter when in waiting, and her timeless beauty and devotion are worth the kiss's impossibility. Thus, the observation of beauty is more sweet than its reception, and objects in their prime are best just before their expiration. This poem is reminiscent of Shakespeare's sonnets in its zeal for permanent youth and disdain for time's drain on youth's beauty. Yet, after all the desires for the Urn's timeless youth and beauty (an impossibility in reality), the poet ends with, "Beauty is truth, truth beauty-that is all / Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know." Keats objectifies and works to define beauty through his description of the Urn, or art in general. If the beauty found in the urn is an impossibility in reality, how can it be undeniable truth? "La Belle Dame sans Me rci" further complicates this question. Here, beauty is false trickery. The knight is pulled in by a mythical creature whose beauty and pleasing actions draw him into her lair, where she leads him to tragic ending on the cold hill's side. It can be deduced from this poem that Beauty is deceiving, and, consequently, not Truth. So what are we left with? "Ode on a Grecian Urn" implies that art represents Beauty. But this Beauty is impossible in the realm of reality; it can only be in the unmoving atmosphere of an Urn's surface. After four and a half stanzas supplying evidence of the scene's impossibility, the finishing lines inextricably link Beauty to Truth. The only way the art on the Urn can be viewed as having a place in reality, is the Urn's physical timelessness: "When old age shall this generation waste, / Thou shalt remain.

Equity and Trusts: Barnes V Addy Second Limb

Introduction This paper examines the development and scope of accessory liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy as it stands in both England and Australia. As to the law in England, the focus will be on the rearticulation of the principle of accessory liability under the second limb as stated in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. In particular, it will consider the extent to which the decision has reconciled inconsistencies in earlier authority and remedied those issues propounded to be inherent in the traditional formulation of the principle. At this stage, this traditional principle remains good law in Australia.However, as suggested in Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, there is potential for the English approach to be adopted in the Australian context. Such an adoption may be advisable in light of the judicial and extra-judicial commentary suggesting that the orthodox approach is in fact not properly aligned with equitable principles. The discussion of this possibility involves not only an assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, but also a determination as to the extent to which the separate application of each approach could result in a divergent outcome.The development of the second limb of Barnes v Addy in Australia- ‘knowing assistance’ The classic authority on the circumstances in which third parties will be held accountable for their involvement in a breach of trust or fiduciary duty is the English case of Barnes v Addy. It was in this case that Lord Selbourne LC articulated the much cited and analysed statement of principle that has come to form the modern law: †¦ trangers are not to be made constructive trustees merely because they act as the agents of trustees†¦unless those agents receive and become chargeable with some part of the trust property, or unless they assist with knowledge in a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the trustees. This statement has come to be understood as allowing liability to be imputed on a party in two distinct circumstances, where the third party either knowingly receives trust property, or assists with knowledge in a breach of trust or fiduciary duty.This paper seeks only to consider the latter. In what ostensibly remains the authoritative case on this second limb of Barnes v Addy in Australia, the High Court in Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd, (‘Consul Development v DPC’) not unlike other cases at the time, focussed predominantly on the level of knowledge which would be sufficient to attract accessory liability in the circumstances before them.The primary question was not one of the dishonesty or otherwise of the actions of the third party, but of that third party’s knowledge of the dishonesty of the fiduciary. The majority, it seems, realised that the terms ‘constructive notice’ and ‘actual notice’ did not in themselves comprise the requisite sophisti cation for dealing with the matter of the knowledge of the third party.They instead expressed the required degree of knowledge within particular parameters, with neither Stephen J nor Gibbs J willing to extend these parameters to include a negligent failure to inquire on behalf of the third party. In Equiticorp Finance Ltd v Bank of New Zealand, Kirby P (in dissent) indicated support for the Consul test of knowledge, and attempted to clarify the judgement in Consul Development v DPC with reference to the decision in Baden, Delvaxs & Lecuit v Societe Generale pour Favoriser le Development du Commerce et de L’Industrie en France SA (‘Baden’).He equated the degrees of knowledge set out by the High Court in Consul Development v DPC with the first four categories as stated in Baden thereby confirming that both actual and constructive knowledge, but not constructive notice, would constitute the requisite degree of knowledge necessary to render a third party liable unde r the second limb of Barnes v Addy. Similar findings have been made in later cases where Consul Development v DPC has been declared authority on the matter, although such an explicit reference to the Baden scale is not always present.Conversely, other judges have found the judgement in Consul Development v DPC to be inconclusive, adopting a narrow interpretation of the judgement of Stephen J and restricting the requisite knowledge only to the first three categories of the Baden scale. This tendency toward a narrow approach increased following the decision in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan (‘Royal Brunei’) as courts attempted to reconcile the UK and Australian lines of authority.However in other cases, such as Gertsch v Atsas it was held that that the acceptance of the first four Baden categories was synonymous with accepting a standard of honesty. Given the discordant state of the Australian authorities, the High Court took the opportunity in Farah Constructions Pt y Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd, (‘Farah Constructions’) to clarify the Australian position on knowing assistance.Their Honours declared, in obiter, that Australian courts should continue to follow the decision in Consul Development v DPC, thereby continuing to see as necessary the requirement of a dishonest design on the part of the fiduciary, and subscribing to the proposition that where the third party’s knowledge falls within the first four categories of the Baden scale it will answer the requirement of knowledge under the second limb of Barnes v Addy.In what has been referred to as a â€Å"profound shift in the rules of judicial engagement† following Farah Constructions, lower courts have regarded themselves as obligated to follow the obiter of the High Court and have thus returned to an orthodox approach. However, the law in Australia is far from settled on this point and a case is yet to come before the High Court with the facts necessary to allow for a rec onsideration of the principles enunciated by the Privy Council in Royal Brunei. The development of the second limb of Barnes v Addy in England- ‘dishonest assistance’While in Australia the courts are returning to an orthodox approach towards accessory liability, in England, the courts are grappling with a reformulation of the principles under the second limb of Barnes v Addy following the decision in Royal Brunei. In this case, the Privy Council refocussed the relevant inquiry in cases concerning liability under the second limb of Barnes v Addy away from the third party’s knowledge of the trustee’s dishonesty, to the dishonesty of the accessory themselves.Consequently, the dishonesty (or lack thereof) of the trustee or fiduciary is irrelevant as it is the dishonesty on the part of the accessory that attracts liability. There is nothing new about the application of a dishonesty-based in inquiry into the liability of accessories to a breach of fiduciary duty , with Lord Nicholls suggesting that before the inquiry â€Å"donned its Barnes v Addy strait-jacket† judges hadn’t regarded themselves as confined to inquiries into the levels of knowledge of the accessory.It may even be said that the dishonesty-based inquiry had retained its place in contemporary law prior to Royal Brunei, and that it was merely obscured by the additional and more tedious requirement of determining the level of knowledge of the accessory. For example, in Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson Millet J stated: There is no sense in requiring dishonesty on the part of the principal while accepting negligence as sufficient for his assistant.Dishonest furtherance of the dishonest scheme of another is an understandable basis for liability; negligent but honest failure to appreciate that someone else's scheme is dishonest is not. This can be set alongside other cases which suggest that that the requirement of dishonesty on the part of the principle is in fact a compel ling reason not to require dishonesty on the part of the fiduciary, as they are an ‘accessory’ who merely needs to be is linked to the conduct of the principle. Millet J, however, seemingly wishes to see this principle extended, so that dishonesty is required on the part of both parties.The decision in Royal Brunei does not precisely echo this formulation of the dishonestly principle (Lord Nicholls ultimately went on to conclude that that the fiduciary need not be dishonest at all in order for the accessory to be held accountable), but instead clarifies and affirms a general principle in light of other commentary on the point. Consequently, Lord Nicholls in his judgement has set out what is necessary for the inquiry into the accessory’s dishonesty, stating that courts should look to determine whether the person acted â€Å"as an honest person would in the circumstances† in light of their actual knowledge at the time.He further explains that the question sh ould be approached objectively and indicates that the test is not one of the ‘reasonable person’. He seeks to clarify this test of dishonesty with the following examples: If a person knowlingly appropriates another’s property, he will not escape a finding of dishonesty simply because he sees nothing wrong in such behaviour†¦Honest people do not knowingly take other’s property†¦[or] participate in a transaction if he knows it involves a misapplication of trust assets to the detriment of the beneficiaries.Nor does an honest person in such a case deliberately close his eyes and ears, or deliberately not ask questions, lest he learn something he would rather not know, then proceed regardless. This passage, while meant to further explain the test for dishonesty, initially seems difficult to reconcile with later comments, where his Lordship makes explicit reference to the departure from the orthodox inquiry into degrees of knowledge, stating that the w ord â€Å"knowlingly† should be avoided and that the Baden scale was â€Å"best forgotten†.While it seems unproblematic to abandon the Baden scale of knowledge, commentators and courts alike have found difficultly in divorcing the concept of dishonesty from knowledge itself and the most recent authoritative decision on the point Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd (‘Barlow Clowes’) confirms that an inquiry into dishonesty does to some degree require an inquiry into the knowledge of the third party. Comparison of the English and Australian position One of the objectives of the court in Royal Brunei was to remedy some of the problems with the orthodox approach to accessory liability.Such problems were not only present in English courts, but have also plagued Australian courts and were not resolved in by the High Court’s affirmation of the knowledge-based test in Farah Constructions. Firstly, Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei soug ht to realign the principles of accessory liability with equitable doctrines and focussed primarily on the conscience of the accessory themselves. In the orthodox approach, as expressed in Consul Developments v DPC, the inquiry is not into the state of mind of the accessory themselves but into the accessory’s knowledge of another’s state of mind.It has been suggested that the inquiry has thus been misplaced, and that although it results in an indirect finding of dishonesty on the part of the accessory, it is much further removed from equitable principles than the Royal Brunei approach. Lord Nicholls also sought to do away with the confusion surrounding the need for judges to distinguish between the different levels of knowledge, in particular constructive knowledge and constructive notice.However, as noted above, Lord Nicholls on several occasions makes reference to the knowledge of the accessory which is the reason that the degree to which the test of dishonesty is di vorced from an inquiry into knowledge has been questioned. However, what must be realised here is that the inquiry into knowledge that is embarked upon as part of the dishonesty based approach is different to that which was required under the knowledge based approach.This redirection for the knowledge inquiry was first considered in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley where a difficulty arose in determining whether Lord Nicholls had intended for an objective or subjective approach to be taken to dishonesty. In the leading judgement, Lord Hutton tendered the â€Å"combined test† which required that the third party’s conduct be dishonest by the standards of the reasonable person as well as requiring an appreciation by the third party that by those standards his or her conduct was dishonest.This combined test endured much academic criticism and was seen as being inconsistent with the objective test enunciated by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei. The Privy Council, and in particular, Lo rd Hoffman (who was in the majority in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley) had the opportunity in Barlow Clowes to clarify the comments made in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley. It was stated that the majority in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley had, in fact, always espoused a test in line with that which was conceptualised in Royal Brunei and it was commentators who had skewed this test into a different form.Despite the contempt that many commentators had for this account, the statement of a complete principle of dishonest assistance was applauded. Incorporated in this principle was the conclusion that the liability of the accessory was not dependant on a requirement for fraud or dishonesty on the part of the fiduciary, but depended solely upon whether the accessory was at fault. This is the converse position of the orthodox approach, whereby a third party can escape liability even where they know they are assisting in a breach of fiduciary duty, provided that the fiduciary was not acting dishonestly.Thomas J in Powell v Thompson held that protecting a person with a guilty conscience in this manner was not in line with equitable principles, and his consequent assertion that the conduct of the principle should be irrelevant was later approved in Brunei. One significant consequence of the divergent approaches in what are currently the UK and Australian positions on this matter would be the substantial difference in outcome in cases where the fiduciary had acted innocently.Provided that all other requirements are satisfied, in the UK the accessory would be held liable however in Australia they would not. Further to this, while some Australian judges have found it difficult to distinguish the traditional approach from that of Royal Brunei, the fact that the orthodox reliance on the Baden scale restricts investigations only to knowledge and not to other attributes or types of conduct, lends weight to the argument that in certain circumstances there would be divergent outcomes of the two ap proaches. Perhaps, it is best to take FarahConstructions as authority on this point, with the High Court in this case imputing that one of the reasons it is directing courts to treat the approaches distinctly is due to the potential for the different formulations of the principle to lead to different results. Conclusion In line with the arguments presented in this paper, it is submitted that the approach to accessory liability espoused in Royal Brunei is preferable to that which was propounded in Consul Development v DPC due what is an ostensible irreconcilability of the latter case with conventional equitable doctrines.This assertion turns on the manner in which the judges in Consul Development v DPC dealt with the requirement for a dishonest and fraudulent design on the part of the fiduciary as per Lord Selbourne LC in Barnes v Addy. Like many other cases at the time, Consul Development v DPC was concerned more with attempts to define what Lord Selbourne had meant by a â€Å"dish onest and fraudulent design† rather than questioning whether it was an appropriate criterion for the imposition of liability on a third party.Consequently, when it came to fulfilling equity's calls as to inquiries into the conscience of the defendant, courts were misguided and came to focus instead on the conscience of the principle. The arguments in favour of the retention of this approach are largely set out in reliance on the requirement that the third party be implicated in the conduct of the fiduciary. However, as suggested in Royal Brunei, assistance in itself should be enough to draw a sufficient connection between the accessory and the fiduciary.It was this realisation which enabled Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei to reformulate the principle under the second limb of Barnes v Addy so as to redirect inquiries into the minds of defendants to their appropriate place in accordance with equitable principles. Although the adoption of the approach in Brunei may not result in ma jor shift in the law of accessory liability in Australia, it’s contemplation of circumstances in which the third party can be held liable even where the fiduciary is innocent would at the very least resolve the seemingly inequitable approach to this point as it stands in current Australian law. Bibliography Articles/Books/Reports Aitken, L, ‘Unforgiven: Some thoughts on Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd' (2007) 29 Australian Bar Review 195 Andrews, G, ‘The redundancy of dishonest assistance’ (2003) 8 Conveyancing and Property Law Journal 1 Birks, P, ‘Misdirected funds: Restitution from the Recipient’ (1989) Lloyds Maritime & Commercial LQ 296 Chambers, R, ‘Knowing Receipt: Frozen In Australia' (2007) 2 Journal of Equity 40 Cope, M, ‘A comparative evaluation of developments in equitable relief for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust' [2006] QUT Law Journal 7Cope, M, Equitable Obligations: Duties, Defences and Rem edies (2008), Lawbook Co, Pyrmont. Hoffman, L, ‘The Redundancy of Knowing Assistance’ in Birks, P (ed), The Frontiers of Liability, (1994) vol 1, Oxford University Press, New York Dietrich, J & Ridge, P †The receipt of what? ‘: questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichment' [2007] Melbourne University Law Review 3 Harding, M & Malkin, I, ‘The High Court of Australia’s Obiter Dicta and Decision-Making in Lower Courts’ 34 Sydney Law Review 2 Kirby, M, ‘Equity's Australian Isolationism' (2008) 8 Melbourne University Law Review 2Kiri, N, ‘Recipient and accessory liability- where do we stand now? ’ (2006) 21 Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation 11 Loughlan, P L, ‘Liability for Assistance in a Breach of Fiduciary Duty’ (1989) 9 Oxford Leg Studies 260 Mason, K, ‘President Mason’s Farewell Speech’ (2008) 82 Australian Law Journal 11 Ong, D, à ¢â‚¬ËœThe Knowledge or Role that makes a Person an Accessory under the Barnes v Addy Principle’ (2005) 17 Bond Law Review 6 Radan, P ; Stewart, C, Principles of Australian Equity ; Trusts, (2010), LexisNexis Australia, ChatswoodSullivan, G R, ‘Framing an Acceptable General Offence of Fraud’ (1989) 53 Journal of Criminal Law 92 Thomas, S B, ‘Knowing Receipt and Knowing Assistance: Where do we stand? ’ (1997) 20 UNSW Law Journal 1 Thornton, R, ‘Dishonest Assistance: Guilty Conscience or Guilty Mind? ’ [2002] 61 Cambridge Law Journal 3 ? Case Law Aequitas v AEFC [2001] NSWSC 14 Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1990] Ch 265 Air Canada v M;L Travel Ltd (1993) 108 DLR (4th) 592 Attorney-General v Corporation of Leicester (1844) 7 Beav 176 ASIC v AS Nominees (1995) 133 ALR 1Baden Delvaux ; Lecuit v Societe Generale pour Favorisier le Developpment du Commerce et de l’Industrie en France SA [1992] 4 All ER 279 Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd [2006] 1 All ER 333 Barnes v Addy (1874) 9 Ch App 214 Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (1993) 115 ALR 411 Belmont Finance Corporation Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd (No 2) [1980] 1 All ER 393 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Herbert Smith ; Co (No 2) [1969] 2 Ch 276 Consul Development Pty Ltd v DPC Estates Pty Ltd (1975) 132 CLR 373 Corporate Systems Publishing Pty Ltd v Lingard [No 4] [2008] WASC 21 Coshott v Lenin [2007] NSWCA 153Digital Cinema Network Pty Ltd v Hepburn (No 4) [2011] FCA 509 DPC Estates v Grey [1974] 1 NSWLR 433 Eagle Trust plc v SPC Securities Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 489 Eaves v Hickson (1861) 30 Beav 136 Equiticorp Finance Ltd v Bank of New Zealand (1993) 32 NSWLR 50 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89 Flyer v Flyer (1841) 3 Beav 141 Gertsch v Atsas(1999) 10 BPR 18,431 John Alexander's Clubs Pty Ltd v White City Tennis Club Ltd; Walker Corp Pty Ltd vWhite City Tennis Club Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 1 Karak Rubber Co Ltd v Burden [1972 ] 1 All ER 1210 Kation Pty Ltd v Lamru Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 428Lipkin Gorman v Kapnale Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 451 Maher v Millenium Markets Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 174 NCR Australia Pty Ltd v Credit Connection Pty Ltd [2005] NSWSC 111 New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Ltd v General Cologne Re Australia Ltd [2004] NSWSC 781 Ninety Five Pty Ltd in liq v Banque Nationale de Paris [1988] WAR 132 Powell v Thompson [1991] NZLR 597 Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Cradock (No 3) [1968] 1 WLR 155 Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 Voss v Davidson & Ors [2002] QSC 316 Yeshiva Properties No 1 Pty Ltd v Marshall (2005) 219 ALR 11

A Critique of Tess Onwueme’s Tell It to Women Essay

To Women, we travel back to a Nigerian village in postcolonial Africa. The story enlightens the audience about the dichotomy of traditionalism versus modernism and the ways in which different cultures interact. It ends by revealing the true meaning of culture; the real quality in a society that arises from a passion for what is excellent in arts, manners, and customs. Overall, the play discusses the role of women within this Nigerian village and largely examines the conflict of whether it is better to advance with the rest of the world, or to hold on to the traditions that truly make a society independent and beautiful. The play begins with Yemoja, the most important woman in the village, in a house with Daisy and Ruth, two feminist western-educated scholars. They are the primary antagonists in the play. At this early stage, we see that Daisy and Ruth are not fond of Yemoja. Daisy and Ruth are leaders of the â€Å"Better Life for Rural Women† campaign, which inspires women to believe that they are not only equal to men in many ways, but are even superior in others. The two of them select Yemoja as the mediator between the village and the western world that they are so desperate to force upon the women. The movement causes a great disturbance in the village between the men and women, and especially with Yemoja’s husband and father. Back in Daisy’s home, she has been getting into many disagreements with her family. Her husband Okei, disagrees with her passion about the feminist movement and they frequently fight about it. Her mother-in-law, Sherifat, still encourages Yemoja to participate in the village’s traditional tribal rituals. Sherifat expresses that it would a terrible fate if Yemoja attempts to assimilate to the modern culture and loses her roots. As the story goes on, Daisy becomes estranged from her daughter Bose, as Bose is beginning to understand more and more the culture of the village and becomes closer to Yemoja and Sherifat. Towards the end of the play, the villagers organize a march, for which Daisy gives Yemoja steps to teach to the rest of the women. It becomes clear to Yemoja at that point that western culture is not for them. Daisy and Ruth’s superior arrives to enlighten the women about her ideas of feminism. She is the one that will decide whether or not the movement has succeeded or not. When it is time for Yemoja to perform the dance, however, she and Sherifat perform one of the Idu rituals instead. Bose even joins in the dancing. Ruth falls and becomes extremely injured while Daisy is thrust into the middle of the action. The play ends here in a beautifully tragic scene as Ruth chokes to death while the rest of the villagers celebrate having revitalized their culture. Tess Onwueme’s play was delightfully written and captivating to any audience. The story was intriguing and definitely matched it’s title. Now I see that, Tell It To Women, is a statement on how the women of the village are always being told to do or be something. Whether it is by Daisy and Ruth or by their husbands, the women never really find their own voice until the very end. We see in the first movement, Sherifat telling the chorus of women that being a wife is â€Å"meaning that a wife deserves to be treated like a daughter and not something that you possess. † Yet, throughout much of the story, we see the women being treated like servants and as subhuman to Daisy and Ruth, the village men, and western civilization as a whole. However, I believe that even as a woman, the author was at times, very objective in her portrayal of feminism. She was able to write a play that showed both the positives and negatives of modernism, while advancing the ideals of traditionalism. She does all this without losing sight of what is most important to women of a small village like that. At one part she even has Ruth say â€Å"these rural women are very gullible, you know. All you need to do is make them feel they are important†¦ we need them anyway, maybe even more than they need us. † The author is commenting here on the passive-aggressive attempts of Daisy and Ruth but also shows that the village women do not actually need to be modernized. Perhaps here, the author is a little biased because she is making Daisy and Ruth out to be selfish and slightly cruel. To a western reader, the play was not very easy to read. The names of the villagers were at times tongue tying and I found myself changing opinions about a character because I in fact, thought they were another. Onwueme also does not really explain the native African dialect and proverbial expressions that are used, which was slightly confusing as well. Many play-writes include footnotes at the bottom of the page to explain vernacular that is not known to the reader and that would have been very helpful here. That being said, the true meaning of the play was present the entire time. The clash of cultures and the lingering pains of colonialism in Africa come through wonderfully in the author’s interpretation. In one eloquent line we see that colonialism left its mark of the villagers. Sherifat says to Daisy that â€Å"it’s easier for those who inflict the pain on others to forget. † Tell It To Women, while at times was hard to follow, beautifully captured the struggle of traditionalism versus modernism and is a true mark of feminism. Overall, I thought that the play was well written and captivating. Even as a man, when sometimes it is hard to understand the desires of women, let alone women of another culture, I was able to grasp the true value of this play. It enlightened me about African culture and the roles of men and women in society. I believe Onwueme did a tremendous job in exposing the struggles of postcolonial Africa in an artful representation.

Digestive system disease

PEPTIC ULCER DISEASE Ulcer generally is defined as a breach in the mucosa lining of the alimentary canal extending from the muscularis mucosa down into the sub-mucosa or deeper structures. An ulcer is said to be acute when it is limited to the muscularis mucosa while it is said to be chronic when it involve the sub-mucosa layers of the digestive system. Peptic ulcer disease is usually about 4 cm in diameter occurring in the following part of the digestive system: lower esophagus, stomach, 1st part of duodenum, sometimes it can occur in some ectopic sites like jejunum, and meckel diverticulumAETIOLOGY AND PATHOPHYSIOLOGY. Many factors has been attributed to this disease, the most common cause is an organism called Helicobacter pylori, a spiral-shaped motile flagellated bacterial which resides in the stomach. Its presence induced an intense inflammatory and immunogenic response. It also secrete many substances that affect the normal function of the stomach which include urease producti on, which breaks down urea to toxic compounds that affect the mucosa the organism also secrete enzymes like peptidase, lipase, mucinase that digest the protective surface of the stomach and duodenum.Moreover, when the mucosa of the duodenum are exposed to the acid been produced in the stomach then they may be breached. Also, prostaglandin produced by the stomach must be in balanced form i. e. equal amount of PGE2 and PGE1. Any increase in one without increase in the other will result in ulceration of the stomach mucosa. Some drugs have also been indicated in the development of the diseases, drugs like non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), they cause this disease by blocking the production of the protective prostaglandin, and a good example of such drugs is aspirin.Many predisposing factors have also been recognized some of which are cigarette smoking which has been taught to inhibit bicarbonate formation, it also inhibit the prostaglandin formation. Secondly, stress also pr edisposes an individual to the disease. Whenever an individual is suffering from the disease they always present with dyspepsia (commonly called upset stomach characterized by epigastric pain) there is nocturnal pain, nausea, sometimes heart burn. These symptoms are always on and off and long standing.Sometimes some patients presents with the complication of the disease which include perforation: the stomach or the duodenum might be perforated so that the content will pour into the peritoneum causing acute abdomen, heamatemesis (vomiting of blood), haematochezia ( passing of bloody stools) other complication include peritonitis, cancer development. Hemorrhagic complication developed as a result of erosion of the blood vessels by the acid or the secretion from the causative organism. DiagnosisThis is done by proper investigation of the cause of the disease. Upper gastro intestinal endoscopy is usually carried out, barium meal is needed. For detection of the bacteria fecal antigen tes t of urea breath test is always carried out. Treatment The disease is usually treated with anti ulcer drugs which are acid neutralizing drugs, acid reducing agents, cytoprotective agents, and anti H. pylori agents. Examples of commonly used drugs are antacids, cimetidine, omeprazole and sucrafate

Examine the argument that neighbourly relations are always characterised Essay

The requirement to be friendly but without undermining the privacy of others, different spaces where neighbouring takes place. For example if a neighbour is busy at the front garden might do a quick chat, but never thinking of knocking on their front door. People don’t normally sit in the front of their home because they see it to public, more like in the back garden. Like Kate Fox says refer it as the grey area In her book called Watching the English: The hidden rules of English Behaviour Fox wrote that in 2004, who is a social anthropologist. Some neighbours may pass one another and a have a quick hi, chat, and some don’t bother with each other. Most properties in the UK have distinct physical boundaries, for example, borders, hedges, fences or walls, most people respect these boundaries. We have them as a protection from others around us, so we can sit or sunbathe without onlookers, if someone were to pop their head over our fence this would, to most, be seen as intrusion. Many people have a relationship with their neighbours, most of them keeping a distance, not becoming too friendly, maybe borrowing a power tool or signing for a parcel and dropping it round when they finish work. Willmott, 1986, said neighbours are expected to have a ‘general disposition towards friendliness’ while, at the same time, respecting others ‘need for privacy and reserve’. This suggest the general feeling towards how a neighbour should be is friendly when seen but to respect the privacy and need for space. Identify the argument that neighbourly relations are characterised by friendly distance. Before I identify the argument that neighbourly relations are characterised by friendly distance, I want to explore what neighbourly relations are, their responsibilities, how and why they act in a particular but also whether it’s the same throughout the world. During the 1800s there was a rapid change in where people lived. In the first half of the century,  the population of England and Wales doubled from nearly 9 million to almost 18 million. Meanwhile the population living in large towns increased from1.5 million to 15million. England experienced the full force and development of urbanisation. These changes of where people live also influenced how people lived. The historian Briggs (1990) described heaving, industrial Manchester as the ‘shock city’ in the 1830s. Among all the changes experienced with urbanisation some of these changes included the intensity of people liv ing together ay greater densities than ever experienced in the countryside, people had new associations with boundaries and a different grasp of ‘public’ and ‘private’ space. But more importantly they had to learn how to be a neighbour in a city. The boundaries between ‘public’ and ‘private’ are still evident in cities today. Kate Fox describes it as the ‘geography of neighbouring’. In every community there is an informal negotiation of space which establishes the daily functioning of the neighbourhood. Boundaries and communal junctions are places of interaction and for exchanges of pleasantries. Jovan Byford explains that most interactions occur over a boundary, a fence or in a public space like a street instead of in a personal private domain. Harris and Gale (2004) conducted a study to examine neighbourly relations and they found the trend that most interviewees explained that if they go out of the house and see other neighbours they will chat but do not necessarily go to each other’s houses.

Ethics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 3

Ethics - Essay Example Since these duties would apply to every rational individual, ethics would prevail as individuals would be acting under universal laws that are absolute, therefore, without events of contradictions occurring (Kay, 2007). This paper will examine Maria von Herbert’s interaction with Kant as seen in the reading by Rae Langton, thus pointing out the problems, with Kantian ethics, their severity and how the Kantian can suitably respond. Firstly, it is crucial to examine the details of the letters and the events that followed in order to chronologically assess the situation and pinpoint the main issues. In Rae Langton’s reading, a theme of friendship between Maria von Herbert, a young Austrian and Kant seems to welcome the reader. Herbert is presented as a keen follower of Kant and even with the on-going enmity between Germany and Austria; she still seems to be devoted to Kant’s ideologies. In the season of autumn in 1791, Herbert wrote Kant a letter disclosing her suff ering caused by losing her lover due to revealing certain information to him. Agitated from emotion, she said that she had contemplated suicide but because of Kant’s theory, she had decided otherwise (Langton, 1992:2). Herbert felt that she should confess about a certain truth that she had not told her lover so that she could be at peace with herself. After confessing, the lover turned cold and the love that he had felt for Herbert faded, thus making Herbert miserable. Herbert had fortunately read Kant’s theories and since she was devoted to the Kantian ethics, she had decided not to take her own life as it would be morally unacceptable (Langton, 1992:2). Kantian ethics instructed that every individual was compelled by a duty to do what is morally right despite the consequences. In this context, Kant had argued that committing suicide was going against the categorical imperative, which in itself is a command that demands individuals not to commit suicide (Kant, 1785). Herbert was a staunch follower of Kantian ethics so she felt that it was morally wrong to commit suicide despite the pain and agony she was feeling. Although she had not taken her life, she wanted Kant to reveal to her, the values or worth of living such a miserable life with a lot of emotional pain and no good. She wanted Kant to give her an alternative that could make her feel that her life was worth once again. She also indicated that Kant’s philosophy had not helped her in dealing with her troubles (Langton, 1992:3). The letter evidently moved Kant as it conveyed a theme and a message of truth, virtue and honesty. These were qualities that moved Kant because he believed that speaking the truth was not only an ethical duty to oneself but to others (Mahon, 2009:214). Therefore, he sought a friend who advised him to reply to the letter. Kant talked about the dispute between desiring to keep individuals’ private matters to themselves and the need to openly talk about t hem especially when in a situation of immense love. Kant said individuals had an inward urge that set limits to excessive openness and allowed them to keep some aspects of life locked within them. Kant simply meant that it was ethically allowed for individuals to keep private matters to themselves but this was supposed to be recognised from lying (Langton: 1992: 3). Kant told Herbert that her lover had every right to be angry with her and she had to face the consequences of being dishonest. Kant declined to talk about suicide because he thought that talking

Georgia Dome Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Georgia Dome - Research Paper Example Moreover, in the year 2000, the Super Bowl XXXIV was held at the Dome and each year, the Chick Fil-A Bowl, the Bank of America Atlanta Football Classic and the SEC Football Championships and similar events are hosted. Furthermore, it is the site where NCAA Men’s Basketball Final Four was held in the years 2002 and 2007. In addition, through out the year several sports events such as tennis matches, basket ball games, track and field events and Supercross events are held at the Georgia Dome. The Dome is considered as the home of the famous Atlanta Falcons. The Dome is specially designed to be capable of hosting non sports events as well, such as annual trade shows and religious events. For tourists and sports lovers, ranges of behind the scene tours are available at nominal prices. Such tours are available on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. The stadium is oval shaped and this ensures a good view from each of its71, 500 seats. Parking is quite expensive and limited so it is a g ood idea to prefer walking to the Dome instead. The Dome is easily accessible through rail and road. (Gramercy Books, 2006). The responsibility of operating the Georgia Dome, the 21 acre Centennial Olympic Park and Georgia World Congress Centre is undertaken by the Georgia World Congress Centre Authority. Georgia Dome is one of the World’s largest State owned, sports, entertainment and convention center facilities. Atlanta’s Hypar-Tensgrity Georgia Dome is a domed stadium that is supported by cables and was opened to the world in the year 1992. The construction of the combined sports facility was funded by the Georgia General Assembly, and is considered as Atlanta’s largest state funded construction project. During the construction of the Dome, 8,300 tons of reinforced steel was used and approximately 110,000 cubic yards of concrete was used. The Dome occupies a total area of 8.9 acres and has seven levels each of which is of 1.6 million square feet. The height of the Georgia