Negotiating conservation: the construction of meaningful spaces in a world heritage debate

According to one’s personal biography, social background and the resultant degree of affectedness, a person has certain ideas about the meaning of, in our example, a World Heritage Site (WHS), what he or she can expect from it and what his or her relation to it can and should be. The handling of potentially different meaningful spaces is decisive, when it comes to the negotiation of pathways towards the sustainable development of a WHS region. Due to the fact that – in a pluralistic world – multiple realities exist, they have to be taken seriously and adequately addressed. In this article we identified the ways the Jungfrau-Aletsch- WHS was constructed by exploring the visual and verbal representations of the WHS during the decision-making process (1998-2001). The results demonstrate that in the visual representations (images), the WHS was to a large extent presented as an unspoiled natural environment similar to a touristy promotion brochure. Such a ‘picture-book’-like portrait has no direct link to the population’s daily needs, their questions and anxieties about the consequences of a WHS label. By contrast, the verbal representations (articles, letters-to-the-editor, comments) were dominated by issues concerning the economic development of the region, fears of disappropriation, and different views on nature. Whereas visual and verbal representations to a large extent differ significantly, their combination might have contributed to the final decision of the majority of people concerned to support the application for inscription of the Jungfrau-Aletsch-Bietschhorn region into the World Heritage list. The prominence of economic arguments and narratives about intergenerational responsibility in the verbal representations and their combination with the aesthetic appeal of the natural environment in the visual representations might have built a common meaningful space for one part of the population.

Evidence, lack of evidence, controversy, and debate in the provision and performance of the surgery of acute type A aortic dissection

Acute type A aortic dissection is a lethal condition requiring emergency surgery. It has diverse presentations, and the diagnosis can be missed or delayed. Once diagnosed, decisions with regard to initial management, transfer, appropriateness of surgery, timing of operation, and intervention for malperfusion complications are necessary. The goals of surgery are to save life by prevention of pericardial tamponade or intra-pericardial aortic rupture, to resect the primary entry tear, to correct or prevent any malperfusion and aortic valve regurgitation, and if possible to prevent late dissection-related complications in the proximal and downstream aorta. No randomized trials of treatment or techniques have ever been performed, and novel therapies-particularly with regard to extent of surgery-are being devised and implemented, but their role needs to be defined. Overall, except in highly specialized centers, surgical outcomes might be static, and there is abundant room for improvement. By highlighting difficulties and controversies in diagnosis, patient selection, and surgical therapy, our over-arching goal should be to enfranchise more patients for treatment and improve surgical outcomes.