text stringlengths 59 1.12k |
|---|
most of its money on buying food to stop people from going hungry or dying from malnutrition. Howard said a No. 1 product needed in this fight against hunger was a "sachet of Plumpy'sup." It costs about 30 cents for |
a day's ration. She said that two months of treatment could transform the life of a malnurished child. WFP also has started to provide more cash or vouchers so that people can have flexibility when buying their own food. You |
can also text AID to 27722 to donate $10. Charges will appear on your wireless bill or be deducted from your prepaid balance. All purchases must be authorized by account holder. Must be 18 years of age or have parental |
Flashing space station with beams of light as it passes overhead had never been successfully done—until yesterday. It sounds deceptively easy. In an earlier post I wrote about the technical |
requirements. But like so many other tasks, it becomes much more involved in the execution than in the planning. Early Sunday morning, at 01:27 our time, the San Antonio Astronomical |
Association, an amateur astronomy group, succeeded in flashing the space station with a one-watt blue laser and a white spotlight as we passed overhead. This took a number of engineering |
calculations. Projected beam diameters (assuming the propagation of a Gaussian wave for the laser) and intensity at the target had to be calculated. Tracking space station’s path as it streaked |
across the sky was another challenge. I used email to communicate with Robert Reeves, one of the association’s members. Considering that it takes a day, maybe more, for a simple |
exchange of messages (on space station we receive email drops two to three times a day), the whole event took weeks to plan. I was ready with cameras for the |
early morning San Antonio pass and can report that it was a flashing success. Here’s one of the pictures to prove it: Light (top center) flashed from the Lozano Observatory, |
about 40 miles north of San Antonio, was easily visible from orbit. Click on the image to see it full-sized. Subscribe via Email May 17th, 2013 As the only metal |
that is liquid at room temperature, mercury is freaky even under normal conditio[...] May 16th, 2013 Operation UFO: Neuschwabenland - Nazi Base In Antarctica explores the historical mysteries and r[...] |
May 15th, 2013 In a Guatemalan village, residents spotted strange bright lights hovering in the sky. That[...] - Advertise on Alien UFO Sightings - Contact me via Email - COOL |
the audience at the Academy of Music. But he left before the final scene in which the governor of Colonial Boston is assassinated by conspirators. That might have been because of fatigue, Mr. Holzer suggests, but The New-York Herald reported that the police had received notice of a plot to kill Lincoln at the same moment as the onstage murder. These fragments of history |
are powerful not just because of their ominous foreshadowing of the conspiracies and hatreds that Lincoln would later inspire, but also because they shock our contemporary complacency about how we make sense of our city and its past. We New Yorkers tend to be almost provincial in our pride, as if we could prove that the city had always been on the right side |
of history, or at least at its very center. But look more closely, as the Historical Society has been doing under the presidency of Louise Mirrer, and matters become more complicated. Richard Rabinowitz, a historian and the president of the American History Workshop, a Brooklyn company that designs museum exhibitions, was the curator of two major shows in recent years that focused on New |
however beloved Lincoln became, it was not until after his assassination, when 150,000 mourners stretched almost a mile up Broadway to see him lie in state at City Hall, that there was anything resembling a hallowed consensus in New York. Lincoln lost presidential elections in the city by substantial margins in 1860 and 1864; the 1862 midterm state elections also served as a rebuke, |
lies the fracas. In political cartoons, early photographs, handwritten documents, touch-screen displays and artifacts, we see New York’s version of the Civil War being fought using words, ideas, images and, at least during the 1863 Draft Riots, a fair amount of blood, with Lincoln as the battles’ nexus. Lincoln’s distinguished Cooper Union speech, for example, in which he suggested that disapproval of slavery was |
inscribed in the Constitution and that the practice should be strictly contained, was hailed by Horace Greeley, the editor in chief of The New-York Tribune, which also distributed copies of the speech: “No man ever before made such an impression on his first appeal to a New-York audience.” But the Democratically aligned New-York Herald described it as “unmitigated trash, interlarded with coarse and clumsy |
jokes.” This was the kind of polarized opinion that characterized New York as a news media center, with its 174 daily and weekly publications wielding substantial influence: The Herald had a circulation of 100,000, The New-York Times 75,000 and Harper’s Weekly 120,000. Most publications had highly partisan allegiances; a display here charts their temperaments. The Leader, The Express and The Daily News shared Democratic |
opposition to Lincoln, but he found support from Greeley’s Tribune, along with The Times and its founder, Henry Raymond, who was chairman of the Republican National Committee . This tumult, though, might have aided Lincoln’s national standing. The exhibition argues that his success as a candidate could not have been achieved without the influence of New York and its news media, which even, perhaps, |
helped him carry New York State with its prized 35 electoral votes. Moreover, Lincoln, in a savvy move during his 1860 visit, sat for a photographic portrait at Mathew Brady’s studio. Brady knew precisely how to frame Lincoln, the supposedly rural rail splitter, posing him with his hand resting on two well-read tomes atop a classical pillar. That photograph, the show points out, was |
copied and spread, reshaping Lincoln’s popular image as a “dignified public figure.” But if that portrait was triumphant, everything else was contested. Lincoln’s supporters formed an organization, the Wide Awakes, with its own paramilitary uniforms and songs. In 1860 30,000 Wide Awakes marched in a five-hour torchlight parade through New York City streets; one of their torches, amazingly, is on display here. But the |
same number of marchers gathered in 1863 for a demonstration against Lincoln and his policies. This exhibition steers deftly in these churning waters, pointing out that even allies had differing shades of opinion. Lincoln’s advocates became known as the Loyalists and are portrayed in an image as if seated at an upper-crust dining room table, paying homage to a strong central Union. They included |
George Templeton Strong and Frederick Law Olmsted (who opposed slavery and lobbied for a federal military draft). But Loyalists did not necessarily affirm Lincoln’s views; some based their advocacy of the Union not on ideals of democratic liberty, but on claims of divine legitimacy. The Loyalists also seem a bit more inclusive here than they might have been; even Frederick Douglass is seated at |
their table. But their influence should not be underestimated. They gave birth to the Union League Club in New York, which haltingly advanced black interests in the Union cause, recruiting and financing a black militia in November 1863. (A painting here commemorates the Union Square send-off of the Colored Regiment.) There is less complexity here in the portrait of the Democratic Copperheads, who are |
shown at a tavern, perhaps because one of their leaders, Fernando Wood, was a bar owner before he became mayor of New York. But the Copperheads also included wealthy merchants who saw their fortunes threatened by the end of trade with the South, as well as ardent defenders of slavery, like Samuel F. B. Morse. One of the most fascinating artifacts here is a |
book Lincoln owned of satirical limericks attacking these opponents. (“There once was a Copperhead vile…”) A touch screen allows you to read every page. By 1863, the exhibition shows, there was a full-fledged propaganda war, as opposing organizations published pamphlets and staged demonstrations, disputing the prosecution of the war, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and the growing powers of the federal government. Morse declared |
for the Copperheads, “It may be necessary to destroy the Administration in order to preserve the Government.” Henry Bellows for the Loyalists called support of Lincoln “the first and most sacred duty of loyal citizens.” But in July 1863, that war of words turned bloody. A telegram from the Republican financier John Jay to Lincoln announced, “Our City is at the mercy of a |
mob.” In four days of riots, partly inspired by opposition to military conscription and its exemptions for the wealthy, looting and destruction were aimed not only at Republicans like Greeley but also at black New Yorkers. The Colored Orphan Asylum was pillaged and burned, and the Colored Sailors’ Home was attacked. An order from Lincoln (displayed here), following close on the heels of the |
battle at Gettysburg, declared martial law. Calm was restored, but with 120 dead and 2,000 injured, the exhibition notes, it was “the worst civil disorder in the nation’s history — except for the Civil War itself.” Lincoln received only 33 percent of the city’s vote for president in 1864, though he carried New York State. Nothing ended the civil and uncivil battles over his |
reputation like his death. A display here shows the text of sermons in the week that followed. And on the day of his assassination an anonymous diarist filled a remarkable book with drawings of the texts, signs and banners he saw posted in New York’s storefronts, fire stations and homes (a touch screen allows you to leaf through the book): “Such a death saddens |
right side of history, but in being a hothouse of passionately held beliefs and ardently argued convictions. And ultimately, the city’s developing sense of itself as a microcosm of the Union did not arise out of uniformity and agreement, but out of disagreement, difference and, finally, deference. “Lincoln and New York” continues through March 25 at the New-York Historical Society, 170 Central Park West, |
near 77th Street; (212) 873-3400, nyhistory.org. American History Workshop Mobile 588 Seventh Street Brooklyn NY 11215 Peter J. Wosh Director, Archives/Public History Program New York University 53 Washington Square South New York NY 10012 Phone: (212) 998-8601 Fax: (212) 995-4017 |
Discover the cosmos! Each day a different image or photograph of our fascinating universe is featured, along with a brief explanation written by a professional astronomer. 2006 February 7 Explanation: What do you call an outer Solar System object that is larger than Pluto? Nobody is yet sure. The question |
arose recently when 2003 UB313, an object currently twice as far out as Pluto and not in the plane with the rest of the planets, was verified recently to be 30 percent wider than Pluto. UB313's size was measured by a noting its distance from the Sun and how much |
infrared light it emits. Previous size estimates were based only on visible light and greatly affected by how reflective the object is. Whether 2003 UB313 is officially declared a planet will be answered shortly by the International Astronomical Union. In the above picture, a scientific artist has imagined UB313 in |
its distant orbit around the Sun coupled with a hypothetical moon. Authors & editors: NASA Web Site Statements, Warnings, and Disclaimers NASA Official: Jay Norris. Specific rights apply. A service of: EUD at NASA / GSFC & Michigan Tech. U. |
Recognition of health as a fundamental human right brings with it the responsibility of the state to ensure access to health care, including essential drugs. This does not mean that the state should necessarily finance and provide all drugs. A |
share of drug needs - in many countries a very large share - may be met through private financing and supply mechanisms. However, the state has a responsibility to ensure that together the public and private sectors make essential drugs |
accessible to the entire population. The poor bear a larger part of the burden of disease than do the affluent. In order to ensure equitable access to essential drugs for the poor, government will need to subsidize their drug costs. |
Government may also wish to subsidize the costs of essential drugs for high priority groups such as children. For tuberculosis, sexually transmitted and other communicable diseases there are high costs to society if full drug therapies are not geographically and |
financially accessible to all. In order to ensure effective control programmes for these communicable diseases government may need to subsidize their costs. The issue of making drug prices affordable is dealt with in detail in Section 6.3. Geographical accessibility of |
essential drugs may be promoted through the public and/or private sector. Regardless of the strategy or mix of strategies chosen, government should ensure the availability of essential drugs in public health care facilities. Without such drugs the credibility of the |
public sector is damaged, other inputs such as staff time are wasted and inappropriate drug consumption patterns may be encouraged. A variety of mechanisms are available to promote geographical accessibility in the private sector (see Section 6.2). |
knowledge on their health status. In other cases physicians take the initiative for such examinations if they have had certain objective suspicions or doubts about the patient's health and consider that more detailed diagnosis could be helpful. Depending on the nature of the "complaints" or other criteria, some physicians carry |
out medical examinations on a routine basis. the latter procedures also depend on national health practices and the rules governing the patient-physician relationship. In exceptional cases, specific health-related examinations are carried out on a mandatory or on a compulsory basis.127 Health authorities used to state that they needed precise epidemiological |
data on certain prevailing diseases to design accurate and appropriate health intervention policies. There have been cases in which the results of a medical examination have been used as a basis for ostracizing or isolating "contagious" citizens or denying entrance to the country to aliens with specific diseases. The latter |
policy in particular has been applied in cases of epidemic diseases. , such as bubonic plague, typhoid, poliomyelitis, cholera, etc.128 It is obvious that such testing policies jeopardize the right to the protection of private life and a person's physical integrity. In this section we will analyse the circumstances under |
which human rights law justifies the carrying out of compulsory or mandatory medical examinations, and which entities are authorized to do so. With regard to medical examinations, we have first to give a more precise definition of such an examination. Within the framework of this study we understand by a |
medical examination all methods used to obtain information on an individual's physical health status in the broadest sense. Such examinations include health status questionnaires, tests of a predictive nature such as those to measure a person's medical biology or susceptibilities to diseases, and tests to measure a person's consumption pattern, |
such as for alcohol or drugs. Owing to their impact, the definition also includes tests carried out in relation to human procreation and prenatal diagnostics. Following this definition, medical examinations are not always bodily invasive- and thus do not automatically interfere with a person's physical integrity. Testing methods have developed |
in a revolutionary manner in the past decades. This has gone hand in hand with the technological innovations that have radically changed our societies. To an important extent, the development of more sophisticated testing methods has been made possible through better insight into and understanding of the human being's inherited |
substances (see section on "medical genetics"). Since these advanced diagnostic techniques are available, medical examinations are frequently carried out in both medical and non-medical settings. In the latter situation the examination is often prescribed by non-state entities. While for employers medical examinations have become a means of selection, for insurance |
companies they are an instrument to assess their financial risks in accepting an individual. Medical examinations can also be used as legal evidence in civil and criminal proceedings (e.g. to measure the level of alcohol in a person's blood or to identify sexual offenders). Here several human rights questions arise, |
notably those concerning the legitimacy and proportionality of the interference with an individual's privacy as well as with his/her physical integrity. Taking into consideration the risks involved and the possible far-reaching consequences of a particular test result, there are clear requirements concerning the persons authorized to carry out a medical |
examination and the way in which to do so. As a general rule only persons with an acceptable medical background and who are licensed as a "physician" are entitled to do so.129 Their educational background should be a guarantee of their skill in making the most accurate diagnosis of an |
individual case, without exposing the person concerned to unnecessary risks or causing avoidable injuries. At the same time professional codes oblige physicians to exercise the greatest possible care within the physician-patient relationship, particularly with regard to confidentiality and the storage of personal information.130 Some of these provisions are also incorporated |
in legal codes, which give patients a remedy in case they feel that their physician has infringed his/her duties. It is important to note that medical examinations are primarily a means by which medical sciences are used to assist an individual by providing him/her with personal health information, eventually enabling |
him/her to ask for medical intervention or to take appropriate precautionary measures to prevent the outbreak of disease. Since more advanced genetic examination methods have been developed, personal-health-related information can be obtained and used as an aid for procreative decisions or to calculate a person's life expectations. Medical examinations traditionally |
belong within the framework of the physician patient relationship and therefore the rights and duties of both parties fully apply in the examination situation. The results of a medical examination and other information concerning a person's health status can be defined as "privacy-related data" and consequently enjoy the protection of |
the right to privacy (see Introduction). The unauthorized disclosure of health information is considered to be a "breach of confidentiality," and is regarded as an interference with the right to privacy. This may also hold true for passing health-related information to a spouse/partner and relatives.131 In this section we will |
analyse the circumstances under which such interferences with a person's privacy can be justified and what conditions have to be fulfilled. Owing to its sensitive nature, in Western Europe health information may not be processed automatically, "unless domestic law provides appropriate safeguards" 132 The implications for threats to privacy are |
clear. Although the importance of this issue can hardly be overestimated, we have decided not to elaborate on it and to confine ourselves to the legitimacy and legality of mandatory and compulsory medical examinations as such.133 The Principle of "Informed Consent" As a medical examination is a far-reaching intervention in |
an individual's private life and often also his/her physical integrity, the usual procedure requires that the person, or institution, prescribing such an intrusion into a person's privacy obtain the testee's freely given consent to carry out the examination. Within medical settings, as in health legislation and medical ethics, the term |
"informed consent" is commonly used to express the patient's willingness to under-go an examination (or other medical treatment) and thus accept a breach of his/ her privacy and physical integrity.134 It is important to note here that a person can only agree to undergo a medical examination after having acquired |
sufficient knowledge and understanding of all elements and implications of the examination so as to enable him/her to make a carefully considered decision. The person concerned can only give his/her voluntary consent when he/she can exercise free power of choice without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, |
duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion. Moreover, the individual should also have the legal capacity to give consent. If all these conditions have been fulfilled and if the individual gives his/her "informed consent," then we can speak of a voluntary medical examination. Such an examination does |
not constitute an unlawful restriction of a human right, as the individual concerned has voluntarily accepted such an interference with his/her privacy and physical integrity. Freedom of contract is part of one's individual autonomy. An individual is free to give up one or more assured rights or freedoms when this |
is for the best for that individual (e.g. to obtain a diagnosis in order to improve one's health perspectives). The "informed consent" principle, which directly derives from the right to privacy, can only be overruled in exceptional cases. Under human rights law, forced intervention with an individual's privacy is only |
justifiable when the measure is founded on a legal provision, serves a legitimate aim, is proportional, and fulfils a pressing social need.135 It is even argued that a state should approve of such a measure only on the basis that there is no alternative, less intrusive, means available to get |
a comparable result.136 The protection of public health is mentioned in Article 8 ECHR as one of the grounds that can be invoked to restrict the individual's right to privacy. However, this does not automatically justify the restriction. We will further elaborate on this below. It is crucial to know, |
however, that generally a person's "informed consent" is required to carry out a medical examination. In exceptional and narrowly described cases, the "informed consent" rule can be omitted. The "informed consent" principle is not only the leading principle for carrying out a medical examination: it is also a necessary condition |
for confronting him/her (or third parties) with the test results. One should realize that the "informed consent" principle in the case of a medical examination is many-sided. First of all, the testee should agree to be treated by a particular health-care provider (freedom of contract). Secondly, the testee should consent |
to all the medical treatments he/she will be subjected to and indicate what the health-care provider is allowed to do with the test results (the follow-up stage). Both parties to the contract should have a clear and similar understanding of the contents of the freely reached agreement.137 With regard to |
the disclosure of the results of a medical examination, the parties should determine to whom, if anybody, the test results will be passed. There are, for example, testing programmes that take place within the context of epidemiological research, for example to measure the prevalence of certain traits in a sample |
population. In these situations it is not uncommon for the trial subject not to be informed about the results of the individual examination.338 On the other hand, in the case of a medical examination carried out on the initiative of a patient, it is most unusual for the test result |
to be withheld from the patient.139 For the purpose of this study it is important to note that personal health information is considered to be a personal good.140 Therefore it is up to the testee to determine who can have access to this information. In the case of a medical |
examination, a testee is justified in determining that he/she does not want to know the test result himself/herself (the right not to know). A physician is only authorized to disclose the test result to the testee after the testee has voluntarily agreed ("consented after having received all information") to receive |
these results. A physician who nevertheless decides to pass the test result to the testee may be found guilty of violating the privacy of the testee.141 Closely related are the situations in which a physician by coincidence discovers some important facts concerning the health status of a patient during a |
medical examination. The "informed consent" rule states that this information can only be passed to the individual if he/she has previously indicated willingness to receive such information. In these kinds of situations, the "informed consent" rule should not be interpreted too rigidly. The physician should weigh up the testee's psychological |
make-up and consider all foreseeable advantages and disadvantages before deciding whether to confront the testee with the information or not. In the event of the discovery of a disease or disability, an important factor will be if there is or is not a cure or therapy for the diagnosed disease |
or disability. After having carefully considered all these questions, interference with the testee's privacy may be declared justifiable, despite the fact that the testee's "informed consent" was missing. Compulsory Medical Examinations by the State Within the context of human rights laws, states are authorized to take certain measures entailing compulsion |
even if these interfere with one or more recognized rights or fundamental freedoms. The grounds for promulgating such measures are generally embodied in a general or specific legal provision. For a number of human rights this is even explicitly prescribed, as if to guarantee the fullest possible enjoyment of these |
rights. 142 As stated above, a medical examination as such interferes with the testee's privacy, and often also with his/her physical integrity.143 The international human rights treaties in which the right to privacy is contained permit states to restrict this right under a number of circumstances. Although the conditions in |
which this can be done are usually quite clear, the grounds on which a state should make its decision are of an uneven nature and not always very evident, and are thus difficult for an outsider to weigh. States often have to balance the interests of individuals against the interests |
of the community - sometimes a very difficult task.144 Here it should be noted that states have a responsibility to protect general interests, among them "national security, public safety," as well as "health. . . and the rights and freedoms, of others," and thus are justified in promulgating appropriate measures, |
even if they thereby restrict an individual right, such as the right to privacy. Though, according to the general principles of public action, these measures should be relevant, proportional, effective, feasible, and ethically acceptable, and should balance conflicting values, states possess rather broad discretionary powers to weigh these different interests.145 |
The Strasbourg organs have adopted the margin of appreciation doctrine, with reference to the "responsibilities of Government for maintaining law and order. . ." 146 Therefore it cannot always be said that these organs "ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the present Convention" |
(Article 19 ECHR).147 Nevertheless, in the course of years the contents of the several "justifiable aims" have crystallized, if not directly by way of judicial decisions then at least indirectly by statements made by legal experts and authoritative international bodies and in the literature. In order to avert threats to |
public health or for any of the other policy goals which may be invoked as a legitimate reason for restricting human rights, states have repeatedly imposed far-reaching restrictions on individuals with diseases that might give rise to quarantine.148 The danger that another person may be exposed to the risk of |
acquiring a serious - and maybe fatal - disease which might easily have been avoided is a serious threat to his/her right to life and a breach of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment.149 Compulsory testing, however, was, and can only be considered, a justifiable interference with the individual's |
privacy when it is considered the most efficient means of halting an infectious disease. In other words, the infringement of the individual's privacy (and physical integrity) may be considered necessary when thereby the spread of a contagious - and dangerous - disease can be prevented. This particularly holds true for |
diseases. in which infection may take place through simple physical proximity or casual human contact, such as plague or tuberculosis. Compulsory testing can also be considered if there is evidence that a person is wilfully spreading a disease, thus threatening the rights and freedoms, of others. Here a medical examination |
may be considered in an individual case, generally in the context of a criminal charge against the person concerned. Penal law may prescribe the subjection of the suspected person to a number of examinations essential to determine the rightness of the claim.150 The European Commission of Human Rights has repeatedly |
stated that medical (and psychological) examinations may be an essential component of the preliminary investigation and justify the interference with the rights and freedoms of the suspected person.151 In Western European countries, contagious diseases are generally dealt with in the infections (or epidemic) diseases. laws, or an appendix thereto. The |
harm and human suffering these diseases may cause to others were considered of such importance as to justify a systematic policy of trying to identify persons who may be infected. In the first place this includes the group of persons to whom, there are objective reasons to believe, transmission of |
the disease (or virus) has taken place. These contact-tracing policies almost automatically include compulsory testing of these contacts in order to be able to contain the disease. Here the rights and freedoms of others are considered to outweigh the right to privacy of the individual. With regard to these restrictive |
measures, it should be noted that there is a general trend to use legislation in a supportive way in the field of protection of public health. Legislation should first and foremost enable the implementation of efficient and humane prevention and information policies. This was reflected by the list of recommendations |
accepted at a European consultation on "Health Legislation and Ethics in the Field of AIDS and HIV Infection" (Oslo, 26-29 April 1988). Some of the recommendations read as follows: 2. Existing laws for the prevention and control of infectious diseases should be reexamined to ensure that they are up-to-date to |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.