4 New frontiers in surgery: the case of uterus and penis transplantation1 Gennaro Selvaggi and Sean Aas Various types of organ transplantations are now considered standard procedures: heart and liver transplants lengthen lives; kidney transplants also do so, as well as improving quality of life by reducing or eliminating the need for dialysis. The transplantation of faces and limbs, a more novel set of techniques, improves quality of life without necessarily lengthening or ‘saving’ lives. An even more recent development is uterus and penis transplantations
innovations in everyday medical practice to humanitarian work in the field. It seems to me a cultural, a psychosocial block. If you talk about surgery , for example, in a humanitarian setting, immediately among many NGO workers their antibodies will rise. They will say, ‘That’s terrible, you can’t allow that Western, too high-tech surgery; it is inappropriate.’ But then if you say, ‘So, what about obstructed labour and interventions to save the mother and the child?’, then
the government won’t see the difference if it is us or ICRC providing the surgery and yet we don’t have the permanent ability to address the needs of non-war-wounded patients, such as obstetrics. Indeed, surgical care available to wounded combatants had been considered a trump card to obtain guarantees of respect and protection from the opposition’s leadership, whose soldiers, according to MSF-H’s head of mission
In early August 1954, the News Chronicle reported on the ‘Brighten-Up’ campaign led by Birmingham’s Local Medical Committee of forty general practitioners (GPs). Working in pairs, these practitioners planned to visit the city’s 400 general practice surgeries, inspecting premises, talking to GPs, and making recommendations for improvements. If successful, the report suggested, ‘no more will there be dingy rooms for the patients to wait in. Gone will be the old, inadequate furniture, and the chilly draughts
decision to perform spinal surgery on a minor who had been raped and attempted suicide, severely injuring herself. L.C. was also refused therapeutic abortion. Similar stereotypes operate to restrict access to contraception: pharmacists and health personnel in public dispensing have claimed, for example, their right to conscientious objection in refusing to accept requests for contraceptives and refusing to fill a doctor’s prescription of contraceptives.78 Conversely, involuntary sterilisation goes in the direction of denying women motherhood. The stereotype here sees the
profession was not only a slow process, it was also marked by disciplinary hierarchies. Women gained access most easily to disciplines such as paediatrics and gynaecology, which were considered to be ‘natural’ fields of specialisation for women in and beyond Belgium, while ‘masculine disciplines’ such as surgery, urology and orthopaedics remained highly closed to them. In
The book explores the relationship between violence against women on one hand, and the rights to health and reproductive health on the other. It argues that violation of the right to health is a consequence of violence, and that (state) health policies might be a cause of – or create the conditions for – violence against women. It significantly contributes to feminist and international human rights legal scholarship by conceptualising a new ground-breaking idea, violence against women’s health (VAWH), using the Hippocratic paradigm as the backbone of the analysis. The two dimensions of violence at the core of the book – the horizontal, ‘interpersonal’ dimension and the vertical ‘state policies’ dimension – are investigated through around 70 decisions of domestic, regional and international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies (the anamnesis). The concept of VAWH, drawn from the anamnesis, enriches the traditional concept of violence against women with a human rights-based approach to autonomy and a reflection on the pervasiveness of patterns of discrimination (diagnosis). VAWH as theorised in the book allows the reconceptualisation of states’ obligations in an innovative way, by identifying for both dimensions obligations of result, due diligence obligations, and obligations to progressively take steps (treatment). The book eventually asks whether it is not international law itself that is the ultimate cause of VAWH (prognosis).
lives with a variety of difficult, painful and personal complications of the disease. Katie describes her ups and downs in battling to get the care she needs. The importance of continuity of care from her GP surgery is illustrated. She also talks of the impact on her mental health of living with her debilitating and gradually deteriorating condition for such a long time. Katie: My name's Katie. I'm 50 and I've been diabetic for twenty-six years. I was admitted to
to hospital. She describes how bewildering and lost it can feel to be waiting in an emergency department at night in severe pain. She had an X-ray and an MRI scan and two separate procedures involving a general anaesthetic, to reset the knee and then to repair the ligaments, and went home five days later. Jill experienced very different levels of care and attention in the various wards and departments of the hospital. Her post-operative care was chaotic – the GP surgery explained that they couldn't offer wound care, despite Jill having been steered to them by the
This book is about science in theatre and performance. It explores how theatre and performance engage with emerging scientific themes from artificial intelligence to genetics and climate change. The book covers a wide range of performance forms from the spectacle of the Paralympics Opening Ceremony to Broadway musicals, from experimental contemporary performance and opera to educational theatre, Somali poetic drama and grime videos. It features work by pioneering companies including Gob Squad, Headlong Theatre and Theatre of Debate as well as offering fresh analysis of global blockbusters such as Wicked and Urinetown. The book offers detailed description and analysis of theatre and performance practices as well as broader commentary on the politics of theatre as public engagement with science. It documents important examples of collaborative practice with extended discussion of the Theatre of Debate process developed by Y Touring theatre company, exploration of bilingual theatre-making in East London and an account of how grime MCs and dermatologists ended up making a film together in Birmingham. The interdisciplinary approach draws on contemporary research in theatre and performance studies in combination with key ideas from science studies. It shows how theatre can offer important perspectives on what the philosopher of science Isabelle Stengers has called ‘cosmopolitics’. The book argues that theatre can flatten knowledge hierarchies and hold together different ways of knowing.