text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/The power of Christianity in modern society

We had a serious problem with uploading comments and contribution and we just realized that all the comments and chats we posted in the discussion page and the book were not showing. Sorry for this.
=The Summary of Zoom Call= Apart from the zoom calls, we use Whatsapp group calls to meet regularly. (for the brief discussion)

 * 13:00-14:00 GMT November 20 2020

-Our main topic was to look for a theme that could be applied to multiple disciplines, but above all it was interconnected with the disciplines we are dealing with Sieun proposed beauty: "Beauty (standard): economic approach (eg. Golden section: apple logo), aesthetic approach, neurological approach (eg. Biological origins), sociological approach (eg. Social media)" I proposed the influence of Christianity in modern society, and after feedback from Sieun and Victor we found it the most appropriate, because doing research we concluded that the interconnections in this concept between disciplines were clearer.

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC))

Reading several articles we concluded that gender ecology and medicine were the disciplines that could be more suitable:
 * 10:00-11:30 GMT November 22 2020

• Influence of Christianity in the development of human rights: https://www.academia.edu/36331646/Influence_of_Christianity_on_the_Development_of_Human_Rights?source=news_feed_share

• The Role of Christianity in Enhancing Gender Equality in African Society: https://www.academia.edu/17832055/The_Role_of_Christianity_in_Enhancing_Gender_Equality_in_African_Society?source=news_feed_share

• Environmental Mobilization: Pope Francis' Encyclical: https://www.academia.edu/31950900/Environmental_Mobilization_Pope_Francis_Encyclical?source=swp_share

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)) Here we discussed how to stay as synchronized as possible when they went to write our paragraphs. the idea is to have three paragraphs of 3 different disciplines but which are linked together. So we opened Google drive and tried to write down paragraphs to practice.
 * 09:00-10:00 GMT November 24 2020

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)) We Discussed how we are going to divide the work
 * 08:30-9:30 GMT December 03 2020

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)) We compare to give advice to each other, so as to correct and improve our wikibook.
 * 9:00-10:00 GMT December 06 2020

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)) Today is the last day so we finalize the wikibook, remove the small errors and read it aloud to understand if there are mistakes
 * 10:00-11:30 GMT December 14 2020

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC))

This is the last zoom call we are finalizing our work and we successes to match the 1200 words limit which wasn't easy because we wanted to write more in our different parties. Very good work from all the members of the group in a happy and professional atmosphere from the beginning until the end of the project.

(Vbjafar (discuss • contribs)) 16:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

-All members present-

Suggested Articles Useful to get more idea
-Influence of christianity in europe https://www.academia.edu/4198146/Influence_Of_Christianity_In_Europe_A_retrospective_since_the_eleventh_century_to_the_Present?source=news_feed_share

- Christianity Today  (https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1tm7gnj.41)

- Faith in African Lived Christianity: Bridging Anthropological and Theological Perspectives (BOOK) CHAPTER 2: World Christianity and the Reorganization of Disciplines: On the Emerging Dialogue between Anthropology and Theology (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1163/j.ctvrxk46s.6)

I found particularly interesting the first article that gave me a better understanding of the dynamics of power that is used; obviously, it is not applied to our subjects, but the model is very useful for understanding the dynamics applied.

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC))

I also found these resources are very helpful to expand my understanding of power dynamics between Christianity and society. Some of them are available in the UCL library: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/e-resources-ucl

Ross, E.1955. Impact of Christianity in Africa. Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science 298, 161-169. Contemporary Africa trends and Issues.

Woodhead, Linda (2004). An Introduction to Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hinkley AE. Christianity, the culture wars, and bioethics: Current debates and controversies in the Christian approach to bioethics. Christ Bioeth. 2006;12(3):229–35.

Nkomazana, F. 1998. Livingstone's ideas of Christianity, commerce and civilization. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies 12(1&2), 44-57.

Gideon Khabela, M. (1989). “The Socio-Cultural Dynamics of the Struggle for Liberation and the Coherence of Black Faith.” Journal of Black Theology in South Africa, 3 (1): 23-38.

(uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

For the Medicine aspect, I found these resources are relevant to the discussion of our topic. The topic on bioethics is indeed too broad to include in the essay. However, these resources aided in a better comprehension of the topic and how religious beliefs shaped bioethics to what it is now.

Tao, Julia Lai Po-Wah. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on the (Im)Possibility of Global Bioethics. Dordrecht; London: Springer, 2011.

Beckford, J. A. 1989. Religion and advanced industrial society. London: Unwin H

Igboin BO. Spirituality and medical practice: a Christian perspective. Indian J Med Ethics. 2015;12(4):199–206.

Messer, Neil. Flourishing: Health, Disease, and Bioethics in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2013. Hoffmann, J. P., and A. S. Miller. 1997. Social and political attitudes among religious groups: Convergence and divergence over time. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion

Kilner, John Frederic, C. Christopher Hook, and Diane B. Uustal, eds. Cutting-Edge Bioethics: A Christian Exploration of Technologies and Trends. A Horizon in bioethics series book. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002

Smith, Janet E, and Christopher Robert Kaczor. Life Issues, Medical Choices: Questions and Answers for Catholics, 2016.*

Chattopadhyay S, De Vries R. Bioethical concerns are global, bioethics is Western. Eubios J Asian Int Bioeth. 2008;18(4):106–9.

(uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 17:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC))

The Key Point of Marking Rubric
Deadline: 17:00 GMT, 14th December 2020

Plagiarism: less than 5% similarity, check your essay through Grammarly before submission.

Word count: 1200 words (except for the references & visuals)

Content (50%): Identify tension between disciplines; an excellent discussion of an issue is an example of interdisciplinary work.

Writing (10%): error-free sentences with appropriate word choices/ clarify the definition of terminology

Research and referencing (10%): using a reliable and high-quality source (avoid Wikipedia or encyclopedia except for natural science research)

Contribution (30%): a regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant contribution, courteous and professional tone throughout

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Deadline
Official Deadline: 17:00 GMT, 14th December 2020

Internal Deadline: 17:00 GMT, 10th December 2020

Next official meeting (zoom calls): 14th December 2020

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The Outline
Notes: Here we are trying to structure our work:

The Power of Christianity in modern society

This Wikibook is going to explore the issue of power (direct or indirect) through the disciplines of medicine, gender studies and ecology.

Disciplines considered for now and Structure of the chapter

• Medicine : ideally, we could study the influence of Christianity on the medical branch of bioethics, especially in regard to euthanasia. Here we can find some ideas: euthanasia-  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3712123?seq=1

•Gender Studies : Gender debates have been highly influenced by the Christian religion. The pope has recently revised same-sex marriage issues, introducing a new vision of gender. https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2020/10/21/pope-francis-endorses-civil-unions-for-same-sex-couples/  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/21/world/europe/pope-francis-same-sex-civil-unions.html

•Ecology : study the last papal encyclical about the environment, to see how power is applied.

George's advice

Don't talk about power in relation to the topic you are using, use the topic as a tool to describe the power dynamic, because the important thing is to show the interdisciplinary approach. Pay attention in not going out from the real objective which is describing the power dynamics, remember that it's not describing the topic but how the issue you choose is applied.

Tools we can use to research :

Jstor,academia.edu, Wikipedia, Stanford encyclopedia, royal society encyclopedia,2019/2020 Wikibooks, and journal articles.

Planning strategy

Before we start writing, we will discuss the articles we read; then we will jot down different ideas to start building the right mindset for the wiki book chapter. Discussion, confrontations and collaboration will be our aim to start building our wiki book.

We should make it as real as possible as if it were face to face. We plan to schedule many zoom meetings to discuss new ideas, each time we add something to the chapter we will try to do it in a zoom meeting so that the teamwork becomes as efficient as possible, if we have a question or want to ask for advice, we will be able to do it immediately.

Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for Overall Structure
For the medicine part, I think it would be a good idea to include abortion as another topic as it shares a similar concern with euthanasia. Moreover, the topic will explore how Christianity and medicine worked hand in hand in the development of bioethics throughout medical history.

The impact of Christianity on the medical branch of bioethics

1. The Definition of Bioethics

2. Chronological Analysis of Christianity Influence on Bioethics

3. Bioethics In Practice: Euthanasia and Abortion

4. Conclusion: Prospective of bioethics vis-a-vis Christianity

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 15:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Sieun that's great, I didn't want to include abortion because I thought that 2 arguments would be too much for a paragraph, but if you find the way to include it great. However, when you say "Moreover, the topic will explore how Christianity and medicine worked hand in hand in the development of bioethics throughout medical history." My suggestion here is that you should use the topic just as the structure were we build in. Therefore where we should concentrate on is how the issue is applied. for example: What kind of power dynamic can you observe? How does the influence of Christianity exercise power about euthanasia in Italy? (where is not permitted)

Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sieun and think it could be interesting and useful to implement abortion in your paragraph. However, 300 words is definitely too short to widely approach such a vast topic, and it won't be beneficial for your work if you don't focus on one subject. Therefore, you may be right to leave this more mainstream topic and direct your research on euthanasia.

(Vbjafar (discuss • contribs)) 19:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, power dynamics will be discussed in a subtle way with the specific case in the Netherlands and the Caribbean. In terms of abortion included in the discussion, the intention is to use it to showcase the interplay of power dynamics between Christianity (religion) and bioethics, which is related to political inclinations in a society. Thus, discussions would still focus on the influence of Christianity on bioethics. By the way, I would recommend you to use a username instead of a real name to maintain anonymity.

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

For the part on gender studies, I started with an introduction on the history of the notion of 'gender' and therefore 'gender studies'. I also introduced Christianity in order to show very briefly the link between the two notions before starting the main paragraph. After my research, I decided to devote my paragraph to the very actual gender debate about same-sex unions. My last paragraph simply conclude on the important power of Christianity on gender questions.

(Vbjafar (discuss • contribs)) 18:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Gender Studies
Victor you should add some reference, the refrences give reliability to what we write. If you need some help just ask

(Plinio the elder (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC))

1. The overall flow of the idea is logical and the topic is intriguing to me! However, I can see some grammatical errors: century >> centuries, exercise >> has exercised

2. Sentence A and B can be combined focusing on how gender studies came to be through the emergence of debates on varied gender perspectives. I think it would be better to make a clear cut correlation to make the ideas clearer to the reader.

Sentence A: In the 20th and 21st century, the awareness within our society that some dominant ideas about gender perspectives could be disputed helped the emergence of certain debates.

Sentence B: With these debates came the creation of the notion and discipline of gender studies.

3. As a rule of thumb, Acronym can only be written after what it stands for has been clearly stated. This way, the reader will have a better understanding of the writer’s view. Example: LGBT, what do the letters stand for?

4. I realized that you did not put any reference. Don’t forget to put the reference before the deadline. You can double-check the format you made by using this citation machine: https://app.bibguru.com/p/0a33336f-b68c-40aa-aebc-4cc3eb2d40c6

5. I think it would be best if you can provide the link for the particular words like LGBT in order for readers to expand their understanding of concepts in your essay.

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I have taken account of your suggestions and made some changes. Don't worry about the references I just didn't had the time to put them before but now my work is finished.

(Vbjafar (discuss • contribs)) 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Ecology
Ecology is still in pending review. This feedback is based on what you sent personally.

I was really impressed by your writing style. The flow of ideas is smooth and easy to understand with a seamless structure. However, the approach is somewhat one-sided, focusing on the church side only. To provide a holistic approach, I think it would be better to include the description on how it’s been affected by power dynamics in ecology. For example, you can research more in-depth about the response of citizens or politicians regarding Pope Francis’ encyclical letter, and check the percentages of people who adhere to this approach. This will enable you to specify the power dynamics between Christianity and ecology. thank you very much

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that ‘Plinio the elder’ accidentally put his username above mine. Since this contribution (Suggestions for Ecology) was written by me (Uhmmmm), I erased your username to avoid the confusion of who wrote it.

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 20:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for Introduction
The introduction is also still in pending review. This feedback is based on what you sent personally.

1. I am a bit confused about whether the Catholic Church is representative of the body of Catholic believers. I think you mistakenly wrote the word Catholic Church, instead of the Catholic Pope?

2. I think it would be better to use the “Christian countries” rather than “countries with Christian origins” as historically, it’s really hard to point out the exact origins where the Christianity is derived from.

uhmmmm (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
GLPK/Conditional Constraints

Constraints depending on a parameter
Sometimes constraints shall only be active if a condition is met which can be expressed by a parameter.

The following is not legal GMPL:

if (flag) { s.t. c : x <= 5; } else { s.t. c : x <= 3; }

But we can model it in GMPL as follows:

/* * This model demonstrates how to let the existence of simple constraints * depend on a parameter. */

/* This flag controls if constraint c0 or contraint c1 is active */ param flag := 1;

var x;

maximize obj: x;

s.t. c0{i in {1} : flag == 0} : x <= 3; s.t. c1{i in {1} : flag == 1} : x <= 5;

solve;

display x;

end;

We can do the same for indexed conditions:

/* * This model demonstrates how to let the existence of indexed constraints * depend on a parameter. */

/* This flag controls if constraint c0 or contraint c1 is active */ param flag := 0;

set I := {1..3}; var x{I}, <= 10;

maximize obj: sum{i in I} x[i];

s.t. c0{i in I : i < 3 && flag == 0} : x[i] <= 3; s.t. c1{i in I : i > 1 && flag == 1} : x[i] <= 5;

solve;

display x;

end;

Constraints depending on a binary variable
If the relevance of constraints shall depend on a binary variable, we can use a BigM approach:

/* * This model demonstrates how to let the relevance of indexed constraints * depend on a binary variable. */

/* Big M, chosen as small as possible */ param M := 7;

set I := {1..3}; var x{I}, <= 10;

/* Binary variable controlling which constraint is active */ var y, binary;

maximize obj: sum{i in I} x[i];

s.t. c0{i in I : i < 2} : x[i] <= 3 + M * y; s.t. c1{i in I : i > 1} : x[i] <= 5 + M * (1 - y);

solve;

display x, y;

end;

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: GLPK/Conditional Constraints


text:
LMIs in Control/Discrete Time/Stability Condition for Discrete-Time TDS

This page describes an LMI for stability analysis of a discrete-time system with a time-varying delay. In particular, a delay-dependent condition is provided to test asymptotic stability of a discrete-delay system through feasibility of an LMI. The system under consideration pertains a single discrete delay, with the extent of the delay at any time bounded by some known value. Solving the LMI for different values of this bound, a limit on the delay can be attained for which the system remains asymptotically stable.

The System
The system under consideration is one of the form:

\begin{align}

x(k+1) &= Ax(k) + A_1x(k-\tau_k) & k&\in\mathbb{Z}_+, & \tau_k &\in\mathbb{N}, & 0&\leq\tau_k \leq h

\end{align} $$

In this description, $$ A $$ and $$ A_1 $$ are matrices in $$ \mathbb{R}^{n\times n} $$. The variable $$ \tau_k $$ denotes a delay in the state at discrete time $$ k $$, assuming a value no greater than some $$ h\in\mathbb{Z}_+ $$.

The Data
To determine stability of the system, the following parameters must be known:

$$ \begin{align} A&\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n} \\ A_1&\in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n} \\ h&\in\mathbb{Z}_+ \end{align} $$

The Optimization Problem
Based on the provided data, asymptotic stability can be determined by testing feasibility of the following LMI:

The LMI: Asymptotic Stability for Discrete-Time TDS

\begin{align} &\text{Find}:\\ &\qquad P, S, R, S_{12}, P_2, P_3 \in\mathbb{R}^{n\times n}\\ &\text{such that:}\\ &\qquad P>0,\quad S>0,\quad R>0,  \\ &\qquad \begin{bmatrix} \Phi_{11} & \Phi_{12} & S_{12} & R-S_{12}+P_2^T A_1 \\ * & \Phi_{22} & 0 & P_3^T A_1\\ * & * & -(S+R) & R-S_{12}^T \\ * & * & * & -2R + S_{12} + S_{12}^T \end{bmatrix}<0 \\ &\text{where:}\\ &\qquad \Phi_{11} = (A^T-I)P_2 + P_2^T(A-I) + S-R\\ &\qquad \Phi_{12} = P-P_2^T+(A^T-I)P_3 \\ &\qquad \Phi_{22} = -P_3-P_3^T + P+h^2 R \end{align}

$$

In this notation, the symbols $$ * $$ are used to indicate appropriate matrices to assure the overall matrix is symmetric.

Conclusion:
If the presented LMI is feasible, the system will be asymptotically stable for any sequence $$ \tau_k $$ of delays within the interval $$ [0,h] $$. That is, independent of the values of the delays $$ \tau_k\in[0,h] $$ at any time:

 * For any real number $$ \epsilon>0 $$, there exists a real number $$ \delta>0 $$ such that:

 * $$ \|x(0)\|<\delta \quad \Rightarrow \quad \|x(k)\|<\epsilon \qquad \forall k\in\mathbb{N} $$

 * $$ \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty} x(k)=0 $$

Obtaining a feasible point for the LMI, this result can be proven using a Lyapunov-Krasovkii functional:

\begin{align} &V(x_k)=V_P(k)+V_S(k)+V_R(k)\\ \end{align} $$

where:

\begin{align} &V_P(k)=x^T(k)Px(k),  \\ &V_S(k)=\sum_{j=k-h}^{k-1} x^T(j)Sx(j), \\ &V_R(k)=h\sum_{m=-h}^{-1}\sum_{j=k+m}^{k-1}[x(j+1)-x(j)]^T R[x(j+1)-x(j)] \\ \end{align}

$$

Implementation
An example of the implementation of this LMI in Matlab is provided on the following site:

 * https://github.com/djagt/LMI_Codes/blob/main/D_TDS_DC.m

Note that this implementation requires packages for YALMIP with solver mosek, though a different solver can also be implemented.

Related LMIs

 * TDSDC – Delay-dependent stability LMI for continuous-time TDS

 * LMI for Stability of Retarded Differential Equation with Slowly-Varying Delay – Delay-independent stability LMI for continuous-time TDS

 * Discrete Time Lyapunov Stability – Stability LMI for non-delayed discrete-time system


text:
History of video games/Platforms/Capcom Power System Changer

History
The Capcom Power System Changer was essentially an attempt by Capcom to mimic the success of the NEO•GEO home console produced by SNK.

The Capcom Power System Changer saw a limited Japanese release near the end of 1994, with a launch price of 39,800 yen. The system was on the market for a short time, and was only supported until 1995.

Compute
Games for the Capcom Power System Changer were based on CPS1 arcade boards, which are essentially self contained in cartridges.

The Capcom Power System Changer itself only includes a processor based on the Motorola 68000 clocked at 10 megahertz and a Sony CXA1645 chip to handle converting JAMMA arcade standards into home friendly IO.

Hardware
The system uses Super Famicom compatible controllers.

Games
11 games were released for the Capcom Power System Changer.

External Resources

 * Video Game Console Library - Capcom Power System Changer page.
 * Video Game Kraken - Capcom Power System Changer page.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/The power of Christianity in modern society

Introduction
Most of the countries with Christian origins have separated their secular government from the power of the institutionalized religion, contending a neutral opinion about the individual’ religious beliefs. Yet, the contemporary Catholic Church, as a representative of the body of believers throughout the world, holds a certain power especially in the field of moral consciousness, human rights and ethical behaviour. The Popes’ encyclical letters of the last decades address the themes of birth, death, life, marriage, equality and the environment. These themes have had direct or indirect impacts on various disciplines which are based on ethical discussions, especially gender studies, medicine and ecology. Pope Francis is slowly abandoning traditional anthropocentric views and reductionist approaches for the discussion of problems, allowing a form of liberal theology to better interact with interdisciplinary studies.

Bioethics in Medicine
Bioethics is an area of study dealing with the ethical connection of particular biological and medical practices, remedies, and technologies. With the advances in the knowledge of the human biological system and how it thrives, longevity is expanded nowadays. This implies that people now live longer in the midst of fatal illnesses, but the controversy stands as to how to respond to such possibilities; this leads to the emergence of bioethics as a discipline. However, one factor that inherently affects this response is the fundamental belief of Judeo-Christianity, which prohibits any act that will lead to actively or passively ending one’s life. Such activities are considered sinful and against God’s will. Therefore, bioethics-related issues such as euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, right-to-die, and abortion defy Christian principles, which plays a pivotal role in shaping people’s preference and ethical beliefs or even political perspectives in modern society

However, the extent of Christian influence on bioethics depends on the degree of religious power in politics. For instance, it is noticeable that in the European political system, where state and church are independent, liberal opinions and actions are permitted. Specifically, The Netherlands and Belgium made euthanasia and abortion legal since the state does not meddle with citizens’ personal religious convictions on these matters This is not the case for the Caribbean, where they tend to be much more conservative regarding morality, being deeply rooted in Christian views. Unlike European countries, Caribbean laws regarding bioethics, particularly in Jamaica, is often strongly influenced by religious inclinations, affecting political decision making toward bioethics.

It can be surmised that Christianity shapes people’s beliefs and preferences on bioethics related to abortion, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide. However, the impact of Christianity on bioethics in the real world depends on the political standpoint of liberalism or conservatism.

Ecology
Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato si, (2015), comes after decades of environmental discussions within the Church. If John Paul II inaugurated a debate about environmental ethics in which God’s Creation was placed at the centre of attention, Benedict XVI  asserted that there is a theological kinship between the love for God and that for the environment. According to Pope Francis, since “ecology studies the relationship between living organisms and the environment in which they develop,” its mechanism should become an interdisciplinary model for the care of the planet and its inhabitants. With Pope Francis environmental discussion takes a more global and holistic stance. In his letter, inspired by Francis of Assisi, the Pope perceives an interconnectedness among the theological, ecological, economic, political, and social crisis. “It follows,” the Pope writes “that the fragmentation of knowledge and the isolation of bits of information can actually become a form of ignorance unless they are integrated into a broader vision of reality.” In a speech, released in 2019, Francis argued about various interrelated topics: first, how the profit of maximizations of corporations lead to the exploitation of the planet and consequently to models of exclusion; second, how climate change is destructive for the planet and impacts especially the poor; third, how pollution affects health conditions and condemns future generations to pay; finally, how protecting nature restores the dignity of the excluded. In Laudato si, there is a constant interaction between natural and social systems leading to the emergence of a discipline that the pope calls social or integral ecology. With this, the pope has replaced the original anthropocentrism with a more complex point of view. The Pope’s Letter perceives the Creation as a complex system which cannot be studied with a reductionist anthropocentric approach, but only with a new interdisciplinary paradigm which is already expanding the interreligious contemporary environmental debate.

Gender Studies
Since the emergence of Christianity, it has wielded power by being an important instance of structuration in different countries. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the awareness within our society that some dominant ideas about gender perspectives could be disputed helped the emergence of certain debates. With these debates came the creation of the notion of gender studies. From that moment, people realized the tremendous power Christianity exercises on gender issues.

The example of the gay community demonstrates how Christianity influences gender studies. In fact, the Church is historically opposed to emancipation currents from the LGBT community. Furthermore, Christianity has always been affiliated with the conservative right representing a considerable part of the population, especially in Europe where right-wing governments thrive. This explains why Christianity plays a major role in shaping public opinion on gender issues. One debate currently opposing the Church with the LGBT community is same-sex civil union. The opinion and discourse of Church representatives haven't changed in decades on this question. Popes have always been against same-sex marriages and agreed with the Church teaching that holds homosexual orientation as 'objectively disordered'. However, Pope Francis doesn't follow the path of his predecessors and creates division within the Church. He publicly expressed his support for same-sex civil unions in a documentary from October 2020. Although the leader of Christianity changed his tone, the power of the Church on this gender debate stays strong because Francis' opposition remains almost absolute.

In the actual society in which the voice of minorities is increasingly heard, it is very interesting to study how Christianity remains centre to gender debates. Many communities ask for the Church's opinion to change, and despite progressive acts from the pope, his word isn't enough to make significant changes. This shows how traditional conservatism can give Christianity such an impacting power.

Conclusion
In synthesis, the most recent position of the Pope is toward a restoration of human dignity based on sustainability which is both ecological and social. Thus, the power of Christianity in the contemporary world can be especially detected in three disciplines: gender studies, medicine and ecology. Tensions within and among these disciplines are created by progressive and conservative approaches in different Christian schools. There are several levels of influence and response which are generated from the papal encyclical letters and attacked by Christian communities around the world. While Pope Francis assertions have revolutionized Christian thought opening new paradigms, conservative communities, often more strongly related to local economies and politics, resist the Pope’s methods and approaches reasserting the value of orthodox views. Such tensions might be risky for the Catholic Church inner divisions, yet Pope Francis’ attention for human rights, liberal ethics and integral ecology continue to polarize the world with an unprecedented power especially among the young generations.


text:
Talk:Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Euthanasia

Possible plan of the research

 * 1) Introduction
 * 2) Different truth within the disciplines
 * Legislative truth
 * Medical truth
 * Ethical truth
 * 1) Interdisciplinary response to euthanasia
 * 2) Conclusion

Assignment marking summary

 * “You should look to identify an example of a problem or question that has been approached from different disciplinary perspective” = we need to remember about the interdisciplinary perspective

 * “Then, you should look to identify some tension between those different disciplinary perspectives.” = The suggestion from our last meeting to find “bridges or “contrasts” was correct. After our initial research, we should discuss how to identify the “tension” between law, ethics and medicine.

Word count: 1200 words (references & image captions are not included).

Deadline: 5pm 14th December (Monday)

Content (50%):
 * “You will need to be extremely precise” ✓
 * Identify tension = “identifying where people working in one discipline fail to agree with people working in another discipline” ✓

Writing (10%):
 * short, clear sentences ✓
 * simple words and phrases ✓
 * explain specialist terminology ✓

Research and referencing (10%):
 * how to reference in Wikitext ✓
 * high-quality source ✓

Contribution (30%):
 * individual’s contribution ✓
 * regular, thoughtful, precise and relevant ✓
 * include attendance list and notes from meetings ✓

--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

 * another point that was highly recommended: include pictures, drawings or any kind of visuals to illustrate our ideas. ✓ --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Books

 * Book : Euthanasia and Law in the Netherlands. Chapter 2 : Legal Change. Chapter 3: The current Legal Situation. John Griffiths, Alex Blood, Heleen Weyers. 1998.  Amsterdam University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46mxn9 --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Papers

 * Termination of life on request and Assisted suicide act (Review Procedures) Act in practice - Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2010. Available from : http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Netherlands_Ministry_of_Justice_FAQ_Euthanasia_2010.pdf --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dutch Criminal Code. Available from : http://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/6533/2014%20seminars/Omsenie/WetboekvanStrafrecht_ENG_PV.pdf --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The euthanasia law in Belgium and the Netherlands - Deliens L, Van der Wal G. The euthanasia law in Belgium and the Netherlands [Internet]. The Lanced; 2003 [cited 2020 Nov 29]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14520-5 --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Explaining the emergence of euthanasia law in the Netherlands: how the sociology of law can help the sociology of bioethics - Weyers, H. (2006), Explaining the emergence of euthanasia law in the Netherlands: how the sociology of law can help the sociology of bioethics. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28: 802-816. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00543.x --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia in the Netherlands. From Wikipedia. Last edited 31 December 2019. Available at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia_in_the_Netherlands --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Background about Euthanasia in Netherlands. From Patients Right Council. 2013. Available at : http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Papers
--Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 11: 28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Attitudes of medical professionals toward euthanasia - James G. Anderson, David P. Caddell, Attitudes of medical professionals toward euthanasia, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 37, Issue 1,1993, Pages 105-114,ISSN 0277-9536,https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90323-V.(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027795369390323V) --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Shaw, D., 2007. The body as unwarranted life support: a new perspective on euthanasia. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(9), pp.519-521., https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/33/9/519.full.pdf 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Online Documents
--Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 *  FAQ Euthanasia 2010 : The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act in practice - Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Netherlands_Ministry_of_Justice_FAQ_Euthanasia_2010.pdf 6 December 2020

Online Research Articles
--Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia: a religious perspective - Vinod Svristarava. US National Library of Medecine National Institutes of Health, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158780/ 11 december 2020

Books
--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Book: Donnellan, C. & Smiley, S., 2005. The ethics of euthanasia / editor Craig Donnellan, Cambridge: Independence.

Papers
--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 20:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol3/iss1/6--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 22:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia: moral paradoxes - H A M J ten Have. (n.d.). Euthanasia: Moral paradoxes - H A M J ten Have, 2001. Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/026921601682554003 --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia: Historical, Ethical, and Empiric Perspectives - Emanuel EJ. Euthanasia: Historical, Ethical, and Empiric Perspectives. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(17):1890–1901. doi:10.1001/archinte.1994.00420170022003 --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia, ethics, and the Gordian Knot-McEvoy, P. (2015). Euthanasia, ethics, and the Gordian Knot: is the Hippocratic Code obsolete? The British Journal of General Practice, [online] 65(641), pp.624–625. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655711/.
 * Bernadette Spina, Ethical Justifications for Voluntary Active Euthanasia, 3 Rich. J.L. & Pub. Int. 71 (1998).

Papers

 * The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: Legal notification, control and evaluation procedures - Tinne Smets, Johan Bilsen, Joachim Cohen, Mette L. Rurup, Els De Keyser, Luc Deliens, The medical practice of euthanasia in Belgium and The Netherlands: Legal notification, control and evaluation procedures, Health Policy, Volume 90, Issues 2–3, 2009, Pages 181-187, ISSN 0168-8510, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2008.10.003. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851008002248)--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia: Why people want to die earlier - Clive Seale, Julia Addington-Hall, Euthanasia: Why people want to die earlier, Social Science & Medicine, Volume 39, Issue 5, 1994, Pages 647-654,ISSN 0277-9536, https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)90021-3. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277953694900213) --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain? - Rietjens, J.A.C., van der Maas, P.J., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B.D. et al. Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?. Bioethical Inquiry 6, 271–283 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3 --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia in the Netherlands - Wal, G., & Dillmann, R. (1994, May 21). Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Retrieved November 29, 2020, from https://www.bmj.com/content/308/6940/1346.short --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands On a Slippery Slope? - Lerner BH, Caplan AL. Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands: On a Slippery Slope? JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1640–1641. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4086 --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Euthanasia: moral paradoxes  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1191/026921601682554003--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Not to forget to mention
Quote from "Euthanasia, ethics and the Gordian Knot: is the Hippocratic Code obsolete?", British Journal of General Practice,Patrick McEnvoy (December 2015) "Making an action lawful does not automatically make it ethical." (Mc Envoy, 2015: 625)--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

13.12.2020 (zoom)
meeting notes:
 * date for our final submission: 12 PM UK time 14.12.2020
 * we need to check references
 * medical paragraph needs to be shortened and focus a little bit more on truth and how it is obtained in the discipline
 * we need to make sure that the word count is below 1200
 * the document should be pre-downloaded and checked how it looks as a PDF format
 * checking for consistency in British spelling is important
 * proofreading !!!

attendance: Qenalcu, Grammaloretoo, Arielallin1pods, London213

07.12.2020
meeting notes:
 * Grammaloretoo - references on the last day
 * Uclqena - conclusion
 * link to Wikipedia pages (if possible) --> improves communication and referencing
 * checking of references and used sources
 * discussion on whether truth should be capitalized or in quotation marks? what about euthanasia ? solution: small letter, no quotation (first sentence is an exception)
 * need to check if the text consistently uses American or British spelling - should be changed to British
 * as in the "law" part, every section should start with how truth is defined in this discipline and what does it mean to this discipline

attendance: Qenalcu, Grammaloretoo, Arielallin1pods, London213

30.11.2020 (zoom)

 * solving issues with formatting, citation, and signing
 * the idea for a new order of the perspectives was introduced: Medicine, Law & Ethics —> better flow & the previous chapters can foreshadow the next ones
 * suggested implications of our research: How society tries to construct the life of the elderly? If everyone uses euthanasia, everyone is going to use. Suffering is a part of life. The truth to suffering and death.

Suggested last part: Interdisciplinary euthanasia paradox
 * Response to medical technology
 * Emerged to give freedom to people - moral & ethical reasons
 * Now limited by law and can abuse the power
 * Does it limit the future medical advance and technology?

attendance: Qenalcu, Grammaloretoo, Arielallin1pods, London213

25.11.2020 (zoom)

 * we need to remember about images
 * before we start writing, we should fully understand the grading criteria
 * later, maybe we will be able to find links/bridges/contrast between perspectives
 * we need to remember about the issue of "truth" and how it is created/established in Euthanasia
 * we decided to narrow our research to the issue of Euthanasia in the Netherlands - the first country to legalize it

attendance: Qenalcu, Grammaloretoo, Arielallin1pods, London213

20.11.2020 (zoom)

 * Euthanasia - international law, science, ethics ( illegal vs legal)
 * we need to remember about different truths, different approaches, holistic approach

attendance: Qenalcu, Grammaloretoo, Arielallin1pods, London213

General discussions
Hi guys! I just wanted to share this useful website about the different laws on euthanasia in the Netherlands! Might be useful for you London213! http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland-background/ Hope it helps! --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you, I will definitely check it out :)--London213 (discuss • contribs) 11: 28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! This might be an interesting document for the medical part of the chapter, and might be useful for Arielallin1pods. "Clinical problems with the performance of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands" https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/docview/223932584/fulltextPDF/DA50B58CF8604591PQ/1?accountid=14511 --London213 (discuss • contribs) 13: 00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! This time a research paper that has some interesting historic background for Grammaloretoo for the introduction if you'd like! ten Have, H.A.M.J. (2001). Euthanasia: moral paradoxes. Palliative Medicine, 15(6), pp.505–511. I'm using this paper a lot for ethics and they have really interesting informations and arguments on euthanasia in the Netherlands! Hope it helps!--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you! I will take a look. Also, I have found some sources that can be useful for ethics, medicine and law. Some of them introduce an interdisciplinary point of view! For example, how the law helps sociology and bioethics or how empirical data affects ethics! --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! I found a question/ answer document about some aspects about euthanasia in Netherlands, and thought it was interesting, if you guys want to check it out ! http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Netherlands_Ministry_of_Justice_FAQ_Euthanasia_2010.pdf --London213 (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks I will take a look at it before finalising my paragraph! --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! I just re-read the paragraph on law. I think that maybe we could try to link it more to the "truth theme" as we saw from the last seminar that the best wiki-chapters from last year were the ones that were clear and straight to the facts! Tell me what you think! I will also format my part of the project so that we can discuss it the next time we meet!--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I can definitely rework on it ! :) --London213 (discuss • contribs) 15: 39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I found a good paradox we could talk about in the interdisciplinary section if we still have words left and if you think it's relevant! "the commitment to a good death created the euthanasia debate while commitment to euthanasia has reduced the number of options available for ensuring the good death." We already talked a bit about it during our last zoom but I think it is worth the explanation ! Tell me what you think :) --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I really like the paradox that you found and I think it is something important that we could add ! --London213 (discuss • contribs) 14: 23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! Just found this article that gives a new perspective about euthanasia in Netherlands. I only though that euthanasia was allowed for terminally ill patients that unbearable physical suffering. Actually, it is also allowed for non-terminally ill patients that have a 'psycological suffering that cannot be alleviated". We should look up and analyze how ethics, law and medecine differently assess if a psychiatric patient is eligible for euthanasia! Here is the link to the article I found : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5623879/ --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 14: 42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, I'm currently working on a draft for the medecine aspect on euthanasia, but I have many points to cover and I'm not sure if I will have enough space to talk about the different types of euthanasia, how medecine clashes with ethics and law, and talk about the article "the body as an unwarranted type of life support". Which of the three points should I emphasize the most? --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 15: 03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I took the liberty to rephrase some sentences in the introduction and the second paragraph! tell me if you think its better. --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 19: 33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the correction of the introduction. I read through it, divided into subtopics and shortened. I hope it looks better now!. Moreover, I counted the words and it looks like we will be over the limit. Tomorrow I am going to read through the law & ethics part and create the "tensions" section. I am going to base it on what we discussed during our last meeting and your separate contributions. --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 05:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! Do you think it would be interesting to add a graphic image/ chart that could maybe either illustrate the evolution of the number of deaths because of Euthanasia in contrast with "natural death" in the Netherlands or in contrasting with other countries, or something else. Tell me what you think! :) --London213 (discuss • contribs) 15: 59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I found a graph showing the increasing number of deaths due to euthanasia in the Netherlands. Let me insert it in the chapter and let me know if it is useful. --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 17: 57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! Good idea! Maybe we could make a graph ourselves? That would be a useful contribution to Wikimedia! --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! I put some corrections in the "Law" section. I inserted it underneath the text, so the author can review the changes and hopefully agree with them. Moreover, I added a few sentences about "truths" to link it with the interdisciplinary conclusion. However, you cite a lot from the Dutch Penal Code. I was wondering if we could shorten it and paraphrase. We really need to cut down on words. Finally, thank you for your contribution! I think that the last paragraph is really good and brings up an important idea, perfectly foreshadowing medical part. --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! I read through the next part, "ethics". I think the ethical perspective is introduced in a very communicative way. I shortened some parts that were not that relevant to "truth" within euthanasia. I added some parts about the "truth", where I thought it was worth mentioning. I suggest deleting the ending from the “ethics” part because it will be more applicable to the conclusion. I hope that my contribution is relevant, let me know!--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 01:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you! I will take a look at it! However, I think there are essential parts that need to stay even though it's not that relevant to truth because if we remove them, the readers might be lost. What do you think?Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! I corrected the "medical" part as much as I could. This part needs to be shortened by the author. I added at the end more aspects about "truth" and psychiatry perspective, which are very important. --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 01:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I really like the idea of making ourself a graph, as we could combine multiple statistical data. I also don't mind doing it. Let me know what you guys think :) --London213 (discuss • contribs) 10: 44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just added the sources for the paragraph on ethics. I also corrected one mistake in the law paragraph and counted the words so the word count should be correct for ethics and law! I can't reduce more the paragraph on ethics, i am sorry! --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Do not worry, it is okay. If we reduce the conclusion/tensions part and medicine should be fine!--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 12:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Does anyone know how to move the "pending changes" so that we can see what will be the final edit in "read"? --Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just finished referecing the medecine paragraph! I have read the rest of the chapter and I think it blends in well with the rest of the content; tell me what you think about it! --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 10: 57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how to move the pending changes, we should maybe ask how to do it? --London213 (discuss • contribs) 12: 50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! The medical paragraph fits perfectly with the rest and I now see the link with truth so it's really good! Well done! As for the pending changes, I will take a look again at the wiki videos we needed to watch at the beginning of the year to try to see if there is something that might help us!--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 21:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys! It seems our issue about the pending changes has been resolved! I will look at the conclusion and see if it changes again as last draft but I think the problem is solved! Do we have a meeting today?--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I think the meeting is on the 13th. We also still need to shorten some parts, I read it all again and love how everything ties with each other--London213 (discuss • contribs) 12: 11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, again -I think since we need to shorten our chapter, the last part ( last two sentences, starting with "Finally") on Tensions between Disciplines can be in my opinion removed, I don't think it adds something new. Let me know what do you guys think / Also I have had a hard time finding good data to be able and create our own graph, and I am scared that the information that I found is not reliable, and therefore can be misleading. Nevertheless, I still found a graph that was published by the BBC which illustrates euthanasia cases in the Netherlands from 2002 to 2017. Should we include it or not? Does it add something to our chapter? Let me know what you guys think :)--London213 (discuss • contribs) 12: 20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! As we mentioned in the chat, we will have our last meeting tomorrow (13.12.2020) at 12pm UK time. We can talk about the final changes and shortening paragraphs. Thank you @London213 for the feedback on the "tensions" part. I will try to make it shorter! Moreover, I feel like we could state more clearly the terms connected to "truth" like pluralist, positivism, constructivism etc. Finally, do not worry about the graph. We could add the BBC one, but if it does not work, then we can send it without it. Maybe we could try to find a photo of J.H van den Berg or cover of his book in order to make his statements more credible?--Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I have one more thing that we could change. I feel like we can reduce the use of questions in a medical and ethical paragraph. They are great and bring a lot to the table, but maybe we could rephrase them? This is only because Wikibooks writing style is very simple and formal, but the questions seem rather poetic? Let me know what you think and if this is a relevant comment. --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 22:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again! I just cut down to around 1350 words!!! I am going to read through every part once again and find possible places to shorten the text. I listened to your suggestions, and I agree, that the last sentence of the "tensions" paragraph was an assumption and exaggeration. I made sure to get rid of filler words but if you see some, feel free to delete them! Moreover, I am going to make the final check of the references tomorrow after our meeting, when all of the sources are in. --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I just read the new Tension between disciplines new paragraph, and I honestly really like it. I think it is a lot clearer, precise, and concise and really enjoyed ready it. I think you did a very good job with this paragraph and really highlighting the existing tensions between the disciplines related to our subject, and you were also able to cut down some words which is great! I also really enjoyed the use of the terms such as pluralist, positivism, constructivism, I thought they were really well used! :)--London213 (discuss • contribs) 11: 25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I agree for the tensions between disciplines new paragraph! It is way more clearer and "straight to the point" than before! If we need to reduce the word count again, I can definitely recheck everything to remove more words!--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I changed again the medecine paragraph as it was not linked enough to the notion of truth. --Arielallin1pods (discuss • contribs) 21: 16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I think that the medicine part is great right now! I really like the idea of multilateral truth. Moreover, I managed to shorter everything to around 1194. Please, make sure to read it one more time in the morning before our submission at 12pm! --Grammaloretoo (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I just re-read everything and it is very good. I think we managed to fit in all our ideas. There are still the pending reviews,I will see how to remove them. Hopefully they will be accepted before we download the wikibook.--Qenalcu (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Truth in Euthanasia

Introduction
This chapter aims to explore the issue of Truth in Euthanasia in the Netherlands. This country was the first to legalize the practice of euthanasia. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate over this issue for the last 30 years. Euthanasia is a Greek term, that translates to “good death”. It emerged as a response to the criticism of medical advance, that controlled the lives of humans. What was supposed to give freedom to vulnerable patients, might lead to violation of human rights and doctors’ abuse of power.

The research has been limited to the Netherlands, one of the two countries in Europe where active voluntary euthanasia is legal. During the debates in other countries, where euthanasia is considered unethical, the Netherlands is used as an example of legalization. Establishing truth in euthanasia requires an understanding of the medical, legal, and ethical perspective.

Law
By establishing rules that correspond to reality, truth is the foundation of law. The consideration of whether euthanasia should be legalized emerged in 1973 with the "Postma case". The lawsuit against a physician, who performed euthanasia, shed light on the debate over the establishment of new criteria and their truths. It allowed euthanasia to be conducted on a patient. In 2002, the Netherlands legalized euthanasia with the “Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide Act”.

The Dutch law considers euthanasia as a criminal offence but does not recognize it as murder. It is legal under the circumstances of “hopeless and unbearable” pain. Article 293, from the Dutch Penal Code, highlights the consequent punishment of an individual who “deliberately terminates the life of another person”. However, when it is conducted by a doctor, who respects the "diligence criteria", it is not punishable. Euthanasia is considered an ambiguous concept from a legal perspective. Therefore, the truth in euthanasia, according to Dutch law, is subjective to a specific case, simultaneously being limited by an objective legal act.

Moreover, euthanasia is framed by the legal interpretivism, but the truth about the act itself relies on the doctors' honesty. When euthanasia is performed, documents underlining the act need to be completed and reported to authorities. Some physicians do not enter the legal process by stating untruthful reasons for a patient’s death. Therefore, the limitation of the Dutch legal framework of euthanasia relies on the truthfulness of healthcare professionals. Unfortunately, in some cases, it can lead to abuse of power and obtaining manipulated truth.

Medicine
Truth in medicine is empirical as doctors tend to use statistics to define medical methods. However, this is not the case for euthanasia where many ongoing cases require much deliberation due to a multilateral truth.

The modern criterion of death is based on the “total brain standard” which establishes someone dead after the cessation of all brain activity. However, this standard was debated in 2013 when Jahi McMath was declared brain-dead but was still kept on life support until June 2018. She retained hypothalamic functions of her brain and did not meet the “total brain standard” criteria. Even though this case occurred in the United States, it highlights that not having a global protocol to determine death, complicates the situation of euthanasia all around the world. Truth in euthanasia is, therefore, multilateral, as it depends on the definition of death, which is still changing.

Voluntary Passive Euthanasia (VPE) and Voluntary Active Euthanasia (VAE) are not authorized in the same proportions by doctors. VAE is seen as “murder” since the medical practitioner administers patients with a lethal overdose of medication instead of letting them die (VPE). Nonetheless, by associating the death of a person with brain death, our identity is defined by our mind and brain, not by our body. Thus, from this perspective, the body is seen as a form of life support that keeps the brain alive, erasing the difference between VAE and VPE. However, this medical truth is limited by the law as the Netherlands and Belgium are the two only countries legalising VAE in Europe. Therefore, there is no absolute truth in euthanasia since different disciplines clash against each other.

Ethics
Studying truth in euthanasia from an ethical perspective is essential for the understanding of the debates surrounding it. It raises moral dilemmas. Ethics, as a discipline, investigates if euthanasia is a crime on itself and if doctors are the appropriate professionals to end the life of a person. In 1978, J.H van den Berg, a Dutch psychiatrist, published Medical Power and Medical Ethics. The author questioned the tradition of protecting life at all costs. He suggested a new medical ethics code, focused on the right of the patient to complete knowledge and power over their life. Pluralist truth in euthanasia can be found in two moral justification suggested by van den Berg.

The first one provides a non-medical justification of “respect for autonomy”. Patients, if they want to, can exercise their free-will and voluntarily ask for euthanasia. However, this raises the first ethical question on the abuse of this method by the patients and the doctors. If the patient is unconscious when euthanasia is considered, who should make the decision?

The second justification states that respect for pain should be considered the main moral principle supporting euthanasia. However, the ‘unbearable suffering’ stated in the Dutch law is subjective. How can the doctor define the truth if he is unable to feel the pain of the patient?

Ethics, as a discipline, try to establish the truth in euthanasia by respecting patient's free will and pain. Ethics use a pluralist truth, taking into consideration different perspectives, all being true to some extent.

Tensions between Disciplines
Euthanasia emerged in the Netherlands as a response to medical technology. It arose as an ethical idea and aimed to give freedom to vulnerable patients by applying pluralist truth. Later, the nature of this practice changed and lost its initial premise. It is limited by law and legal interpretivism, which can lead to abuse of power and manipulation of the truth. The law impacts medical practitioners and restricts their actions. These disciplines aim to cooperate to define holistic truth. However, they create a paradox where one limits another, leading to unwanted solutions.

This idea is linked to the debate between emotions and reason. Truth in law is often defined with reason. It allows law specialists to apply universal practices that do not take into consideration their own emotions. In contrast, ethics use emotion and are based on defining what is right or wrong, taking into consideration the autonomy, pain, and free-will. Dutch medical professionals apply both, reason and emotion, while establishing the truth in euthanasia.

Conclusion
Overall, truth in euthanasia can be debated within three disciplines: law, medicine, and ethics. The interdisciplinary truth obtained in the Netherlands does not apply to other countries. They each have their socio-political and cultural factors that influence the regulations. That implies that truth in euthanasia worldwide is more relative than absolute since it depends on different perspectives. Finally, it is essential to acknowledge that truth in euthanasia can be manipulated. Thus, it is linked to power, another interdisciplinary issue, and its abuse by patients and doctors.


text:
Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2020-21/Lights will Guide You Home: The Sociological and Environmental Impact of Light in Cities

Introduction
In 2018, the UN estimated that 55% of the world's population lived in urban areas, and that number continues to increase. Urban lighting therefore affects over 3.5 billion people worldwide, as well as a significant number of animal species, and its implementation and regulation can have enormous impacts. Sociology and Ecology are two disciplines contributing to our understanding of urban lighting today. An interdisciplinary framework for these disciplines to communicate already exists: Urban Planning. However, tensions between them persist, which is reflected on lighting policies. This chapter explores the role of power in research and policies about urban lighting by identifying the conflict of priorities which impedes communication between disciplines.

Sociological perspective
Sociological priorities are manifold within the study of urban lighting, and they sometimes conflict with one another even within the same field. Three of these priorities are the reassurance of safety, gender equality and economic growth. Economic growth and the reassurance of safety have particular influence in urban lighting, while gender equality is more implicit. Sociology encourages the increase or re-design of urban lighting in order to make public space more inviting, through analysing how artificial light impacts experience.

Urban lighting and safety reassurance
Urban lighting yields latent power over individuals' emotions and perceptions of safety. The NYC Mayor’s Office conducted a study on public housing residents in New York City; only 21% of the residents felt safe at night compared to 50% during the day. This issue must be addressed by psychology experts to abate this sense of vulnerability and inability to recognise potential offenders and their facial expressions. The lack of visual clarity withdraws the potential victim’s power.

In another study, participants were shown a photograph of an urban area in different lighting levels based on varied light settings. The photographs of lower light levels exposed much less visual information; this distorted the spatial dimension. Responses were recorded using Situation-Response Questionnaires to demonstrate that lower lighting levels and colder lights produced stronger responses of fear. Perhaps, warmer lighting can be utilised outside as academics argue it encourages a sense of calm.

Therefore, how individuals view safety within the community is being affected by insufficient and inefficient urban lighting.

Urban lighting and gender equality
Insufficient or ill-designed street lighting is one of the main variables which can affect the gendered nature of public space. Women and other gender minorities tend to avoid darkness, or areas that are too brightly lit, because they feel unsafe. Sometimes, this leads them to avoid going out at night altogether. Urban planners and city officials, commonly cisgender men, therefore hold latent power over gender minorities. Indirectly, their policies on urban lighting can restrict gender minorities' movements and decision-making power, influencing gender roles on a societal level (linking women to the home, for example). A UN Women report on New Delhi, where 95% of women feel unsafe, suggested that increased urban lighting would reduce gender inequalities in the city. However, the issue of gender in lighting policies is often overlooked: in London's 2018 Urban Lighting Strategy, there was no mention of it.

Urban lighting and economic growth
In developing countries, urban lighting can catalyse economic growth, improve quality of life and increase wealth. Nighttime lighting and wealth are so fundamentally linked that scholars even suggest nighttime illuminations could be used to measure a country's GDP.

Artificial light enhances productivity by allowing nighttime work. It facilitates leisure at night, encourages tourism by increasing reassurance and improving the city's aesthetic landscape. The Telegraph states roughly 1 in 7 people in the world live in "light poverty" (not having access to artificial light). Often, those who live in these conditions are forced to resort to unhealthy and dangerous alternatives to electrical light such as candles and kerosene lamps. This suggests that increases in artificial lighting in developing countries are to be welcomed.

Ecological perspective
Socio-economic arguments in favour of urban lighting can overlook the harmful ecological impacts of light pollution; 30% of all outdoor lighting is misused. This not only results in economic loss but also contributes to climate change. For instance, in 2017, the US lost $6.3 billion and contributed an excess of 23 billion pounds of CO2.

The adverse effects of excessive city lighting transcend the common problems of energy inefficiency. The most notable "forms of light pollution are sky glow, light trespass, glare, and over-illumination". These have severe ecological and evolutionary repercussions. The plenitude of research conducted on the topic has not obstructed it from being underestimated.

Urban lighting and wildlife
The first effects of light pollution were observed in 1888 on migratory birds, who mistake city lights for the constellations they utilise as a guide. This results in light-induced mortality, a growing anthropogenic threat that requires control. 60% of birds picked up by the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) in the Toronto region have been found dead. Even if they survive, they have lower body weights and condition indices than fledgelings captured at the colony. Many more studies demonstrate the adverse influences on behavioural and physiological functions of various taxa. Although some outcomes are yet to be proved, the disruption of daily cycle patterns is “likely to influence processes such as growth, reproduction, eclosion, diapause, moult and embryonic development.”

Urban lighting and human health
There is additional neglect surrounding light pollution's effect on humans. Similarly to other animals, light pollution can have a strong influence on their melatonin production. As melatonin has been shown to hold antioxidant properties and boost immune responses, its lower concentrations in the body have been associated with an increased risk of cancer. Most distinctly, due to increased levels of oestrogen (also caused by suppression of melatonin production), with breast cancer. Interestingly, blue light suppresses melatonin production more than lights at longer wavelengths. Perhaps, switching to red-toned lamps could minimise these adverse health consequences.

Conclusion
While activists argue light pollution is a straightforward challenge, it is more complex. Viewed ecologically, the conclusion is clear: governments should introduce laws limiting illumination from the cities. Nevertheless, a reduction in urban lighting could have extreme societal repercussions. Sociology and Ecology's debate is mostly centered around "costs" and "benefits" of urban lighting, but fails to consider a middle ground. Adaptive or intelligent dynamic lighting, which adapts lighting levels according to statistics or motion sensors, is of increasing interest to researchers and provides a possible resolution. However, adaptive lighting is not well-developed, and is not even mentioned in Los Angeles' 2020-2025 lighting strategy, although LA is considered one of the most innovative cities in terms of street lighting.

This can be attributed to a lack of well-developed connections between "research, policy and practice". Perhaps, a "collective efficacy" can be deployed towards improving awareness of urban lighting's impact on humanity and our ecological environment. Collective efficacy is the ability of individuals to control others' behaviour in a community with an intended effect. Arendt theorised that power could never be attributed to the act of a single individual, but of the group that implements, builds and stimulates the agency within the community. Informing the public would therefore encourage policy-makers to adopt street lighting that upholds sociology and ecology's conflicting priorities effectively.