Michael Herz – författare

One of the most exciting medical developments during the past thirty years has been the rebirth of family medicine as a dynamic specialty. In the face of ever-widening definitions of health, the family physician has been challenged to integrate the physical, emotional, and social concepts of modern medicine into traditional medical services. Invariably, in establishing a mutual understanding between doctor and patient, the doctor's emotions come into play.This book addresses the needs of family and other physicians to better understand their emotions, enhance their self-awareness, improve their communications skills, and apply these skills more effectively within the constraints of clinical practice and teaching. A multi-disciplinary approach common to the practice of family medicine is used. The authors come from a variety of disciplines--psychiatry, clinical psychology, family medicine, and family therapy.

The contributors to this volume consider whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that are cognizant of the varying traditions, histories and values of different countries. Throughout, there is a strong comparative emphasis, with examples (and authors) drawn from around the world. All the authors explore whether or when different cultural and historical settings justify different substantive rules given that such cultural relativism can be used to justify content-based restrictions and so endanger freedom of expression. Essays address the following questions, among others: is hate speech in fact so dangerous or harmful to vulnerable minorities or communities as to justify a lower standard of constitutional protection? What harms and benefits accrue from laws that criminalize hate speech in particular contexts? Are there circumstances in which everyone would agree that hate speech should be criminally punished? What lessons can be learned from international case law?

The contributors to this volume consider whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that are cognizant of the varying traditions, histories and values of different countries. Throughout, there is a strong comparative emphasis, with examples (and authors) drawn from around the world. All the authors explore whether or when different cultural and historical settings justify different substantive rules given that such cultural relativism can be used to justify content-based restrictions and so endanger freedom of expression. Essays address the following questions, among others: is hate speech in fact so dangerous or harmful to vulnerable minorities or communities as to justify a lower standard of constitutional protection? What harms and benefits accrue from laws that criminalize hate speech in particular contexts? Are there circumstances in which everyone would agree that hate speech should be criminally punished? What lessons can be learned from international case law?