Marx and the Bible: José Miranda’s Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression

This paper critically examines the liberation theology of José Porfirio Miranda, as expressed in his Marx and the Bible (1971), with a focus on the central idea (and subtitle) of this work: the “Critique of the Philosophy of Oppression.” Miranda’s critique is examined via certain key tropes such as “power,” “justice,” and “freedom,” both in the context of late twentieth-century Latin American society, and in the state of the “post-Christian” and “post-Marxist” world more generally, vis-à-vis contemporary liberal justice theory. Close examination of the potentialities, paradoxes and subtle evasions in Miranda’s critique leads not to the conclusion that Miranda does not go far enough in his application of Christian principles to justice theory.

The assessment of cognition in visually impaired older adults

Background: visual and cognitive impairments are common in later life. Yet there are very few cognitive screening tests for the visually impaired. Objective: to screen for cognitive impairment in the visually impaired. Methods: case-control study including 150 elderly participants with visual impairment (n = 74) and a control group without visual impairment (n = 76) using vision-independent cognitive tests and cognitive screening tests (MMSE and clock drawing tests (CDT)) which are in part vision dependent. Results: the scoring of the two groups did not differ in the vision-independent cognitive tests. Visually impaired patients performed poorer than controls in the vision-dependent items of the MMSE (T = 7.3; df: 148; P < 0.001) and in CDT (T = 3.1; df: 145; P = 0.003). No group difference was found when vision-independent items were added to MMSE and CDT. The test score gain by the use of vision-independent items correlated with the severity of visual impairment (P < 0.002). Conclusion: visually impaired patients benefit from cognitive tests, which do not rely on vision. The more visually impaired the greater the benefit.

Physicians' philosophy of care: a comparison of complementary and conventional medicine

BACKGROUND: This project is part of an evaluation of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) aimed at providing a scientific basis for the Swiss Government to include 5 CAM methods in basic health coverage: anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to explore the philosophy of care (convictions and values, priorities in medical activity, motivation for CAM, criteria for the practice of CAM, limits of the used methods) of conventional and CAM general practitioners (GPs) and to determine differences between both groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 623 GPs who provide complementary or conventional primary care. A mailed questionnaire with open-ended questions focusing on the philosophy of care was used for data collection. An appropriate methodology using a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches was developed. RESULTS: Significant differences between both groups include philosophy of care (holistic versus positivistic approaches), motivation for CAM (intrinsic versus extrinsic) and priorities in medical activity. Both groups seem to be aware of limitations of the therapeutic methods used. The study reveals that conventional physicians are also using complementary medicine. DISCUSSION: Our study provides a wealth of data documenting several aspects of physicians' philosophy of care as well as differences and similarities between conventional and complementary care. Implications of the study with regard to quality of care as well as ethical and health policy issues should be investigated further.