A Failure To Communicate

A Failure To Communicate What we have here is a failure to communicate. This famous quote from the 1967 film, Cool Hand Luke, characterizes the plight of the characters in the short stories by Jhumpa Lahiri. A Temporary Matter, When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine, and Interpreter of Maladies, three stories in Lahiris book Interpreter of Maladies, demonstrate how a failure to communicate dooms the relationships between the characters in each story. Not every breakdown in communication is for the same reason, but it is usually neglect for the partners interests. This failure of the relationships is portrayed in these stories as due to a failure of one or both of the partners of the relationship to realize the needs and desires of the other. Lahiri portrays her characters as oblivious to the other partners feelings or self-directed, only focusing on their own situation. In Lahiris stories she lets us walk in the shoes of another person where she points out the obvious flaws that the protagonists seem to miss. The story, A Temporary Matter, begins with a notice that for five day electricity would be cut off for an hour in the neighborhood of Shukumar and Shoba, a young Indian couple. After the death of their baby, who died at birth, the two are going through depressions. They constantly avoid each other, only meeting up to have a silent dinner or have an awkward check-up on the other. The love in their relationship had become none-existent and the images of when they did love each other haunt Shukumar. Before the night of the first blackout Shukumar prepared dinner for Shoba, hoping to rekindle something between them. They had dinner by candle-light in silence, until Shoba brought up a little game where they had to tell each other something they had never told the other before. They did this every night until the first night after the blackouts. Shukumar had set up the dinner table as if the blackouts were still happening, but Shoba turned on the lights and brought up a serious subject. Sh e revealed to Shukumar that she was preparing for a life without him. Shukumar then retorted with something that was equally as hurtful. Lahiri ends the story with the two sitting at the table weeping. Lahiri uses her first story to illustrate to the reader how the neglect of one or both people in the relationship can cause it to fail; the inability to meet someones needs or make sacrifices in a relationship ultimately dooms it. By the time of the nightly power outages, they had become experts at avoiding each other, neither Shukumar nor Shoba was willing to face the other for fear of having to deal with the tragic loss of their baby (4). In their mutual depression they are both unwilling to help themselves and unable to relieve the stress they are living under, much less helping each other. They refused to let go of this tragedy, The film in his camera still contained pictures of Shoba, in the yard, when she was pregnant (15). The pictures represent a happier, idealized time in their relationship, and by keeping the pictures in his camera it shows that he is unwilling let go of this image and face the reality of the present. He cannot accept that their relationship is failing and neither can Shoba. They are unwilling and unable to move forward, dragged back into depression by the constant reminders of the death of their baby. The more they could not help themselves move on, the more they could not help the partner. Shukumar is stuck in a malaise and Shoba does everything to distract herself. They did not have the ability or the willpower to help themselves or each other; therefore they were stuck in a dying relationship. To illustrate the fact that Shukumar and Shoba are too busy wallowing in their self-centered misery Lahiri snuck in the image of the dying plant in dried up dirt in the midst of all this misery, Even though the plant was inches away from the tap, the soil was so dryà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ he had to water it first before the candle would stand straight (10). The plant and soil are a metaphor for the relationship. His relationship had life and many chances, but he neglected those chances. He was unwilling to water the plant, just like he unwilling to help his relationship. Even at the end, the plant is dead but he is still using the soil. He does not even watering the plant for the plants sake, but using it for his own needs; just like when they have these intimate moments during the blackouts, he is not to keep his marriage alive, he is doing it to get his doubts and secrets off his chest, It happened over fifteen years ago. He felt relief now, having told her (17). These confessions were not meant to help mend the relationship but were used instead to relieve their conscience and ultimately ended up hurting each other, Our baby was a boyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ he promised himself that day (the day the baby was born) he would never tell Shoba, because he still loved her then (22). He knew this would hurt Shoba, but now he did it for personal gain and vengeance. Their self-centered attitude toward their relationship ultimately drove them apart. In the short story When Mr. Pirzada Came to Dine, the title character, Mr. Pirzada, a botanist from Dacca, India, leaves his wife and six daughters behind to study plant life in New England. Ten year old Lilia and her parents, an Indian family, invite Mr. Pirzada to come over to have dinner with them. While in the U.S. a war broke out in India and Dacca was hit. Mr. Pirzada would come every night to the house of Lilia and eat dinner with them. One of those nights in October, Lilia began to accept his constant visits, and even carved a pumpkin with him. On Halloween night Lilia was about to venture out trick-or-treating for her first time alone until Mr. Pirzada got worried and asked if he should go. Fearing losing her independence she told him not to worry, he sulked back surprised into the doorway. They do not talk again, and the family does not hear from him for months until one day they receive a letter from Mr. Pirzada telling them that he found his family and all were safe. When Mr. Pirzada finds that the communication between him and his family is flawed, he slowly opens channels with Lilias family. Mr. Pirzadas need for communication was shown Each week [when] Mr. Pirzada wrote a letter to his wife, and sent comic books for his seven daughters (24). However this proves to be an unsatisfying way of communication because it is one way communication; therefore he looks toward Lilia and her family to fill the void of the lost relationship with his daughters and his family. As Mr. Pirzada begins to go to dinners, he starts to treat Lilia more and more like his daughter. The turning point in their relationship is the carving of the pumpkin, Yes, lets carve it,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ For the first time we all gathered around the dining table (35). Before the carving of the pumpkin the height of the interaction between Mr. Pirzada and Lilia was when he gave her candy each night. They realized that they had to give up a little bit of comfort for him. He accepted the f amily because they took him in during his time of need. The whole family and Mr. Pirzada gathering around that table represented that Mr. Pirzada was part of the family. Through Mr. Pirzadas interactions, Lahiri illustrates that when one loses a line of communication, they look for it somewhere else. A relationship is doomed to failure if one of the sides of the relationship neglects the needs of the other side. On Halloween night, fearful of losing her independence, Lilia chooses to spend the night with her friend instead of spending it with Mr. Pirzada (something typical for the American culture, but difficult for Mr. Pirzada to understand), and tells him, Dont worry' (38). Disregarding Mr. Pirzadas fear that hell lose another daughter, Lilia neglects his needs and his pains. This act shows that she lacks the understanding that in order to help Mr. Pirzada she needs to sacrifice some things in order to keep her relationship with him alive. The communication between the two is broken down due to her obliviousness to the causes of this self-centered act. As such, their relationship fails: For a long time we did not hear from him. Our evenings went on as usual, with dinners in front of the news (41). Through her failure in communication, their relationship disintegrated. Throughou t the days with Lilias family, Mr. Pirzadas ties with them deepen, but when Lilia becomes oblivious to his needs, the relationship fails. In Lahiris third story Interpreter of Maladies, Mr. Kapasi is a working man in India with two jobs, an interpreter for a doctor and a tour guide. He is stuck in a dysfunctional relationship after the doctor could not prevent the death of his child. One day he is assigned the Dass, a young, irresponsible, and equally dysfunctional couple with nothing that holds them together except three children. Mr. Kapasi is made aware of this very early on in the story, with the Dass allowing their children to do whatever they want. Midway through the trip, Mr. Kapasi tells them about his job as an interpreter. Mrs. Das takes a sudden interest in Mr. Kapasi that she did not display with her husband or kids, saying that his job seems à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦so romantic (50). Mr. Kapasi becomes deeply enamored with Mrs. Das, feeling that her interest means that she loves him. He spends the rest of the story fantasizing about how their friendship would bloom, and worrying about leaving Mrs. Das or losing her interest. In order to spend more time with the family, he takes the family to the Sun Temple. Once there Mrs. Das stays in the car with Mr. Kapasi, where Mrs. Das confesses her failing relationship, her inability to get her stress off her chest, her affair, and that her youngest is not actually Mr. Dass. She asks Mr. Kapasi for a cure to make her feel better and make the pain go away, but Mr. Kapasi asks her, Is it really pain you feelà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ or is it guilt? (66). She becomes angered by this and storms off to her family, where she finds that her son has been beaten by the monkeys for his food. The story ends with Mrs. Das kneeling down to take care of her child as the paper with the address of Mr. Kapasi (that she was going to use to mail him) flutters out of her bag. Lahiri brings these two dysfunctional relationships together to display the different types of neglect: neglecting another and neglecting ones self. Through these two different types of neglect, she shows that without neglect a relationship is much more functional. In the very beginning Mr. Kapasi realizes that Mr. and Mrs. Das were a bad match, just as he and his wife wereà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ the bickering, the indifference, the protracted silenceà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (53). Although we see Mr. Kapasi care for and try to help his depression stricken wife, The countless other ways he tried to console his wife and to keep her from crying in her sleepà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦, he knew that his wife had little regard for his careerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (53). Lahiri brings up the point that it only takes one to neglect and ruin a relationship. He began to understand that the reason he does not get along with his wife is because she neglects his feelings and help. The indifference for his job and the constant bicke ring is due to the wifes jealousy and self-centered thinking, she resented the other lives he helpedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (53). This is why Mr. Kapasi is love-stricken by Mrs. Das, When Mr. Kapasi thought once again about how she had said, romantic, the feeling of intoxication grew, because she seems to respect him and seems to makes him feel like his job is actually something worthwhile (53). The bickering, indifference, and silence was non-existent; she seemed genuinely interested in him. He feels like she realizes his troubles and does not neglect them like his wife does, therefore his affection grew. Due to the fact that his wife neglects his needs for respect, he looks for a new relationship elsewhere. However in the same story, Lahiri reveals the other side of the spectrum: how neglecting ones self can tear apart a relationship. Mrs. Das reveals her unwillingness to reach out and search for an outlet or a friend, when she tells Mr. Kapasi that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦she did not make many close friends. There was no one to confide in about [her husband] at the end of a difficult day, or share a passing thought or worry (63). Simply put, she neglected her own needs. Instead of going to the trouble of finding someone to fill this need, she decided to cheat. She felt the ability to relieve herself of some of her stress, but this is ultimately unsatisfactory. In her continuing effort to relieve stress, she tells Mr. Kapasi some of her stories and secrets. It is only after the talk with Mr. Kapasi, she realizes that she is neglecting her own needs and neglecting the needs of her family, When she whipped out the hair-brush, the slip of paper with Mr. Kapasis address on it fluttered away in the w indà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ (69). She realizes that she needs a loving family and he children need her. She stops neglecting her children by the act of brushing the hair of her beaten boy. It is clear that the communication had been rekindled between her and her family from there. The paper fluttering away represents that Mr. Kapasi will be unneeded as an outlet for communication because now she has her family. She is no longer oblivious to the fact that she needs her family as an outlet. Mrs. Das realizes that due to her neglecting herself she is neglecting her family, and therefore chooses to fix her problem of communication by reviving the relationship with her family. In these three stories by Lahiri, failure of communication is caused by neglect. This is demonstrated by either one or both of the characters in the relationship acting oblivious to the other persons needs and/or is self-centered enough to not care. Oblivious neglect is the inability to recognize the needs of another and self-centered neglect is when one is unwilling to help or recognize these needs. The communication between Shukumar and Shoba breaks down due to their inability and unwillingness to help themselves or each other. The relationship between Lilia and Mr. Pirzada fails due to Lilias obliviousness to the effects of her self-centered want for independence from Mr. Pirzada and her family. The failure between Mrs. Das and her family was caused by her obliviousness to her own need for an outlet of stress, while Mr. Kapasi failing relationship is due to his wifes selfishness and unwillingness to let Mr. Kapasi help her. Each of these relationships is different, yet the common thread is communication, or the lack thereof.

Broken Child Essay

The documentary â€Å"Broken Child† explored the lives of people, both children to adults, that have been impacted by drug and alcohol abuse, it also showed children who’ve been affected by violence and neglect. Both types of children have one thing in common, a high likelihood to repeat the mistakes of their parents. Whether they’ve grown up living with one or both parents, are adopted, or live in foster care they are at risk. Factors that impact a child’s life are whether their mother abused drugs or alcohol while pregnant, and if they’ve grown up in difficult living situations, but there are some solutions offered by this documentary. You’re pregnant,† are the words some people dread, people like teenagers and drug users. Drug users, whose only concern is becoming high and acquiring money for drugs, will not properly care for a child. In some cases mothers continue to abuse drugs and alcohol throughout their pregnancy because they are too addicted to stop. This causes their babies to have defects, mental and psychological problems. Children can be born with damaged brains, and growing up isn’t easy for them. One such child is Jonathan, he’s an eight year old boy who’s had a hard life. His biological mother was an alcoholic and a drug abuser, when she was in labor she was also drunk. This caused Jonathan to have severe mental and psychological problems, including emotional detachment and violent episodes. He was adopted by Alison and Randy, who are the only people who can control him during an episode. Because of his episodes Jonathan cannot have babysitters, also because he was arrested at the age of seven for holding a knife to a babysitters throat. Jonathan takes many medications to help him control himself and calm down. This does not, however; mean that Jonathan has broken his family’s cycle. There are signs that show him to still be on the path, such as his thoughts about hurting and even killing himself, or his weakness towards weapons and violence and his impulse to such things. Even though he does not speak to his biological mother or know any relative he is still very damaged in the head. Showing that it’s not only the environment that impacts a child’s life but their DNA as well. Drug and alcohol abuse are not the only things that can affect a life, exposure to violence and neglect at a young age can create damaging effects ike PTSD, violence towards other people, and a difficulty to learn. Some forms of neglect are undernourished, dehydrated, unchanged diapers, no running water, dirty clothes and children left home alone. When things become unbearable children are taken from their parents by CPS(Child Protective Services) and placed in foster homes. While a foster home may be a better alternative to living at home, sometimes it’s just a meager half step. Foster parents abuse their foster children and in some cases so do the other children in the foster home. This leads to scared and later angry children who have been set to repeat a negative family cycle. In other situations, there are children, who take care of younger siblings. This occurs when parents are constantly at work or are neglectful. A seven year-old should never have to have the life of another in his or her hands. They are children themselves who should be enjoying their youth. Forcing children into a role of responsibility too big for them at home pushes them to their anger and frustration in other places, such as school. In school they are just another student, just another name on a desk, just another paper to grade. It’s a place to blend in and become the person they must suppress at home. Full of anger and built up hate these children are prone to fighting which earns them a bad name to teachers who don’t know the whole story. These types of kids mix with PTSD effected children who’ve seen someone die or who are accustomed to multiple gunshots each night as they sleep. A mixing of this proportion means that children don’t focus on school because their too busy picking a fight. All these causes, foster care, children parents, and violence exposed children, add up to a single effect; the continuation of a negative family cycle. In spite of these long, and seemingly endless cycles of negativity I believe that there is a solution to this problem. That is a school. A school with teachers trained to handle out of control students, with small classes, and with after school activities to keep kids off the streets. The teachers will have smaller class sizes which will allow them to have a better handle on the kids. Smaller class sizes will also allow teaches to focus on the students more as individuals rather than one of thirty. Teachers will be trained to handle tempers, fights, and outbursts by children. The after school activities will include things such as homework time, crafts time, sports times, and a weekly counseling session for kids who need the help. These programs will ensure that younger children have a place with a good environment after school and that older children stay off the streets and away from drugs, alcohol, and prostitution. They counseling sessions will be to help stabilize the minds of the children and know when to step in take action. This, to me, seems a good solution because kids are in school for a majority of the day and because things like family counseling will not work on closed minded people. It would be funded by the state, and be a free public school. Children seemed destined to fall into a negative family cycle, but with the right kind of help I believe that can be changed. Children can be born normal, children can enjoy life if only the right steps are taken.

Fraser Guidelines Essay

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (16 years or younger) is able to consent to his or her own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge. The standard is based on a decision of the House of Lords in the case Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1985] 3 All ER 402 (HL). The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been approved in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Similar provision is made in Scotland by The Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991. In Northern Ireland, although separate legislation applies, the then Department of Health and Social Services Northern Ireland stated that there was no reason to suppose that the House of Lords’ decision would not be followed by the Northern Ireland Courts. Contents [hide] †¢1 The Gillick decision †¢2 Subsequent developments †¢3 Australian law †¢4 Confusion regarding Gillick competency †¢5 Fraser Guidelines 6 References †¢7 Link [edit] The Gillick decision The Gillick case involved a health departmental circular advising doctors on the contraception of minors (for this purpose, under sixteens). The circular stated that the prescription of contraception was a matter for the doctor’s discretion, and that they could be prescribed to under sixteens without parental consent. This matter was litigated because an activist, Mrs. Victoria Gillick (nee Gudgeon), r an an active campaign against the policy. Mrs Gillick, a mother of ten (five girls, five boys), sought a declaration that prescribing contraception was illegal because the doctor would commit an offence of encouraging sex with a minor, and that it would be treatment without consent as consent vested in the parent. The issue before the House of Lords was only whether the minor involved could give consent. ‘Consent’ here was considered in the broad sense of consent to battery or assault: in the absence of patient consent to treatment a doctor, even if well-intentioned, might be sued/charged. The House of Lords focussed on the issue of consent rather than a notion of ‘parental rights’ or parental powers. In fact, the court held that ‘parental rights’ did not exist, other than to safeguard the best interests of a minor. The majority held that in some circumstances a minor could consent to treatment, and that in these circumstances a parent had no power to veto treatment. Lord Scarman and Lord Fraser proposed slightly different tests (Lord Bridge agreed with both). Lord Scarman’s test is generally considered to be the test of ‘Gillick competency’. He required that a child could consent if they fully understood the medical treatment that is proposed: â€Å"As a matter of Law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed. † Lord Scarman The ruling, holds particularly significant implications for the legal rights of minor children in England in that it is broader in scope than merely medical consent. It lays down that the authority of parents to make decisions for their minor children is not absolute, but diminishes with the child’s evolving maturity; except in situations that are regulated otherwise by statute, the right to make a decision on any particular matter concerning the child shifts from the parent to the child when the child reaches sufficient maturity to be capable of making up his or her own mind on the matter requiring decision. [edit] Subsequent developments The decisions in Re R and Re W (especially Lord Donaldson) contradict the Gillick decision somewhat. From these, and subsequent cases, it is suggested that although the parental right to veto treatment ends, parental powers do not ‘terminate’ as suggested by Lord Scarman in Gillick. However, these are only obiter statements and were made by a lower courts; therefore, they are not legally binding. However, the parens patriae jurisdiction of the court remains available allowing a court order to force treatment against a child’s (and parent’s) wishes. A child who is deemed â€Å"Gillick competent† is able to prevent their parents viewing their medical records. As such, medical staff will not make a disclosure of medical records of a child who s deemed â€Å"Gillick competent† unless consent is manifest. In most jurisdictions the parent of an emancipated minor does not have the ability to consent to therapy, regardless of the Gillick test. Typical positions of emancipation arise when the minor is married (R v D [1984] AC 778, 791) or in the military. The nature of the standard remains uncertain. The courts have so far declined invitations to define rigidly â€Å"Gillick competence† and the individual doctor is free to make a decision, consulting peers if this may be helpful, as to whether that child is â€Å"Gillick competent†. Australian law The Australian High Court gave specific and strong approval for the Gillick decision in ‘Marion’s Case’ 175 CLR 189. The Gillick competence doctrine is part of Australian law (see e. g. DoCS vY [1999] NSWSC 644). There is no express authority in Australia on Re R and Re W, so whether a parent’s right terminates is unclear. This lack of authority reflects that the reported cases have all involved minors who have been found to be incompetent, and that Australian courts will make decisions in the parens patriae jurisdiction regardless of Gillick competence. In South Australia and New South Wales legislation clarifies the common law, establishing a Gillick-esque standard of competence but preserving concurrent consent between parent and child for the ages 14–16. [edit] Confusion regarding Gillick competency On May 21 2009, confusion arose between Gillick competency, which identifies under-16s with the capacity to consent to their own treatment, and the Fraser guidelines, which are concerned only with contraception and focus on the desirability of parental involvement and the risks of unprotected sex in that area. A persistent rumour arose that Victoria Gillick disliked having her name associated with the assessment of children’s capacity, although a recent editorial in the BMJ debunks this idea, quoting Victoria Gillick as saying that she â€Å"has never suggested to anyone, publicly or privately, that [she] disliked being associated with the term ‘Gillick competent’ â€Å". [1] [edit] Fraser Guidelines It is lawful for doctors to provide contraceptive advice and treatment without parental consent providing certain criteria are met. These criteria, known as the Fraser Guidelines, were laid down by Lord Fraser in the House of Lords’ case and require the professional to be satisfied that: †¢the young person will understand the professional’s advice; †¢the young person cannot be persuaded to inform their parents; †¢the young person is likely to begin, or to continue having, sexual intercourse with or without contraceptive treatment; †¢unless the young person receives contraceptive treatment, their physical or mental health, or both, are likely to suffer; †¢the young person’s best interests require them to receive contraceptive advice or treatment with or without parental consent. Although these criteria specifically refer to contraception, the principles are deemed to apply to other treatments, including abortion. Although the judgement in the House of Lords referred specifically to doctors, it is considered to apply to other health professionals, including nurses. It may also be interpreted as covering youth workers and health promotion workers who may be giving contraceptive advice and condoms to young people under 16, but this has not been tested in court. If a person under the age of 18 refuses to consent to treatment, it is possible in some cases for their parents or the courts to overrule their decision. However, this right can be exercised only on the basis that the welfare of the young person is paramount. In this context, welfare does not simply mean their physical health. The psychological effect of having the decision overruled would have to be taken into account and would normally be an option only when the young person was thought likely to suffer â€Å"grave and irreversible mental or physical harm†. Usually, when a parent wants to overrule a young person’s decision to refuse treatment, health professionals will apply to the courts for a final decision. An interesting aside about the Fraser guidelines is that many regard Lord Scarman’s judgment as the leading judgment in the case, but because Lord Fraser’s judgment was shorter and set out in more specific terms – and in that sense more accessible to health and welfare professionals – it is his judgment that has been reproduced as containing the core principles.

Mesh Editing with Poisson-Based Gradient Field Manipulation

Introduction Three-dimensional geometric models are the base data for applications in computer graphics, computer aided design, visualization, multimedia, and other related fields. This report will focus on computerized modeling editing of discrete (digital) geometry, in particular polygonal meshes. In this report, I will survey the state-of-the-art techniques for creating, manipulating, editing and analyzing digital geometry models. The mesh editing techniques we discussed here are : Poisson Shape Interpolation[1], Mesh Editing with Poisson-Based Gradient Field Manipulation[2], Mesh Editing based on Discrete Laplace and Poisson Models[3], Mesh Editing with Curvature Flow Laplacian[4] and Mean Value coordinates for Closed triangular meshes[5]. All the five techniques will be discussed in detail in section 2-6. In section 7, we’ll do a comprehensive comparison of these five techniques and conclude in section 8. Poisson Shape Interpolation Shape interpolation which is also known as shape blending or morphing is used in many aspects of computer graphics industry widely. Provided two input models, the shape interpolation will produce a set of shapes in sequence to demonstrate how the source model is changed to the target model smoothly. It can also be applied to forecast new product from known products. It’s well known that in B-rep(boundary representation) shape interpolation[6], there are two major issues which are correspondence problem and trajectory problem. The