Greek society Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words - 1

Greek society - Assignment Example Few philosophers show that historians have not understood the vital role played by women in Greek society. Women in Greek owed property and were respected in the society. By law, women were not prohibited to take part in activities of life (Burckhardt 67). Presence of water channel allowed ancient Greek to focus on trade. Access to Africa, Europe and Asia through see route allowed Greek to become commercial society. Extensive trade gave a touch of westernization in the society. Middleman became prosperous and new trends in weapon and armory were introduced (Burckhardt 71-72). Loans were given to ship owners as banking activity and financial transactions were part of ancient Greek life. Revolution in banking never stopped and different ways of commerce and trade were introduced (Sotiropoulos & Karamagioli 54). Arts were part of old society and marks of Greek arts are still visible in ancient civilization. Gender distinction played minimal role in ancient Greek as women also enjoyed freedom of practicing all visions of

Late Imperial Russia Essay Example for Free

Late Imperial Russia Essay How was Russia set up to be the nation it is today? Introduction: Imperial Russia all started in the 17th century where a man named Tsar Ivan IV the terrible battled and defeated the Mongols which were the previous rulers of Russia. He appointed himself the emperor of Russia and his heirs would carry on his principles and his way of ruling throughout the centurys to build a strong nation. The Tsars of the Romanov dynasty would carry on ruling till the last reign in 1890-1917 which was held by Tsar Nicholas II son of Tsar Alexander Ill, it was his and is fathers reign which changed Russia from having its own system (tsarism) to become a nation with a fair government Just like the European nations of their time. At first glance the Tsars were thought to be grateful to Russia e. g. ictory over the swedes which transformed Muscovy into a great power of Europe and Alexander II the liberator ended serfdom and restored the government of Russia after losing the Crimean war. However there were many situations, problems in governments and people that caused Russia to change from having Tsarism to having an official government such as parliament. Tsar Tsarism: The system of Tsarism was governed through three organisations: Firstly there was the imperial council, which were a group of advisers to the Tsar. Secondly there was the Cabinet of Ministers, which ran the government departments of the Tsar. Thirdly there was the Senate, which were the supervisors of the law. All three of these governmental bodies were ranked under the Tsar so every organisation they run, laws they make or suggestions, the final word or decision has to be from the current Tsar ruler, e. g. To quote Reaction and Revolution They were appointed, not elected nd they did not govern. This is because their roles are basically to give advice because whatever they say has to go through the Tsar. The Tsar which caused most problems were as I mentioned above Nicholas II and Alexander Ill because of what they tried to do to the Russian empire as well as what they didnt try to do, unlike their reforming heirs, they didnt fight for Russia or change for Russia, they only did what they did to benefit them, not the rest of Russia. By the time of Nicholass reign Russia stretched a distance of 5000 miles from west to east and 2000 miles from outh to north, this of course made ruling Russia even more difficult because one family couldnt possibly enforce their system on their own unless they had an actual government like other European countries of their time. Even though the sheer size of Russia gave it a well-known powerful image that its a nation of strength, it didnt prove that because parts of the landscape are either unreachable, uninhabitable or just not worth the time to build upon. Considering these facts Tsar Nicholas II wasnt indeed that powerful as well as the Tsarism system which soon lead to changing into communist government ruled by the Bolsheviks in 1917. Overall the system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars nad control. How did the geography of Russia compare to other nations in Europe and effect the Tsar: As IVe mentioned above, Russia consists a land mass of 16,093,440 Kilometres Squared which makes it 2 and a half times bigger than the USA and a whole lot harder to rule, this is because Russia of this time is being ruled by one family which nly cause poverty, social segregation and a failed work force, if you compare it to the USA of its time its doing far better than Russia because the USA is a democracy unlike Russia which is a socialist nation. The differences are that the USA vote and elect, they have different Parties which have different Jobs to run the country when Russia is run by one family which tries to do everything and when they do make laws or enforce something, it only rewards them not the nation. The advantage the Tsars had is that the size of Russia made them seem untouchable which explains the lack f countries invading or taking over Russia, this is the only way that the geography of Russia affects it positively, IVe mentioned how it affects Russia negatively e. . bad landscape, too much to rule over, cannot handle to control such a large area. Ruling Russia back then was difficult even with the Trans-Siberian Railway, sure it provided a way to cross the 5000 miles from west to east but it still caused neglect to places like Vladivostok and Irkutsk because they arent at all near the capitals such as Moscow and St Petersburg. How did the people of Russia effect the Tsar and what did they do to respond to the ays of the tsar: The people of Russia were so constricted because of Tsarism it caused many problems, one of the catalysts to the problems was that it was a criminal offence to go against the Tsar or Tsarism, therefore if anyone decided they wanted to reform the tsarism system they had to go through the Tsar themselves and of course if it goes against their wishes theyll say no and arrest the person responsible. There has been Reforming Tsars which improved transport, improved efficiency of the army, re-built cities so they could change Russia for the better, but ventually it was all done for nothing because whenever an heir gained the throne from a reformed Tsar they always went back to the strict ways. This did effect the nation greatly but not as much until the last Tsar ever: Nicholas II, he was meant to carry on the rulings his tatner made to help build Russia into a stronger nation e. g. mproving standard of living, education, employment etc. but he decided to go back to the old socialist ways that caused poverty, distrust of the nation and weakening the barrier between a fair command and compete domination of the people of Russia. People didnt Just stand around been ruled or told off by the tsars, there have been a few moments where theyVe risen up, worked together to eradicate the current Tsar leader or went underground to discuss what differences they could make on their own without the permission of the Tsar. For example since free speech was a common myth in the reigns of Tsar, various people most likely in political activist groups decided to go to extremism. They thought the only way they could get their word out or make a change is through threats or by force, for example in 1881 Tsar Alexander II was blown up by a bomb thrown from the Peoples Will hich were a terrorist group, they went this far because they didnt want to be plagued by the Tsar or Tsarism anymore. However other people of the nation went down low and created societies or non-activist groups which wouldnt allow the Tsars to see how theyre changing Russia in a non-obvious fashion, but eventually after they started to plan a revolution the Tsar caught on and decided to infiltrate them with their own secret police known as the Okhrama. They were issued to perform raids, arrests, imprisonments and infiltrations to stop the secret societies so the Tsar could carry on running the government. The only thing that was good that the Tsar provided to the people was an Orthodox Church in every city (ST. Petersburg Moscow), the people encouraged this because the church was a part of Russian culture and because it didnt rely on any foreign influence or governmental body. Of course the Church supported the tsarist system throughout the centurys right up to the 19th century where it became well opposed to political/governmental change which caused it to so low in growth, unlike the industrial part of Russia. Consider the fact the only 0. 5% of Russia is the Tsar and their advisors, 12% is military and the last 3. 9% is the public, the public consist of merchants, factory workers and owners, land owners and mainly peasants. This causes issues because of course the Tsar allow the chance that people can buy/own/sell land, but it comes with a price, considering most workers soon save up to buy a farm land but then it comes with a mortgage thus causing them to be in debt and nearly as poor as the peasants. This effected the economy massively because by these statistics 80% of the population were peasants, and they knew peasants were illiterate and have a lack of skills, this portion of the opulation was the catalyst to everything the people did in response to what the Tsar did to Russia. This made the Tsar lower the ranks of the army so they could be filled with conscription (the forcing of large numbers of peasants to Join the armed services), these were often called the Dark Masses. The problems caused by botn Tsarism and the People ot Russia : The issues that were caused by the Tsar effect Russia more frequently and at a higher scale after Alexander the seconds reign, this is because he was the first reforming Tsar for a while and what he did was for the better interest of the nation not himself; People tarted noticing his reforms in 1861 when he emancipated the Serfs, he restored Russias governing structure after the loss in the Crimean war and he set up a network of elected councils in the rural areas which were called Zemstvos, even though it seemed with these elected bodies that anyone could vote, that wasnt the case because of strict voting regulations only the land owners not the peasants could take part in the voting. Alexander II has obviously made a difference to his nation because of this evidence, but it still did solve the problem that there might be a hance that the next Tsar could ignore his reformative ways and create discipline, poverty and all the other problems again like other Tsars before him. He also feared that since hes doing all of this, hes not committing to his Tsar duties, so near the end of his reign he goes back to the old ways which doesnt affect much but leads to his assassination in 188111880. His successor Alexander Ill caused all sorts of problems, problems so bad that everyone in the nation felt oppressed during his whole reign, after he was replaced by Nicholas II things got even worse because he didnt like the eforming that alexander II did, so he carried on the repressive policies of his predecessor, which made Alexander the seconds reformation worth nothing, this of course angered the intelligent, richer and educated class of Russia known as the intelligentsia. The army of Russia was weakened by Nicholas II because he decided to lower ranks in the military so that even peasants could Join, this made becoming a high ranking officer easier therefore more of a chance to affect the tsarism system that Nicholas II has moulded. This weakened the force or strength of the military reatly, so much that the people created their own group called the Militia which basically had their own form of Justice against criminals. If the military was going downhill so was the Tsar because Just about 50% of their expenditure was funding the army which was only able to produce a million and nalt me, which does sound powerful but most of which were peasants and land owners. People of Russia had less specific reasons of why the army, or their nation is so bad, they thought that the Tsar civil service was corrupt and the evidence to show it was that its the nation hose tried and tried again to reform itself but always goes back and corrupts itself again. Many citizens accused the Tsar of sucking the blood of the people which refers to the fact that they control them, they corrupt them and they use them. Overall many people of Russia either appreciated the reformation to be on par with other nations or hating the reformation, the people which wanted the reformation were known as the Westerners because they wanted Russia to adopt aspects of European nations so they wont live in horrendous conditions e. g. destroyed towns/ cities because of wars. Or have economic problems e. g. iving in poverty. The people who wanted Russia to stay the same were known as Slavophiles they wanted to preserve the best aspects of Russia, yes solve the problems but not via adopting features of other European nations. Conclusion: The system of Tsarism is the system the Tsar family ran to rule the nation of Russia, this involved only them having command and if any governmental bodies have any ideas to change/improve Russia they could only advise it as only the Tsars had control. The geography of Russia effects its government greatly because it made them seem stronger when actually the tsar couldnt possibly control the whole of Russia, also because of the vast landscape they couldnt industrialise as fast as other nations could therefore putting them at a disadvantage as a nation. The people of Russia lived in poverty because of the strict rulings of the tsar, that the tsar couldnt control all of them, they were in debt if they paid for land, even if theyre factory workers everyone couldnt possibly benefit the whole nation. Because of the constant change of reforming tsars to cruel tsars the people of Russia didnt know what to do and what they can do, which lead to assassinations, societies being created and being invaded by military or police.

Does Nursing Need Theory?

Does Nursing Need Theory? =Do nurses need theory? A question that can be considered on many different levels. If one considers the evolution of nursing over time, one can observe that the nurse of antiquity was arguably as dependent on the prevalent theories of the day as the current nurse. Theory determines practice and theory justifies practice (Einstein paraphrased in Kuhse Singer 2001). The nurse who changed the blood letting bowls of antiquity was as dependent upon the theories of imbalances in the humors for her practice as were the nurses in the wards of Ignaz Semmelweis (Semmelweis IP. 1861) who may well have found the idiosyncratic insistence on hand washing to remove the presence of the unseen agents of infection completely bizarre until the evidence base of reduction in puerperal infection could be clearly established. In this latter comment we can find one of the major dilemmas facing the nursing theorists of today. The plethora of nursing theories have been subsumed into a goal (albeit defined by the theorists themselves) of finding a unified nursing theory. One that will define the human condition and also medical science’s response to the management of the various conditions of pathophysiology that can befall it. The stumbling block of many theories is the difficulty in establishing a credible evidence base to support it. (Brechin A et al. 2000). To revisit the Einstein quotation cited earlier, one can have a theory that may determine practice, but it is only with the demonstration of an evidence base that the theory can actually be used to justify practice. One of the luminaries of nursing theory and practice was Martha Rogers, the late Dean of Nursing at New York University. To illustrate the point, Rogers published many nursing theories in her working life. Some (the Unitary theory) have gained a degree of general acceptance others have faded in the mists of time. It was her stated goal to define a unified theory of nursing. (Meleis, A 1997). The Rogerian approach appeared to have little room for establishment of evidence bases and we would suggest that this approach is essentially flawed. (Halpern S D 2005). To consider an extrapolation into other scientific disciplines by way of analogy, we note that it has not been possible to define a unified theory of biological science. Biology is essentially a study of life in general. It does not seek to be a theory of life. Although theories may be postulated in the explanations of the various phenomenon encountered in the field, such as natural selection or the function of the genome, these are used to test the various hypotheses underpinning practical observations, laboratory work and in some cases, mathematical models. There is no all-encompassing biological theory. At a more fundamental level we can observe that biology is based on chemistry which, in turn, is ultimately based on principles of physics. Again we can observe that there is no unified theory encompassing the entire field. (after Green J et al. 1998). This analogy is applicable to nursing theory if one considers the huge range of skills and requirements needed by the modern profes sional nurse. The spectrum of tasks required and expected of the nurse in a variety of situations is legion. To be effective the nurse must understand the human condition from the viewpoint of the pathophysiology, the psychology, the human dynamic and socio-economic elements of the patient’s presentation and disease trajectory. (Yura H et al. 1998). Much of our understanding of these elements is encapsulated into various concepts or theories which are perhaps best regarded as dynamic and fluid or in a process of evolution. (Wadensten et al. 2003). A practical consideration would suggest that the nurse is responsible for giving medication, undertaking procedures of medical intervention as well as caring for the general physical well-being of the patient, they record various parameters of their patient’s progress. They can be the patient’s advocate in terms of their dealings with other healthcare professionals, organisations or even commercial concerns. (Hogston, R et al. 2002). In order to carry out these ( and many other) functions efficiently. The nurse needs to be competent in a huge number of areas with skills in interpersonal relationships, organisational, technical and clerical areas. It follows that these skills are derived from a large number of disparate areas such as anatomy, physiology, therapeutics, psychology, management theory, bookkeeping and tabulation. (Mason T et al. 2003) The point being made here is that, in the light of these comments, it seems inappropriate to consider that there should be, in Rogerian terms, a unified theory of nursing (Rogers, M E 1970). The overall goal would undoubtedly be that the professional nurse should seek to improve the overall well-being of their patients. This target is the accumulative result of any number of different and disparate processes and skills form many differing academic and human disciplines. We would suggest that it is not amenable to the reductionist philosophy of Rogers. Despite the notable article by Christensen (P et al. 1994) which criticises authors who have applied such strategies to both extrapolate from and to expand implications of Rogerian theory, reductionist strategies are not totally inappropriate. In a further scientific analogy, we can point to a classic case of reductionism which contributed greatly to our understanding of the natural world. When Newton made his mathematical models linking orbiting planets, projectiles and falling apples, he produced one of the most dramatically valid reductions in scientific literature. Reductionism per se. is not an inappropriate process. Herein lies a frequently perpetuated fallacy that permeates the field of literature on nursing theory. The term â€Å"Reductionâ€Å", in a nursing context, can have two distinct connotations. It can be observed that some nursing theorists apply the term to the tendency of some healthcare professionals to visualise and regard the patient as a number, a set of symptoms or a demonstration of a particular element of pathophysiology rather than as an individual in their own specific socio-economic, cultural and psychological setting. (Alcock P, 2003). Although this is a completely appropriate and specific use of the term, it is distinctly different from the implications of â€Å"Reductionism† in the scientific and analytical sense. Some nursing theorists (viz. Christensen) use the term in a derogatory or disparaging form that does not appreciate or even acknowledge the positive aspects of the technique. (Hott, J R et al. 1999). We would suggest that such confusion in the terminology has led to some nursing theory being discredited. If we expand this theme by staying with Rogerian theory as an illustration of the point, we can suggest that in the broader context of medicine generally, scientific reduction has enabled progress in medical science by allowing the accurate identification of causal agents of disease and thereby allowing the development of appropriate strategies to combat and eliminate them. Nursing theorists should embrace this aspect of the concept of reductionism while combating any suggestion of a reduction of the status of the patient from that of an autonomous human being (Mill JS 1982). To consider the situation as Christensen does and to decry the use of reductionism and to treat events as essentially causal, does no favours for the analytical process that is central to any theoretical process. It effectively takes nursing theory out of the realms of science which, almost by definition, considers processes as cause and effect. (Polit, D F et al. 1997). Even if we consider processes that are essentially acausal such as the spontaneous degradation of atomic nuclei, one can point to the fact that these processes are still quite capable of being considered reliable processes because they can be detected, demonstrated, quantifiable, repeatable and amenable to statistical analysis. If we contrast this to the nursing theorists in general, and perhaps Rogers in particular, we can show that their writing and reasoning is largely devoid of causal argument and subsequent reasoning. (Barnum, B J. S. 1998). The reasons for this are clearly a matter of speculation. The less charitable analyst might be tempted to conclude that some of the theories propounded do not meet common sense standards. Few of the theories meet the criteria that would satisfy a reputable evidence base as they appear to avoid rigorous testing. To take a specific example, the theory of therapeutic touch is certainly complete enough to permit a degree of submission to testing. Much of the literature cited by Rogers is however, very subjective, done by unblinded clinicians and very speculative. Some is purely in the form of no more than reported anecdotes (Rosa, L et al. 1998). This trend has done little to increase the confidence of the analytically minded investigator in the usefulness and relevance of nursing theory. To a casual observer, who considered only these elements of nursing theory, it might appear that the theorists had allowed themselves to become detached from the scientific rigour of logical deduction or experimental validation and thereby effectively deprived the field of any degree of precision of predictive possibility (which any useful theory should have). To support this view, one can cite Rogers herself (cited in Meleis 1997). Reality does not exist but appears to exist as expressed by human beings. In this respect, we can put forward a coherent argument that nursing does not need theory. Having presented this argument, we can also examine the opposing view put forward by Prof Margaret Rosenthal (Rosenthal 2000) in her thought provoking book â€Å"Changing Practice in Health and Social Careâ€Å". The book itself is primarily about accountability in healthcare, but in its discussion it considers the relevance of the nursing theorists in general. The author puts forward the view that the public have experienced a decline in the trust and standards of the healthcare professionals. She cites the media as being one of the major contributors to this erosion, rather than the actual reality of the situation and suggests that the way forward is to submit all types of clinical practice to the scrutiny of its evidence base. She suggests rejecting practices that do not have a secure evidence base in favour of those that do so that â€Å"at every level so that the public in general and the patients in particular, are able to feel confident in every therapeutic manoeuvre that t hey are offeredâ€Å". (quote from McNicol M et al 1993 Pg 219). As an overview the author suggests that all dealings, whether they are practical or theoretical, should have â€Å"accountability as their watchword†. In some respects, this is a simple conceptual extension of the comments advanced by Florence Nightingale a century and a half earlier, that the ultimate objective of working in a healthcare environment as a healthcare professional is to provide the best form of support, treatment and care for the patient. (Nightingale F 1859). We would both concur and expand the sentiments expressed by adding that this may be best achieved by considering that the best form of treatment is the one that has the strongest evidence base for its use. Having made these comments, it is appropriate to consider the more positive aspects of nursing theory. If we accept Wadenstein’s view (Wadenstein B et al. 2003) that it is an important purpose of theories to challenge practice, create new approaches to practice and remodel the structures of rules and principles, then we could usefully progress this argument by considering some of those theories which help to explain patient behaviour and thereby modify the nursing approach. The basic nursing process is traditionally based on assessment, planning, implementation and evaluation. The particular theories that we shall consider here, together with the models that they support, all basically follow the same pattern, but each analyses the patient situation from a different aspect or in different terms. (Fawcett J 2005) The Roper Logan Tierney model (Roper, Logan and Tierney 2000) is primarily concerned with the activities of daily living. It requires identification of the problems and then dealing with them on a problem solving basis. This type of model has been extensively reported, evaluated and is one of the most generally accepted models of the nursing process. (Holland K et al. 2003). This type of approach is very useful for problems which are mainly or primarily based on a physical or disability orientated disease process. Its major shortcomings revolve around the fact that it is not very useful in describing strategies that cope with patient responses that are overtly manipulative or psychological in nature. The theories that underpin this model have largely withstood the test of time and clinical practice and have accumulated a large evidence base in the literature. (Holland K et al. 2003). For patients who fall into the category of manipulation or functional symptomatology as a result of an adaptation process for coping with their illness the Roy adaptation model (Roy 1991) is useful in describing the abilities of a patient to adapt (or maladapt) to the evolving pattern of their illness. This model allows for changing perceptions and adaptation mechanisms on the part of the patient and can be used to explain the various behaviour patterns exhibited by various patients as their disease trajectory unfolds. It allows for the major patterns of illness adaptation but has the major shortcoming that it does not allow for the behaviour patterns that are consistent with denial of the underlying diagnosis. The patient who has a diagnosis of terminal cancer but copes with a total refusal to accept it and continues as if all is well, is not described in this particular approach. The model dismisses this as a degree of cognitive distortion rather than a coping mechanism. It can be seen as possibly choosing to ignore the reality of the situation and changing the theory to make it more coherent. It would categorise the patient as not adapting to the situation by choosing to ignore it. (Steiger, N. J. et al. 1995) This particular situation is better dealt with by the application of the theories associated with the Johnson Behavioural System ( in Wilkerson et al 1996). This model can be considered useful in describing the situation of denial considered above but it too has shortcomings insofar as most experienced clinicians would note that a patient in denial of a terminal illness almost always is forced into acceptance by the progressive nature of the illness itself. (Johnson, D. E. 1990) The majority therefore have to accept their terminal status as they are overtaken by progressive physical manifestations of the disease process and other symptoms. This element of the argument is presented as showing that the basis of some nursing theories is valid and useful but also even the most accepted theories have their shortcomings and limitations. (Tomey A M, Alligood M R 2005). To paraphrase the comment of Wadensten (et al 2003), one can observe that the nursing models and theories all have their place, but one has to add the caveat that there is not one satisfactory theory or model which can account for all aspects of care and all eventualities. The thrust of this essay is directed at the preposition that some nursing theories are indeed useful and some are not. Even a brief consideration of the literature on the subject will reveal a plethora of opinions. (Powers, B. A 1995). It is vital to consider each theory or model in isolation and make a critical judgement relating to its ability to inform the nurse and to predict practice for the overall benefit of the patient. Those, such as the ones discussed in the early part of this essay, which rely heavily on intuition and anecdote and also have a marked lack of independent validation, are clearly less likely to be of value to the practical nurse and, in the worst analysis, in the opinion of Prof. Rosenthal, may contribute to the reduction of public confidence in the healthcare professions in general terms. By contrast, the more accepted, reproducible and statistically valid theories which have predictive value and are amenable to independent validation are much more likely to be considered of value to the profession in general terms. In direct consideration of the title of this essay â€Å"Does nursing need theory?† the considered answer must be a qualified â€Å"Yes† but within the limitations that we have outlined here. References Alcock P, 2003  Social policy in Britain,  Macmillan 2003. Barnum, Barbara J. S. 1998 Nursing Theory: Analysis, Application, Evaluation. 5th ed.  Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams Wilkins, 1998 .; 2 : 217-21. Brechin A. Brown, H and Eby, M (2000)  Critical Practice in Health and Social Care  Open University, Milton Keynes. 2000 Christensen, P., R. Sowell and S.H. Gueldner. 1994.  Nursing in Space: Theoretical Foundations and Potential Practice Applications within Rogerian Science. Visions: The Journal of Rogerian Nursing Science 2. 1994   Fawcett J 2005  Contemporary Nursing Knowledge: Analysis and Evaluation of Nursing Models and Theories, 2nd Edition  Boston: Davis Co 2005 ISBN: 0-8036-1194-3 Green J, Britten N. 1998  Qualitative research and evidence based medicine.  BMJ 1998; 316: 1230-1233 Halpern S D 2005 Towards evidence based bioethics BMJ, Oct 2005 ; 331 : 901 903 ; Hogston, R. Simpson, P. M. 2002  Foundations in nursing practice 2nd Edition,  London : Palgrave Macmillian. 2002 Holland K, Jenkins, J Solomon J, Whittam S 2003  Applying the Roper-Logan-Tierney Model in Practice Churchill Livingstone 2003 ISBN 0443071578 Hott, Jacqueline R., and Budin, Wendy C.1999 Notters Essentials of Nursing Research. 6th ed.  New York: Springer Pub. Co., 1999.   Johnson, D. E. 1999.  The behavioral system model for nursing. In M. E. Parker (Ed.), Nursing theories in practice (pp. 23-32).  New York: National League for Nursing. Kuhse Singer 2001  A companion to bioethics  ISBN: 063123019X Pub Date 05 July 2001   Mason T and Whitehead E 2003  Thinking Nursing.  Open University. Maidenhead. 2003 McNicol M, Layton A, Morgan G. 1993  Team working: the key to implementing guidelines.  Quality in Health Care 1993 Meleis, Afaf. 1997.  Theoretical Nursing: Development and Progress, 3rd ed.  Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams Wilkins Mill JS 1982  On Liberty, 1982,  Harmondsworth: Penguin, p 68. Nightingale F 1859  Notes on Nursing: What is it and what it is not  London : Harrison 1859 Polit, Densie F., and Hungler, Bernadette P. 1997 Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams Wilkins, 1997 Powers, B. A. Knapp, T. R. (1995).  A dictionary of nursing theory and research (2nd Ed.) Thousand Oaks,  CA : Sage Publications. 1995 Rogers, Martha E., 1970  An introduction to the theoretical basis of nursing.  Philadelphia, 1970. F.A. Davis Company Roper, Logan and Tierneys (2000)  Ã¢â‚¬ËœActivities of Living model London : Churchill Livingstone 1983 ISBN 0443063737 Rosa, L., E. Rosa, L. Sarner and S. Barrett. 1998.  A Close Look at Therapeutic Touch.  JAMA 1 April : 1005-1010. Rosenthal MA 2000 Book: Changing Practice in Health and Social Care BMJ, Nov 2000 ; 321 : 1355 ; Roy C 1991  An Adaption model (Notes on the Nursing theories Vol 3)  OUP: London 1991 Semmelweis IP. 1861  Die aetiologie, der begriff und die prophylaxis des kindbettfiebers. Pest, Wien und Leipzig:  CA Hartlebens Verlags-Expedition 1861. Steiger, N. J. Lipson, J.G. (1995).  Self-care nursing: Theory and practice.  Bowie: Md. 1997 Tomey A M, Alligood M R 2005  Nursing Theorists and Their Work, 6th edition Mosby ISBN 0323030106 Published November 2005 Wadenstein B Carlsson M 2003  Nursing theory views on how to support the process of ageing. J Adv Nurs. 2003 Apr ; 42 (2) : 118-24. Yura H, Walsh M. 1998  The nursing process. Assessing, planning, implementing, evaluating. 5th edition. Norwalk, CT: Appleton Lange, 1998. ################################################################ 16.6.06 PDG Word count 3,272

Irish Literature And Rebellion Essay -- essays research papers

Irish Literature and Rebellion   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the heart of every Irishman hides a poet, burning with nationalistic passion for his beloved Emerald Isle. It is this same passion, which for centuries, Great Britain has attempted to snuff out of the Catholics of Ireland with tyrannical policies and the hegemony of the Protestant religion. Catholics were treated like second-class citizens in their native home. Centuries of oppression churned in the hearts of the Irish and came to a boil in the writings and literature of the sons and daughters of Ireland. The Literary Renaissance of Ireland produced some of the greatest writers the world has seen. John O’Leary said it best, â€Å"literature must be national and nationalism must be literary† (Harmon, 65). Although there is an endless stream of profound poets and playwrights; John Synge, Lady Gregory, Oscar Wilde, etc., this paper’s primary focus is on William Butler Yeats and James Joyce, and their contributions during the Irish Literary Ren aissance and their perspectives on the â€Å"Irish Question.† They preserved the names of the heroes of the past and celebrated the Irish spirit through their writings so that the sacrifice of many would not be in vain.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  William Butler Yeats was born in the Dublin suburb of Sandymont on June 13, 1865. Interestingly enough, his family was of the Protestant faith. He wasn’t much of an activist at first and didn’t really care all that much for schooling either, â€Å"because I found it difficult to attend to anything less interesting than my thoughts, I was difficult to teach† (DLB 19, 403). However, in 1886 he met John O’Leary, an old Fenian leader. O’Leary had been a Young Irelander and fought in the insurrection of 1849. He took Yeats under his wing and introduced him to the world of fenians and fenianism. His influence on Yeats’ writing is undeniable. Yeats began to write â€Å"in the way of [Sir Samuel] Ferguson and [James Clarence] Mangan† and evolve his nationalism and anti-English sentiment (O’Connor, 165). Yeats, like Ferguson, saw â€Å"literature in Irish was an essential part of the education of any Irishman and tri ed to make it so† (O’Connor, 150). He toured Ireland and established the National Literary Society. His greatest ambition was to unite Catholic Ireland and Protestant Ireland through national literature. He loved Ireland and the Irish... ...rs this to be â€Å"the real voice of the Irish middle class† (O’Connor, 161). Throughout â€Å"Ivy Day in the Committee Room,† we are introduced to a cast of characters who have been out shaking hands and kissing babies. They sit around and slowly warm themselves back to life by the small fire and sipping on stout. The discuss politics and life, each other, and the anniversary of the tragic loss Charles Stewart Parnell. The story ends with the reading of a poem written in memory of Parnell, which declares him the â€Å"Uncrowned King,† and concludes â€Å"The day that brings us Freedom’s reign. / And on that day may Erin well / Pledge in the cup she lifts to Joy / One grief – the memory of Parnell† (Joyce, 116). Through the words and verses of Yeats and Joyce and all the writers of the Irish Literary Renaissance, the memories of the brave have survived. The purpose of the their writing was to kindle the patriotic flame of the Irish and work towards a united Ireland. In the troubles of today, the memory of the sacrifices of yesterday are still strong within the culture and traditions of the Irish. Someday, their dream and the dream of so many who have gone before them will be recognized and achieved.

Good vs. Evil †Lord of the Flies Essay

Star Wars, Superman, James Bond—all of these are stories which chronicle the ever-present warfare between good and evil. What exactly is good? How does one describe evil? The answers to these questions are highly subjective, and could be debated for years on end without ever reaching a final conclusion. However, it is widely agreed that each person is inherently born with two sides; one of which is good, the other evil. It is this sense of inherent good and evil in all of us that William Golding tried to warn and protect society against in his classic, The Lord of the Flies. It is clear to anyone who reads this book that Golding is trying to exaggerate the inherent good and evil in the boys on the island. The boys are all well-raised, British prep school boys. They have grown up in a dignified and sophisticated society, and are by no means savage before they crash on the island. However, in a very short period of time, the boys lose the intelligence and sophistication they had been raised with, and become wild and crazy and almost completely devoid of any signs of civilization. The boys come to the island controlled by their inherent good, but the longer they stay, the more the inherent evil begins to take over. Inherent good and evil are also represented in the book through different characters. For example, Simon seems to be the most sensitive and civilized boy on the island. He is also the only one who recognizes that the true beast on the island is inside the boys themselves. Simon represents the inherent good in human beings. However, Roger is clearly bloodthirsty with little or no concern for those he hurts when while he is trying to accomplish a task. In fact, Roger enjoys deliberately hurting other boys on the island. Roger is representative of the inherent evil in man-kind. Through these examples and many more, Golding clearly warns us against the good and evil inside all of us. One may wonder, however, what society can do in order to help prevent catastrophe. After all, if good and evil are truly inherent—what can be done to fix the problem? Golding shows us the answer to this problem through certain events in his book. One of the most obvious examples of this is in the chapter â€Å"Huts on the Beach. † This chapter describes the process which the boys go through to build their shelters on the beach. When they begin the first hut, all of the boys are working together. The final result it strong and of high quality. However, as work continues on the second and third huts, the boys begin to leave for an assortment of reasons—and discontinue their work on the huts. The second hut, with only a few boys working on it, does not end up as strong as the first one. Predictably, the third hut, with even less boys working on it, is of the worst quality out of the three huts. The building of the huts shows that when the boys work together, the end product is much higher quality than when only a few boys are working to create the shelter. Symbolically, Golding is trying to tell society that if we work together, we can ultimately saves society from ourselves, and the inherent evil in all of us. Another example of this message is in an example of what will happen if society instead, continues on the path it is currently on, and people continue to right against each other rather than working together. Toward the end of the story, Jack creates his own group on the island. This divides the island in two—Jacks’ group on Castle rock, and Ralph’s group which remains on the beach. At the time of this separation, the already lacking democracy on the island weakens drastically, and everything falls apart. Simon is killed, Piggy’s glasses are stolen, SamnEric are tortured and manipulated, Piggy is murdered, and Ralph’s life almost comes to a dramatic end. These events represent the obvious truth that when the people fight against each other, the result is extremely counter-productive, and will eventually corrupt society. Inherent good and evil, and the qualification of each, is a topic that has been debated for centuries, and is sure to be debated in the future. We may never all agree on one true definition for good and evil. We may never even agree on whether good and evil both truly exist. However, the important thing is to realize that what Golding was trying to warn us against is a real problem. Society is heading in a negative direction, and if we don’t do something soon, it may be too late to turn back.

PERFECT ESSAYS

PERFECT ESSAYS Every essay or another college or university writing assignment starts with basic choice of a writing topic. If you are being give a specific topic then you have to prepare all the necessary materials and present them in your written assignment. If you are in a position where you have to choose the topic personally for your perfect essays, then you should spend some time and do some research in order to choose the best topic to describe in your essay. So, in case the topic has not been assigned to your assignment, you face unlimited number of topic choices. How would you make a selection? What topic is mostly beneficial to write about? As you brain thinks over a variety of topic, you will find yourself going around a huge number of ideas that will all look attractive to you. Yet, you have to calm your mind and to use unprecedented logic. If you are still stuck in the topic choice, you can determine or see what is the main purpose or goal of your writing assignment. That will help you to form a list of related topics. Shortlist them going down to 3 major topics interesting for yourself. And start the writing process.