No abstract

No abstract

Cryopreservation of oocytes has been proposed as a way of storing gametes in young patients at high risk of infertility and premature ovarian failure. Recent advances in cryobiology have yielded promising results, leading to oocyte cryopreservation becoming a mainstay of fertility preservation. In this case series, we describe the feasibility of performing ovarian stimulation, and the ethical challenges faced, in teenage girls, aged 14-18 years, prior to undergoing bone marrow transplant for sickle cell anaemia. All eight consecutive cases completed ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval with mature oocytes being found and cryopreserved for each patient. The mean dose of gonadotrophin stimulation was 2134.38 IU (95% CI 1593.34-2675.4) and the mean duration of treatment was 11 days (95% CI 10.02-11.98). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 14.88 (95% CI 7.39-22.36), of which a mean of 12.13 (95% CI 4.72-19.54) oocytes were mature and cryopreserved. There was one case of moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome that required hospital admission for supportive treatment. Oocyte cryopreservation is a technique that can be successfully employed after the retrieval of mature oocytes from the peripubertal ovary, restoring hope to these patients, and their families, of having their own genetic children in the future.

This research explores how police themselves classify and evaluate acts of force as either legal, normal or excessive. It begins by examining how rookie police learn on the street to use and account for force in a manner that contradicts what they were taught at the academy. It then considers “normal force” and the accounting processes whereby police judge when and how much force is appropriate in specific situations and incidents. It concludes with a discussion of excessive force and peer reactions to those who use it frequently. The study is based on approximately one and one-half years of field work in a major urban police department in the United States.

No abstract

This is an analysis of the social context of normal police lies. We define lies as speech acts which the speaker knows are misleading or false, are intended to deceive, and where evidence to the contrary is known to the observer. Lies are relative to a moral context, and what an audience will accept. Lies include excuses, which deny full responsibility for an act, but acknowledge its immorality, and justifications, which accept responsibility but deny blame-worthiness. Police learn to lie and to carefully distinguish normal (or acceptable) lies from unacceptable lies, suggesting that lies are a part of a negotiated occupational order. We show how and why some types of lies are rewarded by police using ethnographic data from an 18 month field study of a large urban force. Lies can be of little issue, or become troublesome. We report and analyze two kinds of troublesome lies: case lies, recognized stories an officer utilizes in a courtroom or on paper to facilitate the conviction of a suspect, and cover stories, lies an officer tells in court, to supervisors, and on the job with the aim of providing a verbal shield or mitigation in the event of discipline. Both excuses and justifications are woven together in these vignettes. An example of a refusal to lie is used to illustrate some of the limits on lying as well organizational factors in lying. Some implications for official lying are also noted.

This research examines how deep sea divers learn to expand notions of risk to include practices that violate formal training and may increase vulnerability to injury. Cultural constructions of “normal” or acceptable risk are learned in interaction with experienced divers who define the rules of membership and provide accounts that excuse or justify participation in high risk activities. The research explores how novice divers learn to distinguish categories of formal, normal, and excessive risk as they expand their risk involvement and attempt to achieve membership in the deep diving subculture. The study concludes with a discussion of risk normalization in everyday life and other leisure and occupational subcultures.

No abstract