Sarah Kane: Cool Britannia's reluctant feminist

Aleks Sierz in his important survey of mid 1990s drama has identified the plays of Sarah Kane as exemplars of what he terms ‘In-Yer Face’ theatre. Sierz argues that Kane and her contemporaries such as Mark Ravenhill and Judy Upton represent a break with the ideological concerns of the previous generation of playwrights such as Doug Lucie and Stephen Lowe, whose work was shaped through recognizable political concerns, often in direct opposition to Thatcherism. In contrast Sarah Kane and her generation have frequently been seen as literary embodiments of ‘Thatcher’s Children’, whereby following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the inertia of the Major years, their drama eschews a recognizable political position, and seems more preoccupied with the plight of individuals cut adrift from society. In the case of Sarah Kane her frequently quoted statement, ‘I have no responsibility as a woman writer because I don’t believe there’s such a thing’, has compounded this perception. Moreover, its dogmatism also echoes the infamous comments attributed to Mrs Thatcher regarding the role of the individual to society. However, this article seeks to reassess Kane’s position as a woman writer and will argue that her drama is positioned somewhere between the female playwrights who emerged after 1979 such as Sarah Daniels, Timberlake Wertenbaker and Clare McIntyre, whose drama was distinguished by overtly feminist concerns, and its subsequent breakdown, best exemplified by the brief cultural moment associated with the newly elected Blair government known as ‘Cool Britannia’. Drawing on a variety of sources, including Kane’s unpublished monologues, written while she was a student just after Mrs Thatcher left office, this paper will argue that far from being an exponent of post-feminism, Kane’s drama frequently revisits and is influenced by the generation of dramatists whose work was forged out the sharp ideological positions that characterized the 1980s and a direct consequence of Thatcherism.

Comprendre l'opposition parlementaire: le Parlement de Paris face aux réformes de Silhouette (1759)

The aim of this article is to reconsider the fiscal interpretation of opposition parlementaire to government policy. First, it suggests that the meaning of the remonstrances is blurred by specific constraints which make it very difficult to interpret these texts. Second, it analyses a variety of documents relating to Silhouette’s fiscal projects (1759) and shows that the real objective of the Parlement of Paris, which was never mentioned in its remonstrances, was to finance the Seven Years’ War by issuing paper-money. This reading reveals the influence of the British model of State finance, especially on the critical issue of credit, on both ministers and magistrates. In spite of this common reference, the government and the Parlement of Paris diverged in their reading of the fiscal crisis, and the political culture of the monarchy prevented the formation of a workable consensus.

A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention. Methods: In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to general practices, patients, pharmacists, researchers, and statisticians. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; β blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-eff ectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299. Findings: 72 general practices with a combined list size of 480 942 patients were randomised. At 6 months’ follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0∙58, 95% CI 0∙38–0∙89); a β blocker if they had asthma (0∙73, 0∙58–0∙91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0∙51, 0∙34–0∙78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost eff ective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months. Interpretation: The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records. Funding: Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.