This study sought to determine cardiologists’ degrees of ethical awareness and preferred courses of action for ethical dilemmas frequently encountered in clinical settings. For this evaluation, an online survey was created and sent to cardiologists affiliated with various academic posts in Ankara, Turkey. The survey included ten cases with various ethical considerations selected from our book, “Clinic Ethics with Cases from Cardiology.” Four possible action choices were defined for each case. Participants were asked to choose one or more of these (...) preferences. In addition, a fictional change was made in each case’s context without changing the original ethical issue, and participants were asked whether an attitude different from the first chosen one was preferred. The participation ratio was 49/185 (26%), consent ratio 47/185 (25,4%), and completion ratio 44/185 (23,7%). Nine of the ten scenario changes did not change participants’ preferred action. For most questions, action preferences were concentrated between the two options. Although legal regulations did not reduce ethical dilemmas, they clarified physicians’ action preferences. Similarly, as an obscure moral issue gained prominence, physicians were forced to draw clearer lines in their actions. External factors such as healthcare emergencies can change physicians’ ethical dilemma-solving attitudes. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) treatment must be based on scientific methods such as clinical trials. Trials involving human subjects and those requiring a risk-benefit analysis may occasionally face challenges owing to the time limitations in the pandemic. MethodologyThis study analyses the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and clinicaltrials.gov, where most COVID-19 clinical trials are registered, according to ethical criteria including study design, conflicts of interest, enrollment of healthcare workers, study locations, site-, design-, and participant-related issues. The discussion is based (...) on three aspects: the quality of the information to be produced, the relevance to significant health problems, and the creation or evaluation of interventions, policies, or practices that promote individual or public health. ResultsThere were significant differences between the two platforms regarding the investigational medicinal product (IMP), the comparator, ethics committee/institutional review board approval, plan to share individual participant data, study phase, site, IMP, and design-related issues. Conflict of interest, sponsor information, and management of vulnerable groups were the main areas wherein both platforms lacked sufficient information. ConclusionWith this analysis, we aimed to define a minimum set of ethical criteria for clinical trial platforms to obtain standardization between these two platforms. (shrink)

As we know, the Fifteenth World Congress of Philosophy has as its general theme problems of science, technology, and man. Any aspect of this all-encompassing theme produces many questions. Our task is to single out certain important aspects in it.

Foundations of Speech Act Theoryoffers a timely, thorough and, above all, compelling examination of the complexities of illocutionary acts, performatives, and their phenomenological basis. Savas Tsohatzidis has collected an impressive range of international scholars on the subject. Clearly demonstrating the relevance of speech act theory to semantic theory, the collection further interrogates the inability of pragmatic theories of illocution to properly locate such speech acts within the logic of phenomenology and intersubjectivity.

This paper examines, and rejects, a recent argument to the effect that knowledge is not truth-entailing, i.e. that “know” is not factive.

A problem is raised for the introduction rules proposed in Benjamin Schnieder’s ‘A logic for “because”’, arising in connection with (a) inferences that the rules should not, but do, validate and (b) inferences that the rules should, but do not, validate.

ABSTRACTEvaluative conditioning procedures change people’s evaluations of stimuli that are paired with pleasant or unpleasant items. To test whether influence awareness allows people to resist such...

1. cilt. Giriş, inceleme, tıpkıbasım -- 2. cilt. Tenkitli metin.

We consider a new fragment of first-order logic with two variables. This logic is defined over interval structures. It constitutes unary predicates, a binary predicate and a function symbol. Considering such a fragment of first-order logic is motivated by defining a general framework for event-based interval temporal logics. In this paper, we present a sound, complete and terminating decision procedure for this logic. We show that the logic is decidable, and provide a NEXPTIME complexity bound for satisfiability. This result shows (...) that even a simple decidable fragment of first-order logic has NEXPTIME complexity. (shrink)

Commentary on Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini, classical work on Sanskrit grammar.

Is uncertainty, often brought about by loss, collapse, interruption, or disturbance in life, an entirely negative state that must be resolved as soon and as fully as possible by resettlement? Or, can we view uncertainty and loss as affective states that might open up new possibilities for friendships, solidarities, collectivities, and hope? As a response to Carla J. Maier’s ‘The Table and the Dancer’ this essay attends to affective and emotional registers of migration. It attempts to rethink the senses of (...) loss, uprootedness, and uncertainty as possible sources for affinities and hope, with a particular focus on the new migration from Turkey. (shrink)

Şia-Mutezile etkileşiminde kilit isim olarak Şerif el-Murtaza değerlendirmesi.

This paper argues that Michael Dummett's proposed distinction between a declarative sentence's "assertoric content" and "ingredient sense" is not in fact supported by what Dummett presents as paradigmatic evidence in its support.

Timothy Williamson has argued that, unless the speech act of assertion were supposed to be governed by his so-called Knowledge Rule, one could not explain why sentences of the form "A and I do not know that A" are unassertable. This paper advances three objections against that argument, of which the first two aim to show that, even assuming that Williamson's explanandum has been properly circumscribed, his explanation would not be correct, and the third aims to show that his explanandum (...) has not been properly circumscribed. (shrink)