The March 2002 symposium Human Dignity and Reproductive Technology brought together philosophers, theologians, scientists, lawyers, and scholars from across the United States. The essays of this book are the contributions of the symposium's participants.

The COVID-19 pandemic has already had an enormous impact on numerous aspects of human society such as health, education, economy, business, or work and created favorable conditions for the expansion of teleworking. The aim of the paper is to identify and analyze five teleworking impact factors that affect thewellbeing and productivity of employees. The data were gathered by a quantitative research method through a questionnaire applied to 327 Romanian employees who hold a Bachelor or Master degree. Firstly, they were analyzed (...) and interpreted through a factorial analysis focusing on the five teleworking impact factors. Secondly, the authors carried on cluster analysis, followed by multiple linear regression, using R statistical software. This study shows that there is a plethora of factors that influence the wellbeing and productivity of employees: individual and societal factors, organizational and work-related factors, technological factors, social factors at home, and social factors at work. Also, the cluster analysis brings to light significant differences between various Romanian employees such as: their gender, income, age, education, and city size. (shrink)

BackgroundMany journals prohibit the use of declarative titles that state study findings, yet a few journals encourage or even require them. We compared the effects of a declarative versus a descriptive title on readers’ perceptions about the strength of evidence in a research abstract describing a randomized trial.MethodsStudy participants (medical or dental students or doctors attending lectures) read two abstracts describing studies of a fictitious treatment (Anticox) for a fictitious condition (Green’s syndrome). The first abstract (A1) described an uncontrolled, 10-patient, (...) case series, and the second (A2) described a randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 48 patients. All participants rated identical A1 abstracts (with a descriptive title) to provide baseline ratings and thus reduce the effects of inter-individual variability. Participants were randomized so that half rated a version of A2 with a descriptive title and half with a declarative title. For each abstract, participants indicated their agreement with the statement “Anticox is an effective treatment for pain in Green’s syndrome” using 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS) ranging from “disagree completely” to “agree completely.” VAS scores were measured by an investigator who was unaware of group allocation.ResultsOne hundred forty-four participants from four centres completed the study. There was no significant difference between the declarative and the descriptive title groups’ confidence in the study conclusions as expressed on VAS scales—in fact, the mean difference between A1 and A2 was smaller for the declarative title group than that for the descriptive title group (32.6 mm, SD 27.4 vs. 39.8 mm, SD 22.6, respectively, p = 0.09).ConclusionsWe found no evidence that the use of a declarative title affected readers’ perceptions about study conclusions. This suggests that editors’ fears that declarative titles might unduly influence readers’ judgements about study conclusions may be unfounded, at least in relation to reports of randomized trials. However, our study design had several limitations, and our findings may not be generalizable to other situations. (shrink)

This article delves into the discreet yet persistent presence of music in Sarah Kofman's work. Three strands or movements of unequal length are explored here, each of which touches upon a specific...

Jacques Derrida’s Death Penalty seminar is haunted, from its margins, by euthanasia. Yet even as he alludes to this question throughout the seminar, he puts it on hold, no doubt because it calls for a standalone analysis. In “Living On,” however, Derrida’s 1979 reading of Maurice Blanchot’s Death Sentence (L’Arrêt de mort), he refers to “a ‘double bind’ that makes every death a crime,” thus subverting this very distinction, which is meant to ensure the hard ethical border between euthanasia and (...) capital punishment. Through a rereading of Blanchot’s Death Sentence that takes its cues from Derrida’s Death Penalty seminar, this article analyses the porous nature of death’s various instantiations when it is conceived as a crime, beginning with the “arrêt” (simultaneously a stop and a judgment), the penalty and the sentence. (shrink)