Protestantism, Spectacle, Motherhood and Vice: Dublin's New Pleasure Gardens

In 1748, Bartholomew Mosse, a curious combination of surgeon, obstetrician and entertainment impresario, established a pleasure garden on the northern fringes of Dublin. Ostensibly designed to fund the construction of a maternity hospital to be located adjacently, Mosse’s New Pleasure Gardens became one of the premier leisure resorts in Dublin. This was to have a profound effect on the city’s urban form. Within a few years the gardens became an epicentre of speculative development as the upper classes jostled to build their houses in the vicinity. Meanwhile, the creation nearby of Sackville Mall, a wide and generous strolling ground, established a whole section of the city dedicated to haute spectacle, display and leisure. Like other pleasure gardens in the British Isles, Mosse’s venture introduced new, commodified forms of entertainment. In the colonial context of eighteenth-century Ireland, however, ‘a land only recently won and insecurely held’ (Foster, 1988) by the Protestant Anglo-Irish settler class, the production of culture and spectacle was perhaps more significant than elsewhere. Indeed, the form of Mosse’s gardens echoed the private city gardens of a key figure in the Anglo-Irish aristocracy, while the hospital itself was constructed in a style of a Palladian country house, symbol of colonial presence in the countryside. However, like other pleasure gardens, the mix of music and alcohol, the heterogeneous crowd culled from across social and gender boundaries, and a landscape punctuated with secluded corners, meant that it also acquired a dubious reputation as a haunt of louche and illicit behaviours. The curious juxtaposition between a maternity hospital and pleasure garden, therefore, begins to assume other, hitherto hidden complexities. These are borne out by a closer examination of the architecture of the hospital, the shape of its landscape and the records of its patrons and patients.

Neolithic and Bronze age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome

The Neolithic and Bronze Age transitions were profound cultural shifts catalyzed in parts of Europe by migrations, first of early farmers from the Near East and then Bronze Age herders from the Pontic Steppe. However, a decades-long, unresolved controversy is whether population change or cultural adoption occurred at the Atlantic edge, within the British Isles. We address this issue by using the first whole genome data from prehistoric Irish individuals. A Neolithic woman (3343–3020 cal BC) from a megalithic burial (10.3× coverage) possessed a genome of predominantly Near Eastern origin. She had some hunter–gatherer ancestry but belonged to a population of large effective size, suggesting a substantial influx of early farmers to the island. Three Bronze Age individuals from Rathlin Island (2026–1534 cal BC), including one high coverage (10.5×) genome, showed substantial Steppe genetic heritage indicating that the European population upheavals of the third millennium manifested all of the way from southern Siberia to the western ocean. This turnover invites the possibility of accompanying introduction of Indo-European, perhaps early Celtic, language. Irish Bronze Age haplotypic similarity is strongest within modern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh populations, and several important genetic variants that today show maximal or very high frequencies in Ireland appear at this horizon. These include those coding for lactase persistence, blue eye color, Y chromosome R1b haplotypes, and the hemochromatosis C282Y allele; to our knowledge, the first detection of a known Mendelian disease variant in prehistory. These findings together suggest the establishment of central attributes of the Irish genome 4,000 y ago.

Specialty Registrars’ Experience of Managing Head and Neck Cancer Patients

Objective The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training of Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) in the management of head and neck cancer (HANC) patients across different training units within the UK and Ireland. Methods Current trainees were invited to complete an online questionnaire by the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group (SRRDG). Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for HANC patients, attending theatre alone and manufacturing surgical obturators, and providing implants for appropriate cases. Respondents were also asked to appraise clinical and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE)-station assessing knowledge of head and neck cancer. Results Responses were obtained from 21 StRs (n=21) training within all five countries of the British Isles. Most respondents were based in England (76%), with one StR in each of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. A third (33%) were in their 5th year of training. Almost half of the StRs indicated that they were confident of independently assessing (48%) new patients with HANC, with fewer numbers reporting confidence in treatment planning (38%). The majority (52%) of respondents indicated that they were not confident of attending theatre alone and manufacturing a surgical obturator. A third (33%) rated their experience of treating HANC patients with implants as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’, including three StRs in their 5th year of training. Less than one third (<33%) rated didactic teaching in maxillofacial prosthodontics at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 7 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE-station focused on HANC. Conclusion Experience and training regarding patients with head and neck cancer is inconsistent for StRs across the UK and Ireland with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.

Evaluation of Restorative Dentistry Specialty Registrars’ Clinical Experience of Developmental Disorders: A Survey

Background

Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry (StRs) should be competent in the independent restorative management of patients with developmental disorders including hypodontia and cleft lip/palate upon completion of their specialist training.1 Knowledge and management may be assessed via the Intercollegiate Specialty Fellowship Examination (ISFE) in Restorative Dentistry.2

Objective

The aim of this study was to collate and compare data on the training and experience of StRs in the management of patients with developmental disorders across different training units within the British Isles.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to all StRs attending the Annual General Meeting of the Specialty Registrars in Restorative Dentistry Group, Belfast, in October 2015. Participants were asked to rate their confidence and experience of assessing and planning treatment for patients with developmental disorders, construction of appropriate prostheses, and provision of dental implants. Respondents were also asked to record clinical supervision and didactic teaching at their unit, and to rate their confidence of passing a future ISFE station assessing knowledge of developmental disorders.

Results

Responses were obtained from 32 StRs (n=32) training within all five countries of the British Isles. The majority of respondents were based in England (72%) with three in Wales, and two in each of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland. Approximately one third of respondents (34%) were in the final years of training (years 4-6). Almost half of the StRs reported that they were not confident of independently assessing (44%) new patients with a developmental disorder, with larger numbers (72%) indicating a lack of confidence in treatment planning. Six respondents rated their experience of treating obturator patients as ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. The majority (56%) rated their experience of implant provision in these cases as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ with three-quarters (75%) rating clinical supervision at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Less than half (41%) rated the didactic teaching at their unit as ‘good’ or ‘excellent’, and only 8 StRs indicated that they were confident of passing an ISFE station focused on developmental disorders.

Conclusion

Experience and training regarding patients with developmental disorders is inconsistent for StRs across the British Isles with a number of trainees reporting a lack of clinical exposure.