British Literature Essay Macbeth vs. Sir Gawain and the...

There have been thousands of British Literature books, stories, epics, and poems written throughout history. All of the stories are unique, much like their authors, and even their surrounding history. Macbeth is a tragedy written by William Shakespeare in 1604; Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was written in the 1300’s by an unknown author. The following essay is going to compare and contrast the two stories mentioned above based on historical setting, cultural context, literary styles, and the aesthetic principles of the period in which they were written. Sir Gawain and the Green Knight were written in the late 14th century (1300’s) in Northwestern England. During this time, King Arthur was in reign. The story imitates ideology of English Chivalry and how chivalry works in the knighthood, as well as King Arthur’s court. Macbeth was written nearly after King James of Scotland took the English throne. The English didn’t know much about the Scottish, which brought them into the limelight. During his reign, there was a large amount of political and religious conflict, and the danger of the possible regicide. This historical background could have inspired Shakespeare while writing Macbeth, seeing that the story does contain what seems to be regicide. Although both pieces are somewhat political in nature, they were not intended to change the views of their readers, but to express their own thoughts and opinions on the matter. In Sir Gawain, the concept of chivalry originates from

The Personal Use As Teachers Education Essay Free Essays

In the personal usage as instructors, we will be researching the Howard Gardner theory and the differences usages it can hold and its importance in kids ‘s acquisition procedure. In this undertaking you can see the definition and information of The Multiple Intelligences Theory of Howard Gardner and the impact it has in the learning procedure of the pupils in the schoolroom. This research undertaking will besides concentrate in how this theory aims to spread out and do the acquisition procedure of the pupil wider and easier, learning the pupil the stuff piece at the same clip doing usage of his abilities and accomplishments to do this procedure faster and efficient. We will write a custom essay sample on The Personal Use As Teachers Education Essay or any similar topic only for you Order Now This theory explains that in the schoolroom we will happen, as future pedagogues, a diverseness of pupils with different types of intelligences and abilities that will impact the manner they learn and get cognition. This theory helps each pupil have the same chance to develop their intelligences. This theory can be applied by the instructor in the schoolroom in different ways. For illustration: by cognizing that each pupil learns in different ways, the instructor can integrate what he is learning with each pupil intelligences ; for illustration, allow ‘s state in the Spanish category the instructor have to discourse a narrative, than if some pupils are good at larning through music, he can unite singing with the narrative narrative, or if the pupil is good at logic, he can give them logical exercisings including narrative elements. We hope you enjoy this research undertaking every bit much as we did! Approach Theory This theory state us about the difference intelligence people posses, the public-service corporation and importance it has in the schoolroom and pupil larning procedure. The theory of the Multiple Intelligence that Howard Gardner proposes, is about how each individual learn in different manner by including the intelligence they posses with what they are been taught. There are eight different intelligences that had been officially identify and recognized, these are: lingual ( â€Å" word smart † ) , logical-mathematical ( â€Å" number/reasoning smart † ) , spacial ( â€Å" image smart † ) , bodily-kinesthetic ( â€Å" organic structure smart † ) , musical ( â€Å" music smart † ) , interpersonal ( â€Å" people smart † ) , intrapersonal ( â€Å" self smart † ) , naturalist ( â€Å" nature smart † ) . In other words we can state multiple Intelligences are eight different ways to show rational ability. The theory of multiple intelligences proposes a major transmutation in the manner our schools are run. It suggests that instructors be trained to show their lessons in a broad assortment of ways utilizing music, concerted acquisition, art activities, function drama, multimedia, field trips, interior contemplation, and much more. The theory of multiple intelligences has strong deductions for grownup acquisition and development. Many grownups find themselves in occupations that do non do optimum usage of their most extremely developed intelligences ( for illustration, the extremely bodily-kinesthetic person who is stuck in a lingual or logical desk-job when he or she would be much happier in a occupation where they could travel about, The theory of multiple intelligences gives grownups a whole new manner to look at their lives, analyzing potencies that they left buttocks in their childhood. Here are the different intelligences, a brief description and the accomplishments each of them: A A The pupils with the visual/spatial intelligence have the ability to comprehend the ocular. These scholars tend to believe in images and need to make graphic mental images to retain information. They enjoy looking at maps, charts, images, pictures, and films. The accomplishments they have ( which instructors should hold in head when learning them ) are: mystifier edifice, reading, composing, understanding charts and graphs, and many more. Students with the verbal/linguistic intelligence have abilities that include the usage of words and linguistic communication. These scholars have extremely developed auditory accomplishments and are by and large elegant talkers. They think in words instead than images. Their accomplishments include: hearing, speech production, composing, narrative relation, explicating, instruction, utilizing wit, etc.A Peoples with the logical/mathematical intelligence have the ability to utilize ground, logic and Numberss. These scholars think conceptually in logical and numerical forms doing connexions between pieces of information. Always funny about the universe around them, these learner ask tonss of inquiries and like to make experiments. Their accomplishments include: job resolution, sorting and categorising information, working with abstract constructs to calculate out the relationship of each to the other, etc. Learners with the bodily/kinesthetic intelligence have the ability to command organic structure motions and handle objects skilfully. These scholars express themselves through motion. They have a good sense of balance and eye-hand co-ordination. ( e.g. ball drama, equilibrating beams ) . Through interacting with the infinite around them, they are able to retrieve and treat information. Their accomplishments include: dance, physical co-ordination, athleticss, custodies on experimentation, utilizing organic structure linguistic communication, trades, moving, miming, utilizing their custodies to make or construct, showing emotions through the organic structure. Students with the musical/rhythmic intelligence have the ability to bring forth and appreciate music. These musically inclined scholars think in sounds, beat and forms. They instantly respond to music either appreciating or knocking what they hear. Many of these scholars are highly sensitive to environmental sounds ( e.g. crickets, bells, dripping lights-outs ) . Their accomplishments include: vocalizing, whistling, playing musical instruments, acknowledging tonic forms, composing music, retrieving tunes, understanding the construction and beat of music. Those who possess the interpersonal intelligence have the ability to associate and understand others. These scholars try to see things from other people ‘s point of position in order to understand how they think and feel. Their accomplishments include: seeing things from other positions ( dual-perspective ) , listening, utilizing empathy, understanding other people ‘s tempers and feelings, reding, co-operating with groups, detecting people ‘s tempers, A and many more. Having the intrapersonal intelligence will give you the ability to self-reflect and be cognizant of one ‘s interior province of being. These scholars try to understand their interior feelings, dreams, relationships with others, and strengths and failings. Their accomplishments include: Acknowledging their ain strengths and failings, reflecting and analysing themselves, consciousness of their interior feelings, desires and dreams, measuring their thought forms, concluding with themselves, understanding their function in relationship to others. The pupils with the realistic smart being able to touch, experience, keep, and seek practical hands-on experiences, but by and large out-of-doorss within the environment, nature and animate beings. Being Naturalistic agencies you are really interested and funny of your surroundings.A These scholars enjoy playing out and traveling on trips to larn about the environment and the animate beings. And likely maintain or like pets, and dislike pollution and people that litter. Their accomplishments include: May be really interested in species, or in the environment and the Earth, may hold a strong affinity to the outside universe or to animate beings, they may bask topics like biological science, vegetation, geology, weather forecasting, astronomy fauna, or palaeontology. Design ( Classroom usage ) A The instructor ( utilizing wholly this theory ) aims to learn the assigned stuff in a different manner for each group of pupils that posses the same intelligence. For this, the instructor has to place by giving a trials to the pupils, how many of them belong to a peculiar intelligence group. Once all the pupils intelligence had been identify they are divided and grouped together merely with the pupils they portion the same intelligence. The pupils that possess the lingual intelligence acquire together in a side of the schoolroom, while the pupils with the musical intelligence acquire together in a different side, same applies to every other intelligence. After all the pupils are in groups with the pupils that posses the same intelligence as them, the instructor will learn the exact same category stuff to each group but otherwise to each of them. If the instructor is learning about animate beings who eat merely veggies, the group of pupils possessing the lingual intelligence can read about it, the group of pupils possessing the logical-mathematical intelligence could utilize mathematical expressions to show it, pupils with the visual-spatial intelligence can analyze a in writing chart that illustrates the rule ; like this illustrations, the remainder of the groups will larn and be taught the same stuff but in a different manner. By learning to a pupil ‘s intelligences and by leting them to show themselves utilizing their preferable intelligences the full schoolroom can be enriched. Students will research the Multiple Intelligences theories and larn to plan lesson programs that appeal to assorted intelligences. But, apart of separately utilizing a different method for each pupils, another signifier of utilizing the Multiple Intelligences Theory would be for all the pupils, no affair which intelligence they are portion of, to be taught with every other intelligence method, this will affect everyone in the schoolroom into a better acquisition experience in my sentiment and I think is really the one most instructors use now yearss. For illustration: Teachers should construction the presentation of stuff in a manner which engages most or all of the intelligences. For illustration, when learning about the radical war, a instructor can demo pupils conflict maps, play radical war vocals, form a function drama of the sign language of the Declaration of Independence, and have the pupils read a novel about life during that period. This sort of presentation non merely excites pupils about acquisition, but it besides allows a instructor to reenforce the same stuff in a assortment of ways. By triping a broad mixture of intelligences, learning in this mode can ease a deeper apprehension of the capable stuff. When sing multiple intelligences in the schoolroom, a instructor should avoid the impulse to label kids as holding merely one such type. Many kids will hold strengths and failings in more than one of these countries. All kids in the schoolroom should be encouraged to seek new things and research every construct through a broad assortment of experiences. Showing stuff in assorted ways allows instructors to make more pupils, potentially extinguishing the defeat when some merely do n’t look to â€Å" acquire it. † The benefits of integrating the Multiple Intelligences Theory in the schoolroom would be: Provide reliable experiences for pupils based on single demands. Longer storage of memory because activities are meaningful and connect to personal experiences. Activities/performances may increase parent engagement in the schoolroom and school. Students able to show and portion strength. Students to derive self assurance because they are demoing off their country of strength. Decision Once we finish our Research Paper Project we notice that there exists some theory elements form the Multiple Intelligence Theory that we did n’t know.A When we began our research, we found some different information. In some resources at that place appear seven intelligences but in others appear eight.A Finally we can reason that there are eight different types of intelligences. Thankss to this research we learn about diverse and different instruction techniques and schemes that the instructor may utilize in the classroom.A We like being working and look intoing because we had learn different techniques that we can utilize to affect our pupils in class.A This theory is really utile for teachers.A We think that every instructor should incorporate this theory in their categories in order to introduce and make interesting categories for their pupils. How to cite The Personal Use As Teachers Education Essay, Essay examples

Ethical Use of Prisoners in Human Research free essay sample

The use of humans as research subjects has been a long debated issue within the scientific community. There are a lot of factors that go into regulating such research studies, like limiting coercion, undue inducement, and vulnerability of the population of the subjects in the study. To help control these issues, there have been many guidelines that have been implemented to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the research subjects. Within healthcare and medical research, certain groups of people are offered special services and protections because they are considered vulnerable. Vulnerable populations include children, persons with mental disabilities, women who are pregnant, and prisoners. The CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research define ‘vulnerable persons’ as â€Å"those who are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of protecting their own interests. More formally, the may have insufficient power, intelligence, education, resources, strength, or other needed attributes to protect their own interests. Therefore, there are detailed guidelines that are designed to protect the rights and welfare of any vulnerable persons by requiring justifications for involving such individuals in research. It is essential for healthcare workers and researchers to identify subjects as vulnerable or not to make sure that resources are properly allocated to ensure that special protections and benefits are given to those who need it (8). There has been a long struggle to define vulnerability, which has led to arguments about its value as a factor in the distribution of resources an it’s appropriateness as a guiding principle in bioethics. History of the use of Prisoners The abuse of the use of humans in research in recent history has made it evident for the need for a code of ethics protecting human research subjects. Both Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese Army took advantage of the poverty, defenselessness, and dependency of others by using the latter to serve their own needs without adequate compensation for these disadvantaged individuals or groups (6). When Adolf Hitler came to power, he implemented a series of laws promoting racial segregation and the protection of the â€Å"Arian race†. These laws were created in partnership with a portion of the German medical community. One of the first laws that was enacted was called the Sterilization Act. This called for the sterilization of subjects with certain medical and mental disorders in order to remove the genetic abnormalities that caused these conditions from the gene pool, thereby purifying and improving the â€Å"German race. † The scientists involved in implementing these laws argued that they were performing these procedures â€Å"for the benefit of the nation and the health of subsequent generations, and not for the individual patient. They believed they were part of a ‘holy mission’, which would benefit society as a whole. (5) In addition to the Sterilization Act, the German medical community was involved in the implementation of the Nuremburg Laws, which were encated for the purpose of the â€Å"purification of the blood of the German people. (5) The involvemtn of the medical community in employing these laws demonstrates the relaxation of ethical principles. These laws required that couples undergo premarital medical examinations in order to prevent the spread of ‘racially damaging diseases’. In addition, as the war was approaching the Germans needed to free up hospital beds for wounded soldiers, and thus, the medical community was instructed to perform euthanasia on any incurable patients. This program was eventually extended to include the extermination of those who constituted a threat to society; those with links to criminals, behaved antisocially, prostitutes, drifters, and homosexuals. This practice of mass extermination served as the model for the â€Å"Final Solution†, which was to wipe out an enormous number of Jewish people. In addition to these methods of eradication, the German medical community played a large role in more covert procedures that took places in healthcare institutions. These included killing patients though malnutrition, inducing hypothermia by turning off the heat during the winter, and injecting subjects with drugs in order to speed up the death process. (5) Probably one of the most concerning displays of the connecting between the German doctors and the Nazis was the use of humans as research subjects, not only among the atrocities of the concentration camps, but also in the hospitals and universities. In addition to Jews, gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals, and the physically and mentally disabled were recruited as ‘subjects’ for these horrific experiments. Just as they justified carrying out the Sterilization Act and the Nuremburg Laws, they also deemed the acts performed in hospitals as ok, saying that â€Å"if the sick have to die anyway, as a result of the assessment of one of my colleagues, why not make use of them while alive or after their execution for research? † (5) Ethical Guidelines for the Use of Prisoners As a result of these horrors and the exploitation in the use of prisoners as research subjects, ethical codes were written in an attempt to protect this population, in addition to other populations classified as vulnerable, from being mistreated and exploited. The various codes of ethics that have been drawn up demonstrate that when vulnerable groups, such as prisoners, serve as research populations, special principles and a heightened degree of care must be employed to deal with them. (7) As a reaction to the atrocities carried out by the Nazi doctors and scientists in the field of human research that were revealed during the Nuremburg trials, the Nuremburg code was published in August of 1947. It was the first international code for research with human beings, and was based on the Hippocratic oath of â€Å"first do no harm. † It was created to prevent and repetition of the calamity resulting from the extremely cruel attacks on human wellbeing and rights. It put forth rules that should govern the use of human beings for experimentation. The need to obtain informed consent is emphasized, and it has since been regarded as the key issue of the protection of patients’ rights. The code consists of a declaration of ten principles, generally focusing on the protection of the rights of persons participating in medical research. It requires that in addition to the requirement for researchers and clinicians to protect their patients’ rights, the subjects themselves also actively participate in their own protection. Though the Nuremburg Code has not been officially implemented in any nation or medical association, it has had a huge impact on the area of human rights and bioethics. Since its fundamental requirement of informed consent has been accepted all over the world, it has been preserved within multiple international laws regarding human rights. (5) In 1964, the Eighteenth World Medical Assembly meeting in Helsinki adopted an ethical code to help guide doctors and researchers who conduct medical research involving human subjects, and has been amended several times in attempt to stay current. The Declaration of Helsinki developed the ten principle first addressed in the Nuremburg Code and tied them to the Declaration of Geneva, a statement of a physician’s ethical duties. Thus, it has many things in common with the Nuremburg Code, the most essential of which is the requirement for informed consent. However, they do have their differences. First, the Declaration of Helsinki points out that some, but not all, medical research is combined with medical care. Consequently, it puts forth a set of principles for medical research combined with medical care or therapeutic research. Second, while the Nuremberg Code does not address research on subjects who are unable to provide informed consent, the Helsinki Code addresses such research, stating the ethical acceptability under certain conditions of â€Å"proxy consent. † Despite the Declaration of Helsinki not being regarded as a binding instrument in international law, it is significant because it was the first major effort of the medical community to regulate research itself (5). Federal Regulations to protect human subjects in research were established in 1974 and adapted in 1981. They were then revised in 1991 as the US Code of Federal Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects, also known as the Common Rule. However, unlike other ethical guideline, it does not define vulnerability. Instead, it provides special protections for ‘particularly vulnerable populations’. These include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, and prisoners. (4) These regulations define research as a ‘systemic investigation’ designed to advance or add to ‘generalizable knowledge. ’ This includes research development, testing, and evaluation. Current Literature on the Use of Prisoners Lawrence Gostin, in his article entitled Biomedical Research Involving Prisoners, discusses the ethical values and legal regulations regarding research studies that involve prisoners. He mentions that many companies, including the US Army and major pharmaceutical companies, performed a wide variety of research on prisoners up until the early 1970s due to their easy accessibility, vulnerability, and captivity. In many cases researchers did not obtain informed consent and failed to treat the prisoners properly for the pain they endured. Ultimately, in the mid 1970s research of this kind declined due to publicized knowledge of the exploitation of prisoners. Federal regulations that protected human subjects were adapted several times and came to be known as the Common Rule. In recent years the amount of prisoners in correctional facilities has greatly increased. Thus, correctional facilities are overcrowded and many inmates are subject to inadequate treatment including limited access to services and health care. In addition to their poor health and low socioeconomic status, prisoners are considered vulnerable due to their limited liberty and autonomy. They may not be capable of providing informed consent and may not have a practical expectation of privacy within prison settings. In this environment, prisoners may not be capable of meaningfully choosing between participating in research and not participating (Gostin, 738). A compromise between promoting beneficial research and protecting prisoners is difficult to achieve and is politically controversial. The author suggests a few proposals that he believes solve this difficulty. Firstly, he suggests that the definition of prisoner be extended to include all individuals whose autonomy and liberty are limited by the justice system. Next, he recommends that all research on prisoners be regulated consistently, irrespective of the source of funding, supporting agency, or type of correctional facility. The third proposal is to create a national database for prisoner research. This would ensure greater accountability, provide a method for measuring the success of research projects, and assist the implementation of beneficial research findings to prisoner populations. In his article entitled Against Risk-Benefit Review of Prisoner Research, Eric Chwang discusses the some of the weaknesses of the Common Rule. He mentions the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine’s Ethical Considerations for Research Involving Prisoners. The suggested five changes to the current United States regulations on prisoner research. These are 1) to broaden the definition of â€Å"prisoner†, 2) to guarantee universally and consistently applied standards of protection, 3) to move from a category- based to a risk-benefit approach to research review, 4) to revise the ethical framework to include collaborative responsibility, and 5) to improve systematic oversight of research involving prisoners. The IOM report maintains that the category-based constraints stated in the Common Rule are lacking since they are subject to interpretation and do not attend to actual prisoner vulnerabilities. Thus, the IOM report recommends that the category-based constraints be replaced with risk-benefit constraints. However, the author disagrees and thinks the Common Rule and IOM recommendations should be combined into an ethical framework. He suggests that additional risk-benefit restrictions on research are redundant and that the current Common Rule regulations excluding category-based constraints, but compounded with the IOM’s four other recommendations, guarantee that prisoner research is as ethical as non-prisoner research. Chwang argues that the reason for the IOM’s insistence on risk-benefit constraints is that the IOM compares the vulnerable population of prisoners to the vulnerable population of children, for whom research is regulated on the basis of risk-benefit restrictions. However, while children are not competent to give rational consent and rely on adults to determine whether or not they should serve as subjects in research, most prisoners are adults and can thus make rational decisions about participation in research (Chwang, 15). Chwang claims that even though the implementation of risk-benefit restrictions was designed to solve certain problems inherent to prisoners, there are several reasons why it was not successful in its attempt. First, risk-benefit constraints seem appropriate because they protect against the lack of autonomy inherent to prison life due to prisoner’s lack of freedom. They live in a coercive environment in which their lives are highly regulated, and therefore it can be argued that prisoners cannot freely choose whether or not to participate in research. However, while it seems that prisoners living in a coercive are completely â€Å"unfree†, meaning all of their decisions are made under pressure, then this is claim is false. Even though in this coercive environment many of prisoners’ decisions are subject to interference, this does not necessarily mean that every choice they make is subject to coercive interference. Another argument is that even prisoners can make some free choices the choice to participate in research will always be coerced. Yet, coercion is prohibited by the Common Rule, which applies to research with all populations. In addition, risk-benefit constraints do not alleviate these concerns about coercion since passing the research through a risk-benefit filter would not make it any more ethical to coerce prisoners into participating in research. The author suggests that the right response is to ensure that the research study is not coercive to begin with. The solution is not to add a risk-benefit analysis to the process; the solution is to make certain that the constraints already established for research are followed. In addition to risk-benefit analysis not being a suitable solution for the problem of coercion it is not a solution for the problem of undue inducement. Undue inducement is an incentive to participate in research that inappropriately influences the subject to enroll. Though prisoner research seems susceptible to undue inducement, this concern is not resolved by additional risk-benefit constraints. Firstly, the IOM report is concerned with risk-benefit analysis because it wants to guarantee that the benefits of prisoner research are great enough to offset the risks. Yet, it does not mention the danger of undue inducement as a motivating factor for its suggestion of risk-benefit restrictions. Also, undue inducements are no more problematic for prisoners than they are for the general population. Therefore, it is essential that the constraints already in place are strictly followed, not the addition of new constraints. Finally, while additional risk-benefit restrictions might seem to help solve the issue of exploitation of prisoners, they in fact do not. This is partly due to the fact that calculating the degree of exploitation is controversial. In order to eliminate exploitation, we would have to figure out not just whether the benefits of participation outweigh the risks, but rather we would also have to figure out whether the net benefits are high enough. This may depend on comparing those benefits to the benefits to the researcher and to society. We would therefore require an expected benefit calculation. This idea that we must guarantee that the distribution of benefits is not exploitative is not part of the IOM report’s suggestion. Even if they did incorporate this calculation, it would still be problematic since the calculation can yield incorrect results. In addition, exploitation is a problem for all research, not just for research involving prisoners. Exploitation should be prohibited and more rigorous guidelines should be implemented for all research. Thus, we do not need additional restrictions for prisoner research. What is needed is better supervision to guarantee that more general constraints, which apply to all research, are followed. David Thomas, in his article entitled Prisoner Research- Looking Back or Looking Forward, discusses the issue of what he calls â€Å"prisoner’s right to research†, which refers to the concept of a prisoner’s right to participate as a subject in medical research. The author argues that this issue has been rarely addressed. While the IOM recommendations advocates for prisoners and allows research on prisoners, it does not advocate for the concept of a prisoner’s right to research (Thomas, 23). There are a variety of therapies in current medical care that change with great speed. Unlike a non-incarcerated person who has readily available access to therapies and receive treatment if needed, in a prison environment the only way to gain access to these therapies is to participate in a clinical trial. Thus, refusing prisoners the advantages of modern therapies would be equivalent to restricting their rights due only to their incarceration. Forms of imprisonment that extend beyond humane confinement may defy the ban against cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, denying incarcerated persons therapy by virtue of their incarceration creates an unequal state of affairs that imposes upon the essential issue of justice (Thomas, 25). Research involving prisoners with suitable protections that give prisoners the accepted standard of care should not be denied. In addition to the IOM recommendations, Julio Arboleda-Florez, in his article The Ethics of Biomedical Research on Prisoners suggests other rules to ensure the protection of prisoners involved in research. He first recommends that external rewards should not be used as inducements to participate in research. Medical care, healthy food, reduction in sentence, or an increase in visiting hours should not be used to persuade prisoners to be involved in research. Next, he suggests that therapeutic research should be distinguished from nontherapeutic research. This is necessary so that prisoners will not be denied eventual health benefits that could result from involvement as a subject in research. The author also insists that the Institutional Review Board must have a role (Florez, 516). Finally, he proposes that increased external governance should be introduced. This is due to the trouble that results from lack of oversight. Ethical Analysis of the Use of Prisoners As can be seen from the literature previously discussed, there has been an ongoing debate regarding the ethical issues surrounding the use of prisoners as subjects of research studies, and the proper course of action to take in order to ensure prisoners’ protection from exploitation and coercion while at the same time maintaining their autonomy. According to the various codes of ethics, the requirement to protect the autonomy of persons with diminished capacity is linked to the ethical principle of respect for persons.