Epitome V (1621), and consisted of matching an element of area to an element of time, where each was mathematically determined. His treatment of the area depended solely on the geometry of Euclid's Elements, involving only straight-line and circle propositions – so we have to account for his deliberate avoidance of the sophisticated conic-geometry associated with Apollonius. We show also how his proof could have been made watertight according to modern standards, using methods that lay entirely within his power. The (...) greatest innovation, however, occurred in Kepler's fresh formulation of the measure of time. We trace this concept in relation to early astronomy and conclude that Kepler's treatment unexpectedly entailed the assumption that time varied nonuniformly; meanwhile, a geometrical measure provided the independent variable. Even more surprisingly, this approach turns out to be entirely sound when assessed in present-day terms. Kepler himself attributed the cause of the motion of a single planet around the Sun to a set of `physical' suppositions which represented his religious as well as his Copernican convictions; and we have pared to a minimum – down to four – the number he actually required to achieve this. In the Appendix we use modern mathematics to emphasize the simplicity, both geometrical and kinematical, that objectively characterizes the Sun-focused ellipse as an orbit. Meanwhile we highlight the subjective simplicity of Kepler's own techniques (most of them extremely traditional, some newly created). These two approaches complement each other to account for his success. (shrink)

The current debates about seat belts in motor cars and the evils of smoking may only be straws in the wind if the scenario sketched in this paper were translated into a social, political programme. Then 'illness would increasingly be seen as a failure to keep healthy and thus culpable. The failures [the patients] ... must either be irresponsible and hence punishable at least by the imposition of financial penalties or insane and thus in need of corrective therapy.' If this (...) sounds like 1984 the reader must read the whole argument set out in this paper and make his own judgment. He may not be encouraged by what he reads but he will be forewarned. There is no answer to the question, What shall I do, if this prophecy is true? (shrink)

This paper discusses two interrelated concepts: (1) the ethics of planned social change and (2) primary health care. It takes the World Health Organization’s definition of primary health care as a point of departure to examine four identified potential areas where ethical dilemmas may occur. In addition, questions are raised about nursing education, as well as about the class and status differences between nurses and patients and communities. It takes the position that our first task is to encourage more discussion (...) and examination of ethical issues in the planned social change of primary health care. (shrink)