Jan Hartman

Purpose To quantify how often physical therapists from high-income countries (HIC) travelling to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) practise outside their scope of practice, in what circumstances, and their likelihood of doing the same in the future. Methods An exploratory descriptive study using a survey. Results One hundred and twenty-six licensed physical therapists from around the world participated. Physical therapists typically spent less than a month (73.8 per cent) in LMIC; 67.5 per cent believed that physical therapists practise outside of their scope, and 31.7 per cent reported doing so. Reasons were believing that something is better than nothing (47.5 per cent ), a mismatch between the physical therapist’s and host’s expectations (40.0 per cent ), and preserving their relationship with the host (25.0 per cent ). It was deemed appropriate by 64.5 per cent to practise outside of their scope in some situations and 53.8% considered repeating the activity in the future. Half of the respondent’s first experience in LMIC occurred as a student or in their first decade of practice. Conclusions Working in LMIC requires a keen understanding of the risks and challenges associated with such experiences. To ensure best practice, a skill set that consists of critical self-reflection, systems thinking, and structural competency combined with clinical competency and accountability is imperative.

Debata bioetyczna w polskiej przestrzeni publicznej podporządkowana jest walce ideologicznej toczonej pomiędzy środowiskami konserwatywnymi, skupionymi wokół Kościoła katolickiego a środowiskami liberalnymi, domagającymi się wprowadzenia w Polsce regulacji i praw podobnych do tych, jakie obowiązują w Europie Zachodniej. W artykule dokonano przeglądu i analizy wypowiedzi publicystycznych i politycznych w przykładowych trzech obszarach: aborcji, obowiązkowych szczepień oraz prawa do strajku personelu medycznego. Uderzającą cechą publicznych sporów bioetycznych w Polsce jest prawie całkowity brak świadomości istnienia bioetyki jako dyscypliny akademickiej dostarczającej wiedzy i ekspertyzy w tego rodzaju kwestiach.

This article may be included in the category of conviction ethics. In it the author considers the problem of the moral evaluation of ethical activity as a potential moral mentor. Ethics, even reductionist and naturalist ethics, which polemicize with eudaimonism, has been dominated by the ideal of “practical philosophy”, which assumes that a moral theory can be morally edifying. Whether they support or oppose this program, ethicists continue to revolve around the idea of “practical philosophy”, making their own intellectual contribution to the quality of moral life. However, this idea leads to doubts of a moral nature because of the ambiguous position of the moral mentor, who formulates general ideas but refrains from making concrete moral verdicts. Yet the goal of “practical philosophy” is the potential formulation of criteria regarding the moral good, and thus making moral evaluations. However, it does not accomplish this task and does not even intend to. The attachment to evaluational is an archaic and dogmatic feature of classical ethical systems, which consists in their focusing not on concrete acts, but on motives and consequences. The article points out the moral difficulties that arise from the classical attitude of ethics and also the objectionable features of ethical theories, if they are to be applied to the justification of action. The eudaimonistic, hedonistic, deontological discourses, as well as others, are subjected to moral evaluation. In general the article intends to inaugurate the meta-ethical perspective in ethics.

In the present world, where the sphere of knowledge and social relations have become extremely complex, the problem of insufficient competency and inability to manage efficiently the accumulation and distribution process of various professional skills, has grown very urgent. Paradoxically, the insufficient knowledge,lacking skill or competence may be advantageous. To a certain extent, it reduces the threat of arrogant technocracy and meritocracy, while supporting innovation and creative search process, in which the burden of excessive erudition has often slowed down progress. I will focus on some fallacies common in many countries undergoing modernization process, connected to the lack of clear awareness of the reasonably expected results of the medical university education(not quite professional if related to the background of the scientific state of the matter), to the dangerous “dissemination” of responsibility for a patient in the medical bureaucracy as well as to the overrepresentation of doctors among the managerial staff. To take advantage from some portion of ignorance in the medical life it needs to be acknowledged and reflected on.

I present an analysis of the dialectic relationship uniting concepts of responsibility and loyalty, on the background of the political question of the right to move (immigration, in a very broad sense of leaving one's native community). I present a thorough analysis of the meanings of the categories of responsibility and loyalty, concentrating on the aspects that reveal their mutual antagonism. It is specially claimed that no responsibility is purely individual (however neither is it collective) and in this respect the concept of responsibility is confronted with the concept of guilt. In conclusion, it's claimed that the universal right of settling in a democratic country is a practical solution of the contradiction between the requirements of loyalty and responsibility on the one hand and freedom and justice on the other.

I present an analysis of the dialectic relationship uniting concepts of responsibility and loyalty, on the background of the political question of the right to move (immigration, in a very broad sense of leaving one's native community). I present a thorough analysis of the meanings of the categories of responsibility and loyalty, concentrating on the aspects that reveal their mutual antagonism. It is specially claimed that no responsibility is purely individual (however neither is it collective) and in this respect the concept of responsibility is confronted with the concept of guilt. In conclusion, it's claimed that the universal right of settling in a democratic country is a practical solution of the contradiction between the requirements of loyalty and responsibility on the one hand and freedom and justice on the other.

The idea of my article is to challenge traditional ways of confronting animality with humanity. Either in order to define human superiority over animals and construct “man” as an “animal and something much more,” or in order to launch the idea of an animal as being less stupid than it has always been supposed to be, the comparison between humans and animals is concentrated on suppressing animality and affirming humanity. This is a dialectic interplay of two related concepts of “man” and “beast” petrifying a false vision of common fate of people and animals. This kind of false consciousness makes animals and people badly interdependent. I claim that this mental figure should be overcomeby applying the very category of “being human” to so called “animals.”