Search results

This chapter questions the role of virtues in health professional medical ethics. It distinguishes between the ethics of conduct – usually expressed as moral principles – and the ethics of the character – expressed as virtues. It questions whether virtues are intrinsically valued or valued instrumentally as the means to right conduct. It poses two problems for virtue theory: (1) The “naked virtue” problem – whether instilling virtues increases the probability of correlative morally right conduct, and (2) the “wrong virtue” problem–which of many sometimes controversial virtues should be promoted. The chapter ends by arguing that these are less serious problems for the morality of conduct.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The resurgence of interest in professionalism necessarily focuses us on the moral core of medicine and the character of the good doctor. While medical education reform projects aimed at educating for professionalism are replete with lists of laudable virtues necessary for the doctor, we have made little progress in mapping those character traits, values and behaviors to admission procedures, curricular reform and faculty development. If educating for professionalism is to be effective, medicine must re-claim the moral core of professionalism and identify clearly the fundamental traits, values and virtues necessary for good medical practice in the twenty-first century.

Disillusionment among doctors is common. It is not uncommon for even highly successful doctors to say they wish they had gone into another field or that they would not encourage their children to go into medicine. In this chapter, I explore why this might be so. For many, medicine has become just another job dominated by technical skill and technology. I suggest that educating for professionalism as the remedy for this disillusionment is almost certain to fail as the issues are as much sociological as personal and professional. Perhaps disillusionment is a clue to a much more complex reality for modern medicine.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how family support affects challenge and hindrance appraisals, which in turn, influence entrepreneurs’ venture exit intention drawing on the challenge-hindrance job stressor model, family support, and the venture exit literature.

An experimental study (Study 1) was conducted to establish the relationships among family support, challenge and hindrance appraisals, and entrepreneurs’ venture exit intention. Two survey studies (Study 2 and Study 3) were conducted to extend the external validity of findings in Study 1 and to examine whether the theoretical framework holds in both the US and Chinese contexts.

All three studies demonstrate that family support decreases entrepreneurs’ venture exit intention by reducing hindrance appraisal. Study 3 also shows the mediating role of challenge appraisal in the family support – venture exit intention relationship.

This research contributes to the family embeddedness perspective not only by showing its relevance to the venture exit context but also by validating the relationship of family support with cognitive appraisals and venture exit intention in two cultural contexts. It also contributes to venture exit research by highlighting the unique role of cognitive appraisals in the formation of entrepreneurs’ venture exit intention.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

The lengthy review of the Food Standards Committee of this, agreed by all public analysts and enforcement officers, as the most complicated and difficult of food groups subject to detailed legislative control, is at last complete and the Committee's findings set out in their Report. When in 1975 they were requested to investigate the workings of the legislation, the problems of control were already apparent and getting worse. The triology of Regulations of 1967 seemed comprehensive at the time, perhaps as we ventured to suggest a little too comprehensive for a rational system of control for arguments on meat contents of different products, descriptions and interpretation generally quickly appeared. The system, for all its detail, provided too many loopholes through which manufacturers drove the proverbial “carriage and pair”. As meat products have increased in range and the constantly rising price of meat, the “major ingredient”, the number of samples taken for analysis has risen and now usually constitutes about one‐quarter of the total for the year, with sausages, prepared meats (pies, pasties), and most recently, minced meat predominating. Just as serial sampling and analysis of sausages before the 1967 Regulations were pleaded in courts to establish usage in the matter of meat content, so with minced meat the same methods are being used to establish a maximum fat content usage. What concerns food law enforcement agencies is that despite the years that the standards imposed by the 1967 Regulations have been in force, the number of infringements show no sign of reduction. This should not really surprise us; there are even longer periods of failures to comply; eg., in the use of preservatives which have been controlled since 1925! What a number of public analysts have christened the “beefburger saga” took its rise post‐1967 and shows every indication of continuing into the distant future. Manufacturers appear to be trying numerous ploys to reduce the content below the Regulation 80% mainly by giving their products new names. Each year, public analysts report a flux of new names and ingenious defences; eg, “caterburgers” and similar concocted nomenclature, and the defence that because the name does not incorporate a meat, it is outside the statutory standard.

During the great post–World War II economic expansion, modernization theorists held that the new American capitalism balanced mass production and mass consumption, meshed profitability with labor's interests, and ended class conflict. They thought that Keynesian policies insured a near full-employment, low-inflation, continuous growth economy. They viewed the United States as the “new lead society,” eliminating industrial capitalism's backward features and progressing toward modernity's penultimate “postindustrial” stage.⁷ Many Americans believed that the ideal of “consumer freedom,” forged early in the century, had been widely realized and epitomized American democracy's superiority to communism.⁸ However, critics held that the new capitalism did not solve all of classical capitalism's problems (e.g., poverty) and that much increased consumption generated new types of cultural and political problems. John Kenneth Galbraith argued that mainstream economists assumed that human nature dictates an unlimited “urgency of wants,” naturalizing ever increasing production and consumption and precluding the distinction of goods required to meet basic needs from those that stoke wasteful, destructive appetites. In his view, mainstream economists’ individualistic, acquisitive presuppositions crown consumers sovereign and obscure cultural forces, especially advertising, that generate and channel desire and elevate possessions and consumption into the prime measures of self-worth. Galbraith held that production's “paramount position” and related “imperatives of consumer demand” create dependence on economic growth and generate new imbalances and insecurities.⁹ Harsher critics held that the consumer culture blinded middle-class Americans to injustice, despotic bureaucracy, and drudge work (e.g., Mills, 1961; Marcuse, 1964). But even these radical critics implied that postwar capitalism unlocked the secret of sustained economic growth.