Commentary on the Stationers' Royal Charter 1557

Royal Charter providing the Company of Stationers with corporate legal status within the City of London, and conferring on them exclusive control over printing within England. The grant of the Charter ensured that the Company's licensing procedures became the standard by which members of the book trade secured the right to print and publish literary works, giving rise to what is generally referred to as ‘stationers' copyright'.
The grant of the Charter by Mary is often understood as the point at which the monarchy established an effective regulatory institution to control and censure the press, in the guise of the Stationers' Company, in exchange for an absolute monopoly over the production of printed works. In fact, the commentary suggests that censorship of the press throughout the Tudor period remained an essentially ad hoc and reactive phenomenon, and that both Mary and Elizabeth relied, not primarily upon the Company of Stationers, but on the use of statutory instruments and royal proclamations to censure heretical and treasonous texts.

Commentary on the Statute of Monopolies 1624

Legislation restricting the monarch's ability to make monopoly grants in accordance with the royal prerogative, and providing a statutory basis for the patent system. The legislation established the basis upon which patents for "new manufacture[s]" might be granted to "the true and first inventor" of the same in furthering the interests of industry, the economy, and the state. At the same time, privileges concerning printing were left unaffected by the legislation, as were those for the manufacture of saltpetre or gunpowder and for the casting and making of ordnance (canons). In limiting the term of protection for future patents to 14 years while confining existing patents for the same to a period of 21 years, the legislation influenced the choice of the two copyright terms in the Statute of Anne 1710.

Commentary on Stationers' Company v. Carnan (1775)

Case in which the Court of Common Pleas decided that the Crown did not have the authority to grant exclusive prerogative rights over the printing of almanacs, a monopoly which the Stationers' Company had enjoyed, uncontested, since the formation of the ‘English Stock' in the early seventeenth century.
The commentary describes the background to the litigation, as well as the various strategies that the Stationers' Company employed in their efforts to regain control of the almanac market in the wake of the decision. It also explores how the decision provided the springboard for the emergence of a more contemporary concept of prerogative copyright. It was no longer thought that the Crown could grant printing patents over certain classes of work as of right. Rather, it was the monarch's unique constitutional position as head of both church and state that imposed an obligation to ensure the dissemination of authentic and authoritative versions of both legal and religious materials, and, from this obligation, the right to print the same arose.

Commentary on the Royal Commission's Report on Copyright (1878)

The first major governmental review of the national, colonial, and international copyright regime. The commentary explores the background to the Royal Commission and in particular the efforts of the Association for the Protection of the Rights of Authors in lobbying for law reform. The commentary also explores the extent to which debates about free trade and monopoly commended the attention of the Commissioners and provided a challenge to the dominant conception of copyright - that is, copyright as a property right. The Report affirmed that copyright should continue to be regarded as a property right, and acknowledged the need for reform and consolidating legislation. Beyond that, however, the Commissioners were in considerable disagreement as to copyright's purpose and proper scope, with few of the Report's major recommendations receiving the unanimous support of the same.

Palliative Medicine:Scoping the level and extent of service provision to people with intellectual disability at end of life Poster Presentation

Background: Concerns exist about the end of life care
that people with intellectual disabilities receive. This population
are seldom referred to palliative care services and
inadequate data sets exist about their place of death.
Aim: To scope the extent of service provision to people
with intellectual disabilities at the end of life by specialist
palliative care and intellectual disability services in one
region of the United Kingdom.
Methods: As part of a larger doctoral study a regional survey
took place of a total sample (n=66) of specialist palliative
care and intellectual disability services using a postal
questionnaire containing forty items. The questionnaire
was informed by the literature and consultation with an
expert reference group. Data were analysed using SPSS to
obtain descriptive statistics.
Results: A total response rate from services of 71.2%
(n=47) was generated. Findings showed a range of experience
among services in providing end of life care to people
with intellectual disabilities in the previous five years, but
general hospitals were reported the most common place of
death. A lack of accessible information on end of life care
for people with learning disabilities was apparent. A few
services (n=14) had a policy to support this population to
make decisions about their care or had used adapted Breaking
Bad News guidelines (n=5) to meet their additional
needs. Both services recognised the value of partnership
working in assessing and meeting the holistic needs of
people with intellectual disabilities at end of life.
Conclusions: A range of experience in caring for people
with intellectual disabilities was present across services,
but more emphasis is required on adapting communication
for this population to facilitate them to participate in their
care. These findings could have international significance
given that studies in other countries have highlighted a
need to widen access to palliative care for this group of
people.

A cross-sectional evaluation of community pharmacists’ perceptions of intermediate care and medicines management across the healthcare interface

Background Despite the importance placed on the concept of the multidisciplinary team in relation to intermediate care (IC), little is known about community pharmacists’ (CPs) involvement. 
Objective To determine CPs’ awareness of and involvement with IC services, perceptions of the transfer of patients’ medication information between healthcare settings and views of the development of a CP–IC service. 
Setting Community pharmacies in Northern Ireland. 
Methods A postal questionnaire, informed by previous qualitative work was developed and piloted. 
Main outcome measure CPs’ awareness of and involvement with IC. Results The response rate was 35.3 % (190/539). Under half (47.4 %) of CPs ‘agreed/strongly agreed’ that they understood the term ‘intermediate care’. Three quarters of respondents were either not involved or unsure if they were involved with providing services to IC. A small minority (1.2 %) of CPs reported that they received communication regarding medication changes made in hospital or IC settings ‘all of the time’. Only 9.5 and 0.5 % of respondents ‘strongly agreed’ that communication from hospital and IC, respectively, was sufficiently detailed. In total, 155 (81.6 %) CPs indicated that they would like to have greater involvement with IC services. ‘Current workload’ was ranked as the most important barrier to service development.
Conclusion It was revealed that CPs had little awareness of, or involvement with, IC. Communication of information relating to patients’ medicines between settings was perceived as insufficient, especially between IC and community pharmacy settings. CPs demonstrated willingness to be involved with IC and services aimed at bridging the communication gap between healthcare settings.