Four models of forgiveness are identified; the health model, the philosophical model, the Christian model and the prosocial model. All define the term ‘forgiveness’ in a way which is consistent with their particular perspective. The authors offer a definition of forgiveness and propose an integrated model of forgiveness which seeks to incorporate contributions from all four areas, but is not biased towards any one model. Four levels of transgression are identified and categorized according to the degree of perceived damage. Apology-automatic (...) and apology-dependent responses are distinguished from a forgiveness response which is restricted to Levels 3 and 4. The advantages of adopting a forgiveness strategy for both the forgiver and forgiven as opposed to other responses, i.e., revenge, denial, and condoning are discussed. The authors provide a definition and model which integrates the important contributions from each of the areas discussed. (shrink)

Many writers in various fields--philosophy, religion, literature, and psychology--believe that the question of the meaning of life is one of the most significant problems that an individual faces. In The Meaning of Life, Second Edition, E.D. Klemke collects some of the best writings on this topic, primarily works by philosophers but also selections from literary figures and religious thinkers. The twenty-seven cogent, readable essays are organized around three different perspectives on the meaning of life. In Part I, the readings assert (...) and defend the theistic view that without the existence of God--or faith in God--life has no significance or purpose. In Part II the selections deny this thesis, defending instead the humanistic alternative--that life has or can have meaning and worth without any theistic beliefs or commitment. In the final group of readings, contributors ask if the question of the meaning of life is in itself legitimate and significant. The volume also includes an introduction by the editor and a selected bibliography. This new edition adds essays by A. J. Ayer, Hazel Barnes, William Lane Craig, Owen Flanagan, Antony Flew, Thomas Nagel, Kai Nielsen, Philip L. Quinn, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Walter T. Stace. The only anthology of its kind, The Meaning of Life, Second Edition, is ideal for courses in introduction to philosophy and human nature. It also provides an accessible and stimulating introduction to the subject for general readers. (shrink)

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to identify and compare the attitudes of patients and health care professionals towards advance directives. Advance directives promote recognition of the patient's autonomy, letting the individual exercise a certain measure of control over life-sustaining care and treatment in the eventuality of becoming incompetent. DESIGN: Attitudes to advance directives were evaluated using a 44-item self-reported questionnaire. It yields an overall score as well as five factor scores: autonomy, beneficence, justice, external norms, and the affective dimension. SETTING: (...) Health care institutions in the province of Québec, Canada. Survey sample: The sampling consisted of 921 subjects: 123 patients, 167 physicians, 340 nurses and 291 administrators of health care institutions. RESULTS: Although the general attitude of each population was favourable to the expression of autonomy, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that physicians attached less importance to this subscale than did other populations (p < .001). Above all, they favoured legal external norms and beneficence. Physicians and administrators also attached less importance to the affective dimension than did patients and nurses. Specifically, physicians' attitudes towards advance directives were shown to be less positive than patients' attitudes. CONCLUSION: More attention should be given to the importance of adequately informing patients about advance directives because they may not represent an adequate means for patients to assert their autonomy. (shrink)

In this volume, I have given attention to what I consider to be some of the central problems and topics in the philosophical thought of SJ2jren Kierkegaard. Some of the chapters have been previously publish ed but were revised for their appearance here. Others were written expressly for this book. I have tried to focus on issues which have not been customarily dealt with or emphasized in the scholarship on Kierkegaard with the exception of the writings of David Swenson and (...) Paul L. Holmer to which (and to whom) I am greatly indebted. Some of the positions for which I have argued in this volume (especially in Chapters IV and V) may be controversial. I am grateful to all those who enabled me to carry out or influenced me in my studies of Kierkegaard or who assisted with regard to the research for or preparation of this volume. Among these are: Professors Paul L. Holmer, F. Arthur Jacobson, and Dennis A. Rohatyn; Dean Wallace A. Russell and Vice President Daniel J. Zaffarano of Iowa State University. (shrink)

In this note I shall: discuss Vivas' definition of "naturalism" and his criticism of naturalistic theories; characterize a naturalistic theory which Vivas overlooks, and which, hence, invalidates his attempted refutation; suggest criticisms of Vivas' "axiological realism", with special attention to the central doctrine of the objectivity of values.

To find out more information about Rowman & Littlefield titles please visit us at www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

The majority of Dutch physicians feel pressure when dealing with a request for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide. This study aimed to explore the content of this pressure as experienced by general practitioners. We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 15 Dutch GPs, focusing on actual cases. The interviews were transcribed and analysed with use of the framework method. Six categories of pressure GPs experienced in dealing with EAS requests were revealed: emotional blackmail, control and direction by others, doubts about fulfilling the (...) criteria, counterpressure by patient’s relatives, time pressure around referred patients and organisational pressure. We conclude that the pressure can be attributable to the patient–physician relationship and/or the relationship between the physician and the patient’s relative, the inherent complexity of the decision itself and the circumstances under which the decision has to be made. To prevent physicians to cross their personal boundaries in dealing with EAS request all these different sources of pressure will have to be taken into account. (shrink)