The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 is a significant piece of legislation that was passed in the United Kingdom. It was intended to reform and modernize the National Health Service (NHS) and to provide better community care for people in need.
One of the main objectives of the Act was to provide more choice and control for patients in the NHS. It introduced the concept of fundholding, which allowed GPs to purchase services on behalf of their patients from different providers, including hospitals and other healthcare organizations. This was intended to increase competition and improve the quality of care.
Another important aspect of the Act was the introduction of the internal market within the NHS. This allowed hospitals and other healthcare providers to compete with each other for contracts to provide services to patients. This was seen as a way to increase efficiency and drive down costs, but it also led to some criticism as it was perceived as introducing a more commercialized approach to healthcare.
The Act also established the Department of Health as the central body responsible for the administration and management of the NHS. It also created the position of the Chief Executive of the NHS, who was responsible for overseeing the operation of the service and implementing government policy.
In addition to these changes within the NHS, the Act also introduced significant reforms to community care. It aimed to provide better care for people who needed support to live independently in their own homes, rather than being institutionalized in hospitals or nursing homes. It introduced the concept of community care assessments, which were used to determine the needs of individuals and the type of support that they required.
Overall, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was a major reform of the NHS and community care in the United Kingdom. While it brought about some significant changes, it also sparked controversy and debate about the direction of healthcare in the country.
reader
A thing cannot both be and not be in the same sense; the principle of identity, which means that A is A, a thing is what it is. Any truth-claim that violates one of these first principles cannot be true. Whereas Source Criticism is part of the overall approach known as the Historical-Critical Method, Narrative Criticism is a decidedly different approach. Instead, use positive language and discuss the shortcomings. Fowler, Let the Reader Understand: Reader-Response Criticism and the Gospel of Mark Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991 ; "Reader-Response Criticism: Figuring Mark's Reader," in Mark and Method: Approaches in Biblical Studies, 2nd ed. As is generally admitted, Spinoza more than any other man laid the foundation for this kind of Biblical study. Likewise, if we suspend judgment on whether or not we can know, then we are equally doomed never to know because precisely the same faculty that is doubted is the faculty one must employ to remove doubt.
It explained away many infelicities: the puzzling alternation in the use of divine names, troubling repetitions in the narrative, and discrepancies in the chronological perspectives of the narrator antichronismes. Again, this is the case because it is based on reality. Like many academic terms, it is used so often, and so often with reference to views that conflict, it may be in danger of losing all meaning. Moses had been presented as the originator of the Israelite religion, the founder of the nation, and the victim of assassination at the hands of Joshua and Caleb. To the degree that Reader-Response Criticism is based on a rejection of certain knowledge, to that degree Reader-Response Criticism is self-defeating and therefore false. Rather, the fact that one can walk gives rise to the investigation of how such activity is possible and explainable. That is, he does not believe that the reader should try to find hidden meanings within the text.
When God begins to speak, that feeling in the reader of superiority that is crushed and that humbles the reader is not specifically stated in the text, but, by the techniques of the author, the impact comes out of the text and is developed in the mind and heart of the careful reader. While readers can, and do put their own ideas and experiences into a work, they are at the same time gaining new understanding through the text. Critique of Reader-Response Criticism One of the most serious issues with Reader-Response Criticism is seemingly uncritical assumption of modern epistemology. If this account is not real history, meaning it did not really occur the way the text portrays it, then God did not, in fact, demonstrate faithfulness to Israel, and in fact, there is no reason to believe He would demonstrate any faithfulness to Israel during the exile. Since everyone has his or her own point of view, there is no such thing as a view from nowhere. Purpose of Modern Reading-Response Theory Reader- Response theory exhibits an essential role of the reader when it comes to creating the meaning of the text.
So, any contrary evidence or argument is rejected out of hand on the basis the subjective judgment that any other approach is naive or uninformed or unscholarly. There is no middle between being what something is and not being that. Sometimes when the critic talks about the reader constituting the meaning, it is with reference to the gaps and ambiguities of the text. Again, expressing the subduing—filling work of God. The philosophical bases for literary criticism are derived from theories about communication.
These four basic principles distinguish between Historical Criticism and Narrative Criticism. Learning from Scant Beginnings: English Professor Expertise. The poet didn't mean his poem to be ironic. This device is called a chiasm because it follows the shape of the Greek letter chi, which looks like the English capital X. The fact of the matter is, we do know some things, and the inquiry is to discover how we know, not whether we know.
There is no account of any conversation between the participants along the way. For further clarification, I shall give an example to illustrate all that I have here said. The purpose of the Meditations was to provide proofs for the existence of God, which equaled or even surpassed geometrical proofs in certainty and self-evidence. For Jauss, readers have a certain mental set, a "horizon" of expectations Erwartungshorizont , from which perspective each reader, at any given time in history, reads. God is spirit and omnipresent orthodox Christian doctrine. If we cannot trust the text to tell us the truth about earthly matters, then we cannot trust it to tell us about heavenly matters.
What Is Reader Response Criticism? (Finally Explained!)
The blame, then, lay with unnamed copyists. That expectation and suspense are heightened by the delay tactic of the author who introduces the speech of Elihu beginning in 32:2. The critic destroys the historical reliability of the text while trying to retain the spiritual message, but in the end, the critic destroys both the text and the message of the text. In order to avoid confusion between true meaning and truth of fact, the former must be solved simply from linguistic usage, or from a process of reasoning that looks to no other basis than Scripture. Let God tell all of you what is really going on, please! Each of these theories has come from a different school of thoughts, forming a strict sense of the systematic study of literature. Everyone claimed that the Bible was their authoritative source, yet their conflicting and contradictory conclusions seemed to indicate that one could appeal to the Bible on the basis of his own interpretative method.
Subjective reader-response theory, associated with Psychological reader-response theory, employed by Norman Holland, believes that a reader's motives heavily affect how they read, and subsequently use this reading to analyze the psychological response of the reader. Critical theory today: a user-friendly guide, 2nd edn. Transgenerational reward and punishment was a theological axiom for preexilic Israel see Exod. For example, that God exists, one alone and omnipotent, who alone should be worshiped, who cares for all, who loves above all others those who worship him and love their neighbors as themselves. In this article, I argue that readership is central to understanding the relationship between text and meaning, and that this relationship is best understood in terms of reader-response theory.
