Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The Biologic Abatement and Capturing Kids’ Outcomes and Flare Frequency in Juvenile Spondyloarthritis (BACK‐OFF JSpA) study is a randomized, pragmatic trial investigating different tumour necrosis factor inhibitor de‐escalation strategies for children with sustained inactive disease. In this project, we elicited concept rankings that aided in the selection of the patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures that should be examined as part of the BACK‐OFF JSpA trial. Methods We conducted a discrete choice experiment to evaluate individuals' preferences regarding PROs. Stakeholders assessed a discrete list of 21 outcome concepts, each of which had a Patient‐Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measure associated with it. PROMIS measures are self‐ or proxy‐reported instruments that are universally applicable to the general population and all chronic conditions. Stakeholders were required to make choices instead of expressing the strength of a preference. Results Fourteen caregivers, 12 patients (9–22 years old), 16 rheumatologists and three executives from health insurance companies completed the exercise, which took approximately 10 min. The discrete choice experiment resulted in an estimate of the relative importance of each outcome and rank. All stakeholder groups agreed that the primary PRO should be ‘Pain Interference’, a measure that evaluates the effect of pain on a child's everyday activities, including its impact on social, emotional, mental and physical functioning. Patients and caregivers were mostly aligned in their top priorities, with patients valuing physical health (50% of the top 10) whereas caregivers were more interested in mental health (60% of the top 10). Rheumatologists and health insurance executives were most interested in physical health outcomes, which were ranked 80% and 60% of their top 10 PROs, respectively. Overall, the patients had the most diverse set of prioritized outcomes, including at least one of each category in their top 10 rank order of importance. Patients were also the only stakeholders to prioritize ‘social’ health. Conclusions Patients and caregivers were mostly aligned in their outcome priority rankings. The rank‐order list directly informed the creation of a profile of PRO measures for our upcoming trial. Patient or Public Contribution Stakeholder partners helped with acquisition of data and lead parent partners helped interpret data.

Is jealousy eliminable? If so, at what cost? What are the connections between pride the sin and the pride insisted on by identity politics? How can one question an individual’s understanding of their own happiness or override a society’s account of its own rituals? What is wrong with incest? These and other questions about what sustains and threatens our identity are pursued using the resources of philosophy, psychoanalysis, and other disciplines. The discussion throughout is informed and motivated by the Spinozist hope that understanding our lives can help change them, can help make us more free.

Grounding his views on careful analysis of the nature of forgiveness, subtle understanding of the psychology of anger and resentment, and fine appreciation of the ethical issues of self-respect and self-defense, he provides a nuanced approach to a proper understanding of the place of forgiveness in moral, political, and personal life, most fully elaborated in his 2003 book, Getting Even: Murphy, in the concluding remarks of Getting Even, contrasts the difficulties of forgiveness conceived of as psychological (it can be hard to control strong passions) and as moral (it can be hard to avoid compromise of important values of self-respect, self-defense, and respect for the demands of morality).34 My argument here is that these matters may be more entwined and the distinction between the psychological and moral (fact /value) more questionable than might at first appear - as much perhaps as the distinction between moral and nonmoral feelings questioned by Murphy.35 Some of the psychological obstacles to loving forgiveness (especially as detailed by Freud and Nietzsche) may bespeak moral difficulties.

The scripture for today is: Matthew V: 43-48: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: For he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

In response to critical discussion of my book, \"A Tear Is an Intellectual Thing: The Meanings of Emotion,\" I clarify and develop various aspects of my analysis of jealousy in particular and affectivity in general. In relation to jealousy, I explore the nature of pathology, the role of fantasy and of the rival, and the place of examples and of evolutionary theory. In relation to affectivity, I emphasize the difference between distinguishing emotions from other psychological states and distinguishing among, within and between, particular emotions (where affectivity may not be central). In addition, I emphasize the dangers of a version of G.E. Moore's error in demanding a nonreductive analysis of \"good\" in parallel demands for a nonreductive analysis of \"affectivity.\"