There are three large categories of anesthesia used in surgical operations, and general anesthesia is one of the most common types aside from regional and local varieties. As the term implies, general anesthesia basically presents a coma induced with the help of anesthetic medications affecting the entire body. After such agents’ administration, patients lose protective motor reflexes while becoming increasingly relaxed. These effects allow those in the operating theater to perform procedures requiring precise manipulations and incisions that would cause unbearable pain and make the patient move chaotically without anesthesia, thus exacerbating the risks of mistakes.
Multiple surgical treatments require properly administered general anesthesia to be completed successfully. Among them is cranial surgery; this procedure’s CPT code is 00210 (Anesthesia Business Consultants, n.d.). As a surgery type, cranial surgery involves invasive or minimally invasive procedures for various serious and life-threatening conditions, including brain tumors, aneurysms, blood clots, neurological disorders, and other diseases (Chen et al., 2020). Given such conditions’ severity and the need for prompt but highly precise surgical actions, keeping the patient completely immobilized and having no responses to pain can be crucial for minimizing distractions and barriers to success. With that in mind, general anesthesia presents the most appropriate type for the procedure being discussed.
Medical coders should develop and demonstrate a solid understanding of anesthesia and its most common types to be able to update healthcare clients’ records accurately and avoid mistakes causing revenue losses. Without easy access to documentation, documentation gaps, or a clear understanding of anesthesia types and associated service duration characteristics, coders can report anesthesia time incorrectly. Additionally, medical coders’ understanding of anaesthesiology regulations and the properties of anesthetic administration procedures promotes coders’ ability to detect obvious errors in medical reports that require clarification prior to code assignment efforts.
References
Anesthesia Business Consultants. (n.d.). List of CPT codes for anesthesia procedures & services, including modifiers. Web.
Chen, P., Tsuang, F., Lee, C., Yeh, Y., Cheng, H., Lee, T., Changg, Y. W., Chang, Y. J., & Wu, C. (2020). Neuroprotective effects of intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion combined with goal-directed hemodynamic therapy for patients undergoing cranial surgery: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Research Square, 1-20. Web.
Aaron Douglas’ “Into Bondage” Artwork Analysis
The first impression from the artwork Into Bondage by Aaron Douglas was positive because of the feeling of warmth from the sunshine and hope coming from a man looking up to the sky. Belief, light, future are the first words appearing in mind after looking at the picture. Some seconds later, bound hands of characters become more noticeable, and the wish of freedom, independence, and stronger hope appears for them. Far away, the viewer feels pain, moderate but chronic, somewhere in the background of the soul.
Looking more attentively at the picture, one can notice the column of people coming to the shore with their heads bent. The red marks on their silhouettes are hand bondages connected with chains. The column walks to the water, far away the ship is sailing to the shore. Two figures distinguish from the column: a woman drawn front with her raised hands reminding the viewer of praying ritual. Another figure is of a man looking up to the sky at the red star that produces a beam of yellow light directing via the front man’s head. Under the man in the front, there is a stain of red color. The borders of the painting are formed with plants and palms drawn with orange, yellow, burgundy, and many shades of green. The plants frame a circle around all the mentioned above characters and items. The picture also has circles of yellowish light coming from the sea nearby the ship.
The beam of light coming from the star drawn with straight diagonal lines becomes the brightest item of the artwork. Geometric partly flat forms of the painting make an impression of abstraction. The colors are clear, that is why the shade of the light beam is light-yellow, but it makes an impression of being very bright. The red color is the second attractive feature that intersects with the primary feelings of hope, belief, and light. However, Aaron Douglas hid with mastery an item of red color under the front man’s feet. This red stain reminds of a leaf located close to the other plants on the periphery of the picture. The value of the painting remains mostly light which is done with the help of concentric circles and the beam together taking a substantial amount of space of the picture.
The elements conflict with each other: the geometrical straight line of the light beam and the concentric circles, the green middle part of the painting, and the red color of bands on the hands of characters. The colors used in the artwork are mostly pure and basic: green, yellow, orange, and their shades. The effect of contrast is reached by using complementary green and red colors that attract the vision of a viewer even more. The lightning is directly coming from the front straight to the one looking at the painting. The illusion of depth is achieved through the color shade and the frame location of plants. The latter makes an impression that a viewer is a guest that hides in the bushes observing the story silently.
The picture primarily attracts with its brightness and light. The effect of contrast is reached via using complementary green and red colors that appeal to the vision of a viewer even more. Lines intersect with each other distracting the vision and making a feeling of internal conflict, suspicion, and doubt. The smooth and flat texture of the painting leads to the thought of looking at an illustration that is far from reality. The balance of the painting is mostly asymmetrical with palms, the beam of light from the right, praying woman, concentric circles, and a ship located from the left. The movement of the story is active as the waves drawn with various colors make a vision of a slight storm. The work has both unity and variety as the story makes sense to the viewer but distracts the attention with various contrast colors and lines.
Aaron Douglas chose oil and canvas for the materials of his artwork with the help of which he easily achieved crisp effects and fusion of tones (Wingate 2). Possibly, Aaron Douglas worked particularly hard with creating diagonal geometric lines and concentric circles that make the effect of intersection and balance at the same time. There is a connection between the effects used by the painter and the message he wanted to send. Contrast colors interpret hope and belief for a better future and the actual consequent slavery and dependence.
This artwork represents the soon enslaved African people by the invaders, their hope for freedom and better life. Woman with raised hands illustrates belief and search for help. Nevertheless, the actions of the British colonists resettling African people were cruel and unfair (Slavery in America 3). The stain of blood under the front man’s feet symbolizes ended the deaths of African slaves. The red bandages on arms stay central on the canvas as the symbol of long-lasting slavery. Douglas created “Into the Bondage” to remind about harsh events in American history, narrate a story about his ancestors, and lead a viewer through the possible feelings these enslaved people felt.
Ron Douglas is a famous artist of the Harlem Renaissance called by many “father of African American art” (Anderson 14). The picture reminds of the brightness of hope and belief among African American people, their strength and patience, their pain, and their sorrow. It is hard to look at the painting after the analysis as the positive feelings of hope and warmth from the sunshine slowly disappeared. The intersections of lines and colors might be applied by me in the artwork later to express contrast and conflict.
Works Cited
Anderson, Nancy. “Aaron Douglas.” NGA Online Editions.
“Slavery in America.” History.
Wingate, Jennifer. “Aaron Douglas “Into Bondage” 1936.” NGA Online Editions.
Friendship And Epistemological Viewpoints And Possible Problems From Partiality
In recent years, analytical philosophers have shown increased interest in friendship and its influence on epistemology. They mainly seek to examine friendship concerns and disputes about bias that lack clear objectives regarding morality concerns. Several fundamental ethical theories emphasize impartiality and fair treatment as essential moral and ethical goals by adopting preconceived interpretations. Nonetheless, friendship and other intimate relationships between people often promote bias and unequal treatment. Friends typically worry more about what transpires to their friends than to strangers. They are more driven to promote their friends’ interests to those of strangers. Friends naturally have outstanding obligations to people they care about, like defending their personality when wrongly accused. As a result, because friendship inherently includes partiality, conflict arises between friendship and morality’s fundamental components and dispositions. The differences in viewpoints and reasoning between friends or lovers and epistemology cause problems since both parties have a strong bias toward their side, affecting their assessment of the other group’s principles. This article delves into the relationship between epistemology and friendship viewpoints and the possible strengths and problems between them.
Friends, in particular, have a predetermined and prejudiced image of their loved ones, which adversely affects their epistemic interpretation of their friends’ actions (Stroud, 2015). The first point of distinction is the cognitive processes that friends participate in when they arrive at new information about their friends. What distinguishes them in this area is that they spend more effort fighting or reducing the effect of adverse facts than they usually would if the involved party were a non-friend. First, friends are more likely than strangers to examine and challenge the provided facts tainting their friend’s character by devoting more time and attention than they would to situations involving strangers. Close friends, for instance, are more inclined to question themselves about the integrity of the individual presenting the information in a bid to reject the provided facts (Stroud, 2015). Friends may doubt the person’s veracity, fairness, and integrity. They may also consider them generally vicious or against their vindicated loved one in particular. The friend firmly believes that the wrongdoing of their friend must be untrue without a thorough analysis and research of the case. As a result, their minds biasedly disregard such potential discrediting information when the involved is a friend.
Secondly, the locus of divergent epistemic practices is common in situations involving friends. When contrasted to a disinterested party, friends typically reach different judgments and make distinct deductions. When the narrative involves a friend, they spend more effort creating alternate and less incriminating reasons for the stated behavior (Cyr, 2020). Friends are less likely than non-friends to think that their friend behaved dishonorably or of being an evil person. Friendship seems to change the processes friends use to absorb new knowledge and influence their judgment.
The precise moment at which the outstanding friend’s unique behaviors diverge from a neutrality standpoint will differ from case to case, depending on the resources accessible to them to assimilate the data in the issue. Typically, friends will attempt to dismiss the facts given and find a reason not to think their friend did something evil at all. If that is not possible, they may accept the basic facts and advance to the interpretative level. They attempt to put a new gloss on what their friend did and classify that activity under a less tarnishing viewpoint (Stroud, 2015). If this proves difficult, they may connect the conduct to a new personality characteristic than the apparent ones, assuming they could not do so with good conscience. In such a scenario, they may attempt to bury the lousy characteristic in an enormous virtue and are compelled to regard their conduct as simply a part of their personality. If this final strategy fails, they may restrict their classification of the vice to a personality defect that is insignificant to their friend’s personality, rather than rendering it the central aspect of their friend’s character.
The most apparent path to a cognitive explanation of the excellent loved one unique method of developing credence illustrates the richness of knowledge and evidence they possess about their friends. The individualized viewpoint serves as the foundation for their various judgments about their friend’s behavior (Jollimore, 2011). This approach regards the friend’s disparate epistemic conducts as a mere mirror of their diverse evidential positions compared to strangers. Based on this viewpoint, it is common, from an evidentialist standpoint, for friends to reach the wrong judgment about their friends considerably slower than they would do about a stranger (Goldberg, 2018). Friends have more significant proof of their partner’s character and behaviors than outsiders, who must evaluate the cognitive equilibrium and the more damaging factors provided to them. When it comes to their loved ones, different views are entirely epistemically acceptable between friends. The findings are just mere applications of the indicative approach. The direct experience between friends offers information that enables them to consider an alternative and correct interpretation of the accusations and deduce potential explanations for their friend’s behavior.
Personalized judging of accusations against friends, on the other hand, may cloud the judgments between friends and obscure the light of the accusation by viewing the friend according to a predetermined profile. Regardless, the adoption of conclusions and deductions seems to be misaligned with the substantial pressure from the factors friends evaluate. Excellent friends usually tend to focus on aspects that invalidate harmful wrongdoings and concentrate on potential theories that portray their friends positively (Jollimore, 2011). Friends refuse to believe inadequately supported statements by facts that would otherwise lead to reasonable conclusions to an impartial observer. There is also a difficulty with the evidentialist validation of views about friends. Friends are considered justified in rejecting negative interpretations of their loved one’s behavior because of their rich understanding of their friend’s personality. Friends reject the knowledge of their friend’s negative character, which is tainted, and instead focus on their positive character traits. It is unclear that opinions or views about the friend’s personality provide proof in the aspect that can provide epistemic rationale.
Friendship necessitates epistemic prejudice, defined as a logical unjustifiable deviation from cognitive impartiality. Doxastic attitudes that contradict the norms established by conventional epistemological models are a necessary component of friendship. As a result, we may infer that friendship necessitates epistemic bias, which can negatively affect friends, like character degeneration. On the other hand, friendship may be excellent in shedding light on potential causes for their friend’s conduct due to prior knowledge of their personality and morality. Friendships create partiality among friends, obscuring their personal views and may result in character deterioration, creating problems. While it may seem impossible for friends to consider their loved one’s behavior impartially, failure to do so may result in harmful long-term consequences.
References
Cyr, S. (2020). Love and rationality. Stance: an international undergraduate philosophy journal, 13(1), 12 23.
Goldberg, S. C. (2018). Against epistemic partiality in friendship: Value-reflecting reasons. Philosophical Studies.
Jollimore, T. (2011). Love’s vision. Princeton University Press.
Stroud, S. (2006). Epistemic partiality in friendship. Ethics, 116(3), 498-524.