Compromise Of Principles Research Articles

Evictionism: the only compromise solution to the abortion controversy

One of the most important philosophical debates now tearing our nation apart is the one concerning abortion. In this matter, there can be little controversy. The present paper is an attempt to patch up this matter by offering a compromise solution, that gives each side, pro-choice and pro-life, half a loaf. Moreover, it is a principled compromise, not merely adding up the two sides and dividing them equally. No cutting babies in half, here.

Abortion and the Law in the United States: From Roe to Dobbs and Beyond

This Note traces the evolution of US constitutional law from Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a right to abortion, to Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), which overturned Roe along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and returned the issue to the states. It examines the questions of constitutional interpretation raised by Dobbs. It considers practical challenges, including the patchwork of state laws, the prevalence of medical abortion, and the aggressive stance taken by both sides. Finally, it proposes elements for a principled compromise about law in the United States, which takes seriously the full humanity of the unborn and is attentive to other jurisprudentially relevant factors, including lack of support for women facing crisis pregnancies and the relationship between race and abortion.

WALTER BLOCK vs JAKUB BOZYDAR WISNIEWSKI DEBATING ABORTION: A SUMMARY

Without a doubt, one of the most controversial issues currently being debated is abortion. Several decades ago, philosopher and economist Walter Block offered a compromise of the seemingly uncompromisable problem based on libertarian principles, which he called evictionism. Evictionism is based on the theory of self-ownership and the implications that follow, which are the non-aggression principle and private property rights. It is a principled compromise between the traditional pro-life and pro-choice positions. According to evictionism, it would not be illegal for a pregnant woman to evict a fetus at any time for any reason because she is the one who owns her womb, but it would be illegal for her to kill the fetus unnecessarily once it’s viable. This means that before viability, an eviction that necessarily results in the death of the fetus would be legal. After viability, however, an eviction that unnecessarily results in the death of a fetus would be considered murder and consequently illegal. Unfortunately, though, very few people have heard of this compromise. What’s worse of those who have heard of it, even fewer have been convinced by it. Consequently, there have been several written debates between Block and his critics about their perceived problems with his proposed compromise. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed summary of one of the first main debates that Block has had on the topic.

Genuine, Principled and Tactical Compromise

<p>This essay addresses the concept of compromise. When compromise takes place between two or more parties, reciprocity must be present; that is, the concessions are mutual. Genuine compromise is based on mutual respect and on genuine concessions between the parties. First, the concept of compromise is explained. Next, a relevant distinction is made between principled and tactical compromise. A principled compromise refers to a mutual recognition by each side of the other’s rights, which leads them to make concessions to enable them to meet on a middle ground. It is genuinely made in good faith and both sides reconcile themselves to the results. To illustrate I consider the need for compromise regarding praying area for women at the Western (Wailing) Wall, considered the holiest site in Judaism. The article proceeds by considering the notion of tactical compromise that reflects temporary arrangement reached as a result of constraints related to time. Here, in fact, agents do not give up any of their aims. They do not act in good faith and do not intend to meet their counterpart on a middle ground. Instead, they simply realize that the end could not be achieved at a given point of time, and they aim to reach it stage by stage. The essential component of compromise, namely mutuality, is lacking.</p>

Video-assisted thoracoscopic left upper lobectomy and broncho-and-angioplasty for a giant central lung cancer complicated with intratumoral abscess: one case report.

A 70-year-old male patient with chest pain and high fever was diagnosed as lung squamous carcinoma T4N0M0 in the left upper lobe complicated with intratumoral lung abscess. With no improvement resulted from antibiotic treatment for 4 days, to control his infection and resect his large tumor, he received video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) left upper lung lobe resection and broncho-and angioplasty. Two-port technique was employed and the utility port was 10 cm long because the tumor's diameter (max) was 12 cm. After the first step to divide the tumor from chest wall and mediastinum, the pericardium was opened and dissection was carried out in a direction from anterior to posterior meticulously. The superior pulmonary vein was divided by a stapler and then the upper bronchus cut open. Then the pulmonary artery was blocked and then its branches were cut open. At last, angioplasty and bronchoplasty was completed by sutures. Without any accidental bleeding, the whole operative time was 350 min and bleeding volume 100 mL. After the operation, fever resolved soon and pathologic stage was pT4N2M0. The patient was discharged from the hospital 20 days after the surgery. Generally, large tumor is still challenging in VATS operation and obstructive lung infection or abscess make the operation harder. However, VATS can still be applied in these patients and provide better vision and better chances for recovery without compromise of tumor principle.

Expanding Eligibility Criteria for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

The use of mastectomy has increased in patients who are high-risk genetic carriers who need or desire mastectomy for prophylactic reasons, as well as for patients who have breast cancer and need or desire mastectomy for treatment of their cancer. Retaining the nipple and skin with a nipple-sparing mastectomy results in improved patient satisfaction as compared with traditional mastectomy, without compromise of oncologic principles. This technique has been performed in patients with small, peripherally located tumors and nonptotic breasts; in recent years, however, consideration has been given to patients with more centrally located, larger tumors, and patients undergoing radiation or with ptotic breasts with the potential for poor cosmetic outcome. As the use of nipple-sparing mastectomy increases, it is important to continually assess the eligibility of patients for this technique.

The value of life in English law: revered but not sacred?

Terms such as sanctity and inviolability have failed to provide a legally coherent or ethically sound principle upon which to determine the scope of the intrinsic value of life against extrinsic, quality‐of‐life considerations in a medical context. In their recent work, Margaret Brazier and Suzanne Ost introduce a new term, reverence for life, which they suggest may be more appropriate when attempting to navigate the murky waters of the meaning of life and the value that should be attached to it. They suggest that reverence should be utilised as an alternative that better reflects the nuances and the realities of the dilemma. This paper explores the existing difficulties before considering how the principle of reverence might provide a principled compromise over when the presumption in favour of preserving life should be rebutted.

Compromise Despite Conviction: Curbing Integrity’s Moral Dangers

Integrity looks dangerous. Passionate willpower, focused devotion and driving self-belief nestle all-too-closely to extremism, narcissism and intolerant hubris. How can integrity skirt such perils? This question opens the perennial issue of whether devout, driven devotees can guard themselves from antisocial extremes. Current proposals to inoculate integrity from moral danger hone in on integrity’s reflective side. I argue that this epistemic approach disarms integrity’s dangers only by stripping it of everything that initially made it worthwhile. Instead, I argue that integrity contains substantive moral principles serving to surgically target the dangers the trait would otherwise pose. The person of integrity avoids extremism not by questioning whether her values are right, but by recognizing that in a social world whether her values are right is not the only factor that bears on how she should act. Normatively, the proposed account allows integrity to retain its intuitive allures of willpower, direction and unified character. Descriptively, it explains the surprising capacity for principled compromise displayed by canonical figures of integrity. Ultimately, integrity empowers us to be fit for society, even as we are true to ourselves.

Rethinking Public Administration Professionalism in Nigeria

The mission statement of Nigerian public administration anchors on providing a professional public administration fit for sound public sector management. Using a qualitative methodology that focuses on descriptive analysis, this paper examines professionalism of public administration in line with the various policy and regulatory frameworks put in place to enforce professional conducts. The impact of unprofessionalism in the Country’s public administration is large scale unethical behaviors which has over the years resulted in the compromise of basic principles and values. This subverts the very essence of public administration existence in terms of providing efficient, responsible and professional service in line with sustainable public interest. The paper reflects on public administration practices, identifies some obstacles to professionalism and amongst other propositions strongly recommends for good governance in the Country. The paper contributes to current discussions on enhancing professionalism of public administration in Nigeria and elsewhere.Keywords: professionalism, profession, public administration, public sector, service delivery

Partial Bills of Rights

Constitutional rights charters are often narrow or incomplete compared to international human rights law or comparative constitutional models. Some rights charters, however, are especially narrow in both democratic and comparative terms. Incomplete or “partial” bills of rights (PBOR) of this kind often raise distinct interpretive challenges for courts. If persuasive historical explanations for the scope of such PBORs are unavailable, a court will have three broad ways to explain the absence, as well as presence, of various rights under a PBOR: it can identify an account for why protected rights are in some way special from the perspective of other constitutional norms of structures (allocation), or contract or expand the scope of relevant rights so as to minimize unprincipled gaps in judicial rights protection (contraction or expansion). In the case of interpretive contraction or expansion of this kind, there will often be a significant change in the scope of judicial rights protection compared to the aims or expectations of key constitutional drafters. This also has direct relevance for assessing the desirability of a PBOR as a potential model for deliberate constitutional borrowing or as a potentially principled compromise between models of pure legislative and judicial supremacy. The Article makes these arguments drawing on case studies from Australia, Canada, Israel, India, New Zealand, and the United States, but suggests that the patterns thereby identified may apply more broadly. It thus explores the implications of these insights for debates over weak- versus strong-form judicial review, but also for processes of democratic constitutional design more generally.

Cervical Carcinoma: Current Role of Laparoscopy

This review aims to analyse and describe the current role of laparoscopy in the treatment of cervical cancer. Laparoscopy has become an important tool in gynaecological oncology. Its general advantages in comparison with open surgery apply to oncological patients as much as they do to benign conditions. Data from retrospective and case-control studies have proven that treatment of early cervical carcinoma is successfully feasible by means of minimally invasive surgery with no compromise of oncological principles nor radicality. Thus, laparoscopy has entered guideline recommendations as an alternative to open procedures when operative therapy is indicated. Nevertheless, laparoscopic radical hysterectomy, as well as lymphadenectomy, remain demanding and require surgeons experienced in both operative oncology and endoscopy.

Voices of discontent? Conscience, compromise, and assisted dying.

If some form of assisted dying is to be legalised, we are likely to hear voices of discontent, not least from the medical profession and some of its members, who might be expected to provide the service. The profession generally favours a position of opposition, premised on an ethic of 'caring not killing', which might be said to convey its 'professional conscience'. There will, of course, also be individual conscientious objectors. In this article, we initially explore the nature and sources of conscience and we argue that conscience does merit respect. We also recognise that professionals, qua professionals, are bound to serve their patients, some of whom will want (and may be entitled to) that which their doctors do not wish to provide. Reflecting on the different values in issue, we suggest that there is a case for principled compromise which would afford professionals a limited right to conscientiously object, while also protecting patients. We then relate these reflections to assisted dying specifically. In the absence of any definitive steer from the purported integrity of medicine, we suspect that the profession could adopt a neutral stance on this divisive issue. We nevertheless anticipate individual objections if the law does move to embrace assisted dying, and we argue that such objections should be respected, according to the terms of the compromise model we defend.

On Sterba’s Argument from Rationality to Morality

James Sterba argues for morality as a principled compromise between self-regarding and other-regarding reasons (Morality as Compromise) and that either egoists or altruists, who always give overriding weight to self-regarding and other-reasons, respectively, can be shown to beg the question against morality. He concludes that moral conduct is “rationally required.” Sterba’s dialectic assumes that both egoists and altruists accept that both self-regarding and other-regarding considerations are genuine pro tanto reasons, but then hold that their respective reasons always outweigh. Against this, I argue that egoists would most plausibly deny that non-self-regarding considerations have even pro tanto weight. I argue, also, that even if both sides grant the pro tanto weight of their opponent’s reasons, Sterba is mistaken in holding that only Morality as Compromise provides a “non-question-begging resolution” of what it is rational to do when self-regarding and other-regarding reasons conflict, since it might be that it is rational to act on either. It might be that the weightiest self-regarding and the weightiest other-regarding reasons in the case are both sufficient reasons for acting without either being conclusive. The essay ends with a sketch of arguments against egoism that I take to be more plausible than Sterba’s. As I have argued elsewhere, what makes an agent’s own welfare or her own concerns or interests normative for her simultaneously makes them normative for others as well.

Bringing Back the States: A Congressional Perspective on the Fall of Slavery in America

In the aftermath of America's Civil War, national lawmakers who chronicled the fall of slavery described the North as a terrain of states whose representatives assembled in Congress, as evidenced in Henry Wilson's The Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (1872–77) and Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States (1868–70). Beginning in the early 1900s, scholars who helped establish the field of American constitutional history redescribed the national government as the voice of the Northern people and the foe of the states, as evidenced in Henry Wilson's The Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (1872–1877) and Alexander Stephens's A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States (1868–1870), a first generation of scholars writing during the Progressive Era redescribed the national government as the voice of the Northern people and the foe of the states, as evidenced in William A. Dunning's Essays on the Civil War and Reconstruction (1898), John W. Burgess's The Civil War and the Constitution (1901–1906), and James G. Randall's Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (1926). Although a second generation of scholars uncovered traces of the lawmakers' perspective of states, new efforts in the wake of the civil rights movement to understand the internal workings of political parties and the contributions of ordinary Americans kept the study of national lawmakers and their states on the margins of inquiry, as evidenced in leading revisionist histories of Reconstruction, including Harold Hyman's A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution (1973), Michael Les Benedict's A Compromise of Principle: Congressional Republicans and Reconstruction, 1863–1869 (1974a), and Eric Foner's Reconstruction: An Unfinished Revolution (1988). Today, the terrain of Northern states remains in the backdrop, as illustrated in recent studies featuring the wartime national government, including James Oakes's Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861–1865 (2012) and Mark E. Neely, Jr.'s Lincoln and the Triumph of the Nation: Constitutional Conflict in the American Civil War (2011), as well as studies of the mechanisms of constitutional change during Reconstruction, including relevant sections of Bruce Ackerman's We the People II: Transformations (1998) and Akhil Reed Amar's America's Constitution: A Biography (2005). This review essay argues that incorporating the states back into this century‐old framework will open new lines of inquiry and provide a more complete account of federalism's role in the fall of slavery. In particular, a return to the archives suggests that in the uncertain context of mid‐nineteenth‐century America, slavery's leading opponents in Congress saw the Constitution's federal logic not simply as an obstacle, but as a crucial tool with which to mobilize collective action and accommodate wartime opposition at a time when no one could say for sure what would remain of the United States.

On the possibility of principled moral compromise

Simon May has argued that the notion of a principled compromise is incoherent. Reasons to compromise are always in his view strategic: though we think that the position we defend is still the right one, we compromise on this view in order to avoid the undesirable consequences that might flow from not compromising. I argue against May that there are indeed often principled reasons to compromise, and that these reasons are in fact multiple. First, compromises evince respect for persons that we have reason to think of as our epistemic peers, and acknowledgement of our own finitudes as moral reasoners. Second, compromises are often made morally necessary by the shortfalls that unavoidably separate democratic institutions from democratic ideals. Third, compromises express a desirable form of democratic community. And fourth, compromises are often justified from a consequentialist point of view, in that they allow for the realization of values that would not be realized as well by the failure to compromise.

Splitting the Difference? Principled Compromise and Assisted Dying

Compromise on moral matters attracts ambivalent reactions, since it seems at once laudable and deplorable. When a hotly-contested phenomenon like assisted dying is debated, all-or-nothing positions tend to be advanced, with little thought given to the desirability of, or prospects for, compromise. In response to recent articles by Søren Holm and Alex Mullock, in this article I argue that principled compromise can be encouraged even in relation to this phenomenon, provided that certain conditions are present (which I suggest they are). In order to qualify as appropriately principled, the ensuing negotiations require disputants to observe three constraints: they should be suitably reflective, reliable and respectful in their dealings with one another. The product that will result from such a process will also need to split the difference between the warring parties. In assisted dying, I argue that a reduced offence of 'compassionate killing' can achieve this. I acknowledge, however, that splitting the difference can induce splitting headaches, as there remain certain questions to be answered. Hopefully, however, sufficient work is done here to defend attempts to occupy the middle ground, whether these relate to assisted dying specifically or to other disputed moral matters.

Minimally Invasive Resection of Gastric Gists: A Laparo-endoscopic Solution

Although the feasibility of minimally invasive resections of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has been established, many aspects of this approach are still debated: in different scientific papers, gastroscopy during laparoscopy seems to be an effective technique for successful intraoperative tumor identification. 9 patients were referred to our institution for gastric GISTs. Preoperative work-up for all patients included medical history, standard blood tests, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with endoscopic ultrasound examination and computed tomography scan. One of these patients underwent open surgery for acutely presentation (haemorrhage), and the other 8 underwent laparoscopic-endoscopic “rendez-vous” resection. The average operative time was 134.1 ± 59.3 min. The mean estimated blood loss was less than 62 ml (range, 10-174 ml). There were no episodes of tumor rupture or spillage, no major intraoperative complications and a conversion rate of 25%. At a mean follow-up of 25 months (range, 3-41) all patients are alive and disease free. There were no local recurrences. Given these findings, a minimally invasive approach should be the preferred surgical treatment in patients with small and medium-sized gastric GIST; moreover a selective approach to laparoscopic resection based on tumor location allows safe resection of these tumors with low morbidity and no compromise of oncologic principles.

The Crouching Lion's Fate: Slave Politics and Conservative Unionism in Kentucky

The Crouching Lion's Fate:Slave Politics and Conservative Unionism in Kentucky Aaron Astor (bio) In a letter to the Cincinnati Commercial five years after the Civil War, a Kentuckian described the vital role his native state played in the Union: "Right here, in the very center of the Mississippi Valley, lying like a crouching lion, stretched east and west, is Kentucky, the thoroughfare of the continent."1 The metaphoric crouching lion represented more than just a geographic fulcrum between east and west, and north and south. It also symbolized the political heart of the Union, with its wise and strong tradition of principled compromise. But by 1870, Kentucky had become thoroughly Confederate, both in its partisan habits and its cultural hue. As such, the metaphoric lion stands as a marker of transformation for a state that once prided itself on its spirit of conservative, proslavery Unionism and political moderation but that had become the vanguard of the post-Reconstruction South. How could a state that fought so hard to preserve the Federal Union embrace a decidedly Confederate identity so soon after the end of the war? In his classic Civil War and Readjustment in Kentucky, E. Merton Coulter aptly characterized the conservative Unionism of the state during the first year of war as a product of social, economic, demographic, and political ties between Kentuckians and their neighbors [End Page 293] in all directions. But Coulter succumbed to the very myth he described—Kentucky's "secession after the war"—as he located the emerging southern identity of Kentucky with the overbearing Federal military presence in the state in the latter years of the war.2 The narrative of the destruction of states' rights made for good propaganda in the 1920s "Tragic Era" school of Reconstruction historiography, but it completely missed the real driver of change within the state: the slaves and their insistence upon casting a war of Union as a war of emancipation, regardless of what their conservative Unionist masters may have believed. By running to Union lines during the military campaign of 1862 and then enlisting en masse in the Federal army in 1864, the slaves subverted the conservative Unionist paradigm and fundamentally altered the political culture of the state. Recent scholarship on post-Civil War Kentucky recognizes the centrality of emancipation—driven primarily by armed slaves—in the creation of a southern identity. Anne Marshall's Creating a Confederate Kentucky reveals the ideological weakness among the majority of Kentucky Unionist veterans and the powerful Confederate narrative that privileged the Confederate heritage of the state over its Unionist past.3 This ideological frailty manifested itself in the virtual abandonment of the memorial field to Confederates, especially as black Kentucky veterans cast the Union cause in emancipationist terms that most white Kentucky Unionists found repugnant. On the ground level, the result was an epidemic of racial violence, mostly targeting black soldiers and their families. J. Michael Rhyne refers to the emergence of Regulator violence in the immediate postwar years as a "rehearsal for redemption," especially as the ex-Confederate states would apply the same methods of terrorism to undermine the power of Radical Republicans.4 Historians today recognize that the [End Page 294] Kentucky regional orientation and identity shifted after the Civil War and that the emancipation of the 225,000 Kentucky slaves played a central role in that transformation. But this remarkable shift begs even deeper questions about the nature of conservative Unionism itself. Why did a state with such a strong tradition of compromise and relative moderation on the politics of slavery take such a militant turn over emancipation? What does this reveal about the political culture of conservative, proslavery Unionism prior to the war? And to what extent did forces inside the state undermine the conservative Unionist consensus? The answer to these questions must be located amidst the slave population itself. After all, the challenge to the conservative Unionist order did not emerge out of thin air amidst a large-scale civil war. And despite the contention from outraged slaveholders, slaves did not need Yankee invaders to inform them that freedom was both attractive and attainable. In the form of continual slave resistance, this rebellious spirit...

Internal Conflict, the International Community and the Promotion of Principled Compromise

AbstractThe international community has many reasons to promote compromise between the parties to internal conflicts. Yet to do so effectively, the international community ought to treat principled rather than strategic compromise as its default position. To make this case, we begin by defining ‘compromise’ and by distinguishing principled from strategic compromise. We then defend the idea of principled compromise against the realist who thinks that that idea is implausible. We conclude by offering a number of practical reasons why principled compromise ought to be preferred. Our argument does not deny that strategic compromise will sometimes be the only option. But, unlike principled compromise, strategic compromise does not provide the parties with any particular reason to look beyond their own particular concerns or to give any ground beyond what is absolutely necessary.

Nothing's Settled

If That Ever Happens to Me: Making Life and Death Decisions after Terri Schiavo. By Lois Shepherd. The University of North Carolina Press, 2009. 192 pages. Hardcover. $28.00 Lois Shepherd's book If That Ever Happens to Me: Making Life and Death Decisions after Terri Schiavo demonstrates a great appreciation for the unresolved conflicts over end-of-life care revealed by the Schiavo case. Through detailed analysis, this book debunks the claim that the controversy defied an established concerning the appropriateness of withdrawing medically administered nutrition and hydration. Arguments that settled legal standards provided a stalwart framework for that failed to appreciate the variations and limitations of those norms. Shepherd challenges the notion that we professionals--doctors, lawyers, judges, and bioethicists--had authoritatively resolved the moral and social significance of withdrawal of nutrition and hydration. In fact, law is where we have kept our conflicts alive. The controversy over Terri Schiavo's care demonstrated the startling capacity of the legal system to be used to extend disputes beyond reasonable bounds. Observed more closely, the case shows how our laws have embedded unresolved tensions within the framework for surrogate decision-making relating to end-of-life care. Legal standards for surrogate decision-making in the United States require a highly individualized inquiry into a particular patient's desires in anticipated and unanticipated medical situations as she may or may not have communicated them to others. Much of the judicial crafting around life-sustaining treatment decisions has focused on establishing a particular evidentiary standard for determining the particular patient's choice. This approach reflects respect for individual liberty in intimate decisions, as well as deference to America's moral and religious pluralism. In focusing on variation among individuals and in failing to establish a substantive rather than process norm for withdrawing treatment, however, the current legal framework ensures continuing battles over the morality of specific decisions and clashes over significant facts in particular cases. Most states still have discrete threads rather than a full fabric of law that is applicable to end-of-life decision-making. States often have only one or two appellate cases addressing such issues, and the rulings in them are usually confined to the facts of the case before the court or to closely related situations that the court can imagine and address in dicta. And much of existing case law involves persons in a permanent vegetative state, relying on reasoning stemming from the condition's irreversibility and the patient's absence of awareness--so much so, in fact, that some states have what amounts to PVS law, rather than case law on life-sustaining treatment generally. Furthermore, living will and durable power of attorney statutes in many states reflect the compromise of principles that occurs in the legislative process and refer to particular medical conditions, like terminal illness or irreversible coma, and to nutrition and hydration as distinct from other treatment. Legal academics meld general common law principles, constitutional theory, and various state laws into a consensus on legal standards. Practicing attorneys, however, must focus on particular decisions for particular patients in a particular state and in many circumstances can't tell their clients with certainty what the law is. This indeterminacy can be a problem in situations where interpersonal conflict persists and escalates, but it may not be particularly concerning in most cases. When treatment decisions proceed without conflict, law tends to stay in the background. For example, the high standard for clear and convincing evidence established by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health does not make it impossible for surrogates to decide to withdraw nutrition and hydration in Missouri, even where evidence of the patient's choice fails to meet the standard. …