ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "หน้าหลัก"

จาก wiki.surinsanghasociety
ไปยังการนำทาง ไปยังการค้นหา
แถว 1: แถว 1:
To contextualize these observed differences in sexual threat behaviors in between sexual minority and heterosexual girls, at the same time as between lesbian and bisexual adolescents.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Adolesc Well being. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 March 01.Ybarra et al.PageIt is critical to note that adolescence is definitely an essential time of self-exploration, including with sexual identity.29?three As suggested above, when girls recognize their same-sex attractions, they might engage in sexual experimentation as a way of exploring and confirming their same-sex feelings and identity. This experimentation may well also be an try to hide a stigmatized identity though dissimulating a much more socially acceptable sexual identity to others. Understanding and accepting one's [http://ewormhole.ostc.com.cn/product/50457177 N6-Cyclopentyladenosine web] attractions to girls might be hard within a society that stigmatizes same-sex activity and reinforces other-sex activity. Well being providers must be aware that sexual experimentation can imply several items, each positive and adverse to youth. Regardless, it could be a gateway to an essential conversation about wholesome sexuality. Even though outside the scope of the current study's focus on consensual sexual experiences, a different potential explanation for the elevated threat behaviors noted for bisexuals and lesbians might be prior experiences with nonconsensual sex as well as other forms of sexual victimization. These kinds of experiences are elevated among lesbian and bisexuals girls when compared with heterosexual girls and are strongly linked to earlier and riskier subsequent consensual sexual behaviors.1,three,4,34 Sexual abuse is also connected with issues negotiating safer sexual practices, such as condom use.35,36 Analysis has shown that several of the elevated sexual danger noted for sexual-minority youth may be explained by a history of sexual abuse.1,three,4 It is actually thus achievable that findings in the present study could also be explained in part by concomitant risk of nonconsensual sex for bisexual and lesbian adolescents.1,34 Moreover, lack of access to LGB-relevant resources and services could explain these elevated danger behaviors. Prices of sexual behaviors for QUO girls are similar to those of heterosexual girls. This may very well be because QUO youth are nevertheless considering their sexual attractions and resulting identity and consequently will not be but acting on their attractions. Interestingly, Ott and colleagues located that two-thirds of youth who identified as QUO in adolescence ultimately identified as heterosexual in emerging adulthood.37 Our data are consistent with this acquiring. It is nonetheless crucial to track the sexual identity improvement of QUO youth and not prematurely figure out what it may be. It bears noting that "queer" may very well be an emerging identity label that lacks consensus among youth and researchers about what it reflects. Tiny is identified about this group for a lot of causes, such as their frequent exclusion in analyses or inclusion with other groups (e.g., gay and lesbian youth). Qualitative study could be helpful in exploring its meaning among people who adopt it. LimitationsAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptIn addition towards the limitations noted above, measurement issues exist. Discussion about barrier use was measured holistically, as opposed to separately asking about condoms, dental dams, and other barrier devices. It's feasible that obtaining a conversation having a male companion about applying a condom is qu.
+
Interference or "self-understanding . . . excludes evaluative judgment from the patient's values
 +
Interference or "self-understanding . . . excludes evaluative judgment from the patient's values or attempts to persuade the patient to adopt other values" (Emanuel and Emanuel 1992, 10). The issues this creates for participation are [https://britishrestaurantawards.org/members/burn94game/activity/440370/ https://britishrestaurantawards.org/members/burn94game/activity/440370/] apparent in the context of each private and public engagement. In shared decision producing the value of "values clarification" inside the relationship in between well being care teams and patients receives no substantive assistance more than which values or selections must be prioritized (Brock 1991). Furthermore, if individual values and preferences can't be questioned, patients could expect all their requests--even those which might be unrealistic or potentially harmful--to be fulfilled by health care teams. A case in point is requests for clinical interventions which are not medically indicated, including scans in nonsymptomatic men and women who believe they might be at threat of cancer, and which could necessitate further invasive procedures, putting unnecessary risksJune, Volume 14, Number 6,ajobThe American Journal of Bioethicsand costs around the patient or the health service (Cardasis and Brush 2011). Similarly, uncertainty over whose or what values ought to be prioritized in public engagement efforts will not be resolved by an autonomy-based ethic that gives no clear solution to assess or arbitrate in between distinctive person preferences, let alone public ones. This concern is, by way of example, evident inside the tensions that exist in efforts to formulate policy on the distribution of well being sources using public involvement, when anything beyond individual preference is needed to arbitrate worth conflicts. Options exist towards the prevailing interpretation of autonomy. Specifically notable for firming up its normative content material is O'Neill's account of "principled autonomy" that seeks to move beyond non-interference. O'Neill explains that principled autonomy "requires that we act only on principles that can be principles for all" (O'Neill 2002a, 96). Because of this, particular behaviors, which includes requests that may possibly within the long-term denigrate trust in the well being care profession, must not be sanctioned. Having said that, even if they were created, such moves are unlikely to possess a considerable influence. That is simply because the concerns that exist with regards to autonomy and option are exacerbated by the truth that the individually focused ethic that dominates the field of overall health has drivers beyond biomedical ethics. It really is critical for all those endeavoring to safe greater patient and public participation and these seeking a less individualist account of wellness ethics to recognize the influence of those factors. Supporting Involvement Amid Market-Led Customer Choice Understanding autonomy as selection and noninterference is strongly associated using the aims of market place liberalism. Gaylin and Jennings (2003) suggest that this atmosphere has made a "culture of autonomy" (four) that prioritizes the ideals of customer decision, independence, and noninterference. Importantly, they claim this culture is "everywhere" even when the principles of biomedical ethics are certainly not described (Gaylin and Jennings 2003, 48). That may be, the ideals linked with the "culture of autonomy" pervade public consciousness within liberal democracies. Inside the field of overall health the need to allow or encourage the industry to have a prominent role--within privately funded health care systems in the Usa and increasingly in publicly funded overall health care in Europe--is linked to the belief that qual.

รุ่นแก้ไขเมื่อ 04:45, 14 กุมภาพันธ์ 2565

Interference or "self-understanding . . . excludes evaluative judgment from the patient's values Interference or "self-understanding . . . excludes evaluative judgment from the patient's values or attempts to persuade the patient to adopt other values" (Emanuel and Emanuel 1992, 10). The issues this creates for participation are https://britishrestaurantawards.org/members/burn94game/activity/440370/ apparent in the context of each private and public engagement. In shared decision producing the value of "values clarification" inside the relationship in between well being care teams and patients receives no substantive assistance more than which values or selections must be prioritized (Brock 1991). Furthermore, if individual values and preferences can't be questioned, patients could expect all their requests--even those which might be unrealistic or potentially harmful--to be fulfilled by health care teams. A case in point is requests for clinical interventions which are not medically indicated, including scans in nonsymptomatic men and women who believe they might be at threat of cancer, and which could necessitate further invasive procedures, putting unnecessary risksJune, Volume 14, Number 6,ajobThe American Journal of Bioethicsand costs around the patient or the health service (Cardasis and Brush 2011). Similarly, uncertainty over whose or what values ought to be prioritized in public engagement efforts will not be resolved by an autonomy-based ethic that gives no clear solution to assess or arbitrate in between distinctive person preferences, let alone public ones. This concern is, by way of example, evident inside the tensions that exist in efforts to formulate policy on the distribution of well being sources using public involvement, when anything beyond individual preference is needed to arbitrate worth conflicts. Options exist towards the prevailing interpretation of autonomy. Specifically notable for firming up its normative content material is O'Neill's account of "principled autonomy" that seeks to move beyond non-interference. O'Neill explains that principled autonomy "requires that we act only on principles that can be principles for all" (O'Neill 2002a, 96). Because of this, particular behaviors, which includes requests that may possibly within the long-term denigrate trust in the well being care profession, must not be sanctioned. Having said that, even if they were created, such moves are unlikely to possess a considerable influence. That is simply because the concerns that exist with regards to autonomy and option are exacerbated by the truth that the individually focused ethic that dominates the field of overall health has drivers beyond biomedical ethics. It really is critical for all those endeavoring to safe greater patient and public participation and these seeking a less individualist account of wellness ethics to recognize the influence of those factors. Supporting Involvement Amid Market-Led Customer Choice Understanding autonomy as selection and noninterference is strongly associated using the aims of market place liberalism. Gaylin and Jennings (2003) suggest that this atmosphere has made a "culture of autonomy" (four) that prioritizes the ideals of customer decision, independence, and noninterference. Importantly, they claim this culture is "everywhere" even when the principles of biomedical ethics are certainly not described (Gaylin and Jennings 2003, 48). That may be, the ideals linked with the "culture of autonomy" pervade public consciousness within liberal democracies. Inside the field of overall health the need to allow or encourage the industry to have a prominent role--within privately funded health care systems in the Usa and increasingly in publicly funded overall health care in Europe--is linked to the belief that qual.