Accounts of debates in the House of Commons, March– April 1731, supplementary to the diary of the first earl of Egmont

John Perceval (1685–1748), 1st Viscount Perceval and (from 1733) 1st Earl of Egmont, was an assiduous recorder of his own life and times. His diaries, published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission from manuscripts in the British Library, are the best source for parliamentary debates at Westminster in the 1730s. For the years 1730-1733, when Perceval sat in the Commons (as an Irish peer) they are remarkably full. His practice seems to have been to prepare two versions (presumably on the basis of notes taken in the House), the first attributing speeches to individuals, and the second, entered up in the diary, which listed speakers and summarized all arguments on each side. His letterbooks for 1731 contain accounts of five debates that embody his first editing process, with speeches attributed to individuals. They were sent to an Irish correspondent, Marmaduke Coghill, and largely omitted from the diary because Perceval had already transcribed them elsewhere. They are new to historians and cast light on two main issues: the unsuccessful attempts by Perceval and the ‘Irish lobby’ to persuade the British parliament to settle the Irish woollen trade, a question bedevilling Anglo-Irish relations in this period; and an attempt by the opposition to stir up anger against perceived Spanish aggression against Gibraltar. One of the most interesting features is the insight afforded into the Commons performances of Sir Robert Walpole: his management of debates, his own style of speaking, and his sharp exchanges with opponents like William Pulteney.

Reaching common ground:A patient-family-based conceptual framework of quality EOL care

Improvement in the quality of end-of-life (EOL) care is a priority health care issue since serious deficiencies in quality of care have been reported across care settings. Increasing pressure is now focused on Canadian health care organizations to be accountable for the quality of palliative and EOL care delivered. Numerous domains of quality EOL care upon which to create accountability frameworks are now published, with some derived from the patient/family perspective. There is a need to reach common ground on the domains of quality EOL care valued by patients and families in order to develop consistent performance measures and set priorities for health care improvement. This paper describes a meta-synthesis study to develop a common conceptual framework of quality EOL care integrating attributes of quality valued by patients and their families. © 2005 Centre for Bioethics, IRCM.

Evaluation of quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma

PURPOSE: To investigate the quality of life and priorities of patients with glaucoma.

METHODS: Patients diagnosed with glaucoma and no other ocular comorbidity were consecutively recruited. Clinical information was collected. Participants were asked to complete three questionnaires: EuroQuol (EQ-5D), time tradeoff (TTO), and choice-based conjoint analysis. The latter used five-attribute outcomes: (1) reading and seeing detail, (2) peripheral vision, (3) darkness and glare, (4) household chores, and (5) outdoor mobility. Visual field loss was estimated by using binocular integrated visual fields (IVFs).

RESULTS: Of 84 patients invited to participate, 72 were enrolled in the study. The conjoint utilities showed that the two main priorities were "reading and seeing detail" and "outdoor mobility." This rank order was stable across all segmentations of the data by demographic or visual state. However, the relative emphasis of these priorities changed with increasing visual field loss, with concerns for central vision increasing, whereas those for outdoor mobility decreased. Two subgroups of patients with differing priorities on the two main attributes were identified. Only 17% of patients (those with poorer visual acuity) were prepared to consider TTO. A principal component analysis revealed relatively independent components (i.e., low correlations) between the three different methodologies for assessing quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of quality of life using different methodologies have been shown to produce different outcomes with low intercorrelations between them. Only a minority of patients were prepared to trade time for a return to normal vision. Conjoint analysis showed two subgroups with different priorities. Severity of glaucoma influenced the relative importance of priorities.

A Matter of Life and Death; The House of Osiris; The High Window; The Doctors

A series of individual poems selected for a special contemporary Irish edition of the American journal Atlanta Review.