The Experts below are selected from a list of 138 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

J. E. A. Marshall - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Arthur Raistrick: Britain’s premier palynologist
    Geological Society London Special Publications, 2008
    Co-Authors: J. E. A. Marshall
    Abstract:

    Arthur Raistrick was a dedicated socialist and pacifist. Following imprisonment as a Conscientious Objector in World War I, he changed direction from engineering to applied geology. He spent the 1920s largely self-employed and working on geological problems in coal mines, but researching on Quaternary geology and archaeology. Following appointment to Newcastle University, he undertook pioneering work on the pollen analysis of peat. He then used this knowledge to successfully correlate Carboniferous coal seams using quantitative spore profiles. To achieve this, he experimented extensively on spore extraction from coals and devised a spore classification system. Raistrick made rapid progress on applying microspores for seam correlation and established an extensive database that proved that the same seam had a very similar spore content, but different seams had different spore contents. Ultimately, his prodigious output led to overwork and severe eye strain. He then completely stopped palynological studies to concentrate on industrial history and archaeology, to which he also made a seminal and lasting contribution. Raistrick's methods for coal seam correlation were widely adopted by many coal laboratories both in the UK and overseas, and formed the starting point for the modern development of the subject. © The Geological Society of London 2005.

Nadja Durbach - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Class, Gender, and the Conscientious Objector to Vaccination, 1898–1907
    Journal of British Studies, 2020
    Co-Authors: Nadja Durbach
    Abstract:

    In 1898, after forty-five years of enforcing mandatory infant smallpox vaccination, the British parliament passed an act to allow parents to “opt out” of the compulsory system. The 1898 Vaccination Act introduced a conscience clause that entitled parents who objected to the practice of vaccination to claim certificates of Conscientious objection by applying to a magistrate for an exemption. This provided working- and lower-middle-class anti-vaccinationists a measure of relief from the repeated fines they had suffered for noncompliance with the law, and from the threat of imprisonment. By the end of 1898, over 200,000 certificates of Conscientious objection had been issued. Many of these were granted in anti-vaccination strongholds where exemptions outnumbered vaccinations, but Conscientious objection to vaccination was by no means limited to these regions. Once an amended conscience clause was passed in 1907, which made Conscientious Objector status much easier to attain, the national exemption rate grew to 25 percent of all births. The vaccination conscience clauses were controversial. As most of the applicants who applied for these exemption certificates came from the working classes, and many were women, these acts generated a national debate over the classed and gendered nature of the conscience and the meanings of Conscientious objection. The years between 1898 and 1907 thus mark a significant moment in the making of the modern subject and citizen. For, as the debate over Conscientious objection to vaccination reveals, who exactly was entitled to make a claim to possess a conscience, with its concomitant rights, was itself a contested issue.

  • class gender and the Conscientious Objector to vaccination 1898 1907
    Journal of British Studies, 2002
    Co-Authors: Nadja Durbach
    Abstract:

    In 1898, after forty-five years of enforcing mandatory infant smallpox vaccination, the British parliament passed an act to allow parents to “opt out” of the compulsory system. The 1898 Vaccination Act introduced a conscience clause that entitled parents who objected to the practice of vaccination to claim certificates of Conscientious objection by applying to a magistrate for an exemption. This provided working- and lower-middle-class anti-vaccinationists a measure of relief from the repeated fines they had suffered for noncompliance with the law, and from the threat of imprisonment. By the end of 1898, over 200,000 certificates of Conscientious objection had been issued. Many of these were granted in anti-vaccination strongholds where exemptions outnumbered vaccinations, but Conscientious objection to vaccination was by no means limited to these regions. Once an amended conscience clause was passed in 1907, which made Conscientious Objector status much easier to attain, the national exemption rate grew to 25 percent of all births. The vaccination conscience clauses were controversial. As most of the applicants who applied for these exemption certificates came from the working classes, and many were women, these acts generated a national debate over the classed and gendered nature of the conscience and the meanings of Conscientious objection. The years between 1898 and 1907 thus mark a significant moment in the making of the modern subject and citizen. For, as the debate over Conscientious objection to vaccination reveals, who exactly was entitled to make a claim to possess a conscience, with its concomitant rights, was itself a contested issue.

Dan Pinchbeck - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

Daniel Moldavsky - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • personal view a way out for the Conscientious Objector become a mental patient
    BMJ, 2006
    Co-Authors: Daniel Moldavsky
    Abstract:

    Military service for a period of two to three years is compulsory for everyone in Israel. Male doctors, in common with other male citizens, have to serve in the army reserves for periods of up to two months each year until the age of 51. They therefore face situations during their professional lives that colleagues in countries without compulsory military service do not, fortunately, encounter. In a country such as Israel, military service is seen as a reflection of a person's involvement with their community. Being unwilling to serve can have major implications on someone's future, including their job prospects and practical issues such as obtaining a driving license. Psychiatrists are regularly required to assess people whose chief complaint is reluctance to serve in the army. Some of these people justify their position on personal grounds, such as job or family commitments, or tiredness resulting from the harsh realities of policing the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and population. Refusing to serve in the army on ideological grounds is difficult Refusing to serve in the army simply on ideological grounds is difficult. Those who try this route have to endure long periods in prison before being recognised as Conscientious Objectors, according to cases documented by human rights organisations. One way out for Conscientious Objectors is to be diagnosed with a psychiatric illness. In my experience as a psychiatrist doing reserve military service, many soldiers choose this path to apply for discharge. The almost daily scenario facing a psychiatrist is a soldier who is left with no other choice than “becoming” a mental patient. This means that, as long as the psychiatrist understands the soldier's predicament, what follows is an effort to medicalise the problem. Reluctance to serve in the army is subsequently re-categorised as an outcome of anxiety, mood disorder, personality disorder, or impulse control disorder, or given some other mental illness diagnosis. Am I casting doubt on the professional competence or integrity of my colleagues in Israel? No. There are some clear cases of psychopathology where the obvious outcome is discharge from the army. However, the issue becomes more complex during periods of increased conscription, when the divisions between active avoidance, passive refusal, and silent protest become blurred. This problem occurs, in my opinion, when there is a lack of complete consensus in a society about the perceived righteousness of a war in which it is fighting. The consensus in Israel has been incomplete since the highly unpopular war against Lebanon. In 2002 when Jenin and other cities on the West Bank were destroyed, it was impossible not to empathise with the plight of soldiers requesting psychiatric assessment, who claimed they had strong grounds on the basis of personal or family problems for not serving. Although most of them would have disagreed that they were Conscientious Objectors, I asked myself repeatedly about the extent to which these soldiers were reflecting the profound distress pervading Israeli society more generally. I also questioned why psychiatrists ended up with the task of medicalising human suffering and diagnosing people as being mentally ill when their main symptom was that they wanted to live and let live. This situation poses a moral and ethical dilemma. But it could easily be dealt with by disentangling the “social” from the “medical.” The problem is that refusal to serve is seen as a problem with “motivation,” which is neither ideological nor mental. Because the Israeli army—along with armies in most Western countries—is reluctant to recognise refusal to serve because of pacifist views or objection on the grounds of conscience, no one takes responsibility for dealing with the issue. Some Western countries, including France and Germany, have long recognised Conscientious objection as a reason for refusing to enlist. And some of the countries in the former Soviet bloc, notably Poland, followed this path during the 1990s. But in countries where Conscientious objection is not seen as a valid reason for reluctance to serve in the army, soldiers continue to suffer. The psychiatrist, in turn, is pressed between his loyalty to the soldier-patient's welfare and pressure from the army. The soldier's fate will depend on the individual psychiatrist's views on values and human rights. On many occasions, empathising with a fellow human being in distress, I simply tried to do everything possible to negotiate their discharge. Psychiatrists constantly face moral and ethical dilemmas rooted in social suffering. We need to understand the social and political context of situations if we want to give effective help. We all have a duty to protect and preserve life. Ultimately, both soldiers and civilians are victims.

  • a way out for the Conscientious Objector become a mental patient
    BMJ, 2006
    Co-Authors: Daniel Moldavsky
    Abstract:

    Military service for a period of two to three years is compulsory for everyone in Israel. Male doctors, in common with other male citizens, have to serve in the army reserves for periods of up to two months each year until the age of 51. They therefore face situations during their professional lives that colleagues in countries without compulsory military service do not, fortunately, encounter. In a country such as Israel, military service is seen as a reflection of a person's involvement with their community. Being unwilling to serve can have major implications on someone's future, including their job prospects and practical issues such as obtaining a driving license. Psychiatrists are regularly required to assess people whose chief complaint is reluctance to serve in the army. Some of these people justify their position on personal grounds, such as job or family commitments, or tiredness resulting from the harsh realities of policing the Israeli …

Robert White - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.