• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.147-169
• /
• 2015

Our society has been changed so rapidly and we have achieved industrialization and democratization swiftly. On our Economic growth and democratization, it is appraised that Christian Thought and western Capitalism thoughts have been one of the important factors. John Calvin, well known Reformer and thinker of Protestant, as M. Weber assessed, contributed greatly to the progress of Capitalism. He was a Religion Reformer as M. Luther and especially a thinker and man of deed, who affected large areas of human life such as Religion, Economy, Society and Politics. Calvin understood Economy is the main issue of theology and Economic activities can be a position which may restore the correct relationship of God and Man. This Paper aimed to survey, synthesize and systemize the Economy and Management thought of J. Calvin. On these changing current society, it surveyed if His thoughts that has long history, can be applicable or not and Where and How it may. Calvin's Thought not only on his age caused important changes and Reformation but now suggests critical milestones. His Thoughts of Love, Justice, and Fairness based on the Bible have been evaluated as the universal truth and important criteria. Until nowadays his Philosophy has composed critical Principles of decision making rules of Economy and Management and National policies. Especially today, when economy has been more emphasized as a center of our lives, His Thought suggests momentous directions on various Human Life such as Justice and Fairness, deepening of gap between poor and rich, expansion of conflicts among social classes, employment and wages, freedom of markets and its balance, and public good of land use. Reviewing Calvin's Economy and Management thoughts as meaningful basis on the our and world Economy which became worse caused by world monetary crisis and Europe financial crisis that aroused by world Economy globalization and expansion of neo-liberalism, this Paper suggested some future directions. And for the practical sectors, Distribution and Logistics, it proposed some issues and Directions, considering the impacts of His thoughts on the Industries. Nevertheless it can deliver some contributions, as a literature research, it reveals some limitations that it may contain lacking of practical investigations and cases on economy and management fields. In the future, more detailed and deeper research on the practical and situations of economy and management shall be needed.

• Safety and Health at Work
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.133-139
• /
• 2018

Background: Selecting priority occupational carcinogens is important for cancer prevention efforts; however, standardized selection methods are not available. The objective of this paper was to describe the methods used by CAREX Canada in 2015 to establish priorities for preventing occupational cancer, with a focus on exposure estimation and descriptive profiles. Methods: Four criteria were used in an expert assessment process to guide carcinogen prioritization: (1) the likelihood of presence and/or use in Canadian workplaces; (2) toxicity of the substance (strength of evidence for carcinogenicity and other health effects); (3) feasibility of producing a carcinogen profile and/or an occupational estimate; and (4) special interest from the public/scientific community. Carcinogens were ranked as high, medium or low priority based on specific conditions regarding these criteria, and stakeholder input was incorporated. Priorities were set separately for the creation of new carcinogen profiles and for new occupational exposure estimates. Results: Overall, 246 agents were reviewed for inclusion in the occupational priorities list. For carcinogen profile generation, 103 were prioritized (11 high, 33 medium, and 59 low priority), and 36 carcinogens were deemed priorities for occupational exposure estimation (13 high, 17 medium, and 6 low priority). Conclusion: Prioritizing and ranking occupational carcinogens is required for a variety of purposes, including research, resource allocation at different jurisdictional levels, calculations of occupational cancer burden, and planning of CAREX-type projects in different countries. This paper outlines how this process was achieved in Canada; this may provide a model for other countries and jurisdictions as a part of occupational cancer prevention efforts.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.55 no.2
• /
• pp.118-125
• /
• 2022

Background: A time course analysis was undertaken to evaluate how perioperative process-of-care and outcome measures evolved after implementation of an enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery (ERATS) program. Methods: Outcome and process-of-care measures were compared between patients undergoing major elective thoracic surgery during a 9-month pre-ERATS implementation period to those at 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 months post-ERATS implementation. Outcome measures included length of stay, the 30-day readmission rate, 30-day emergency department visits, and minor and major adverse events. Process measures included first time to activity, out-of-bed, ambulation, fluid diet, diet as tolerated, as well as removal of the first and last chest tube, epidural, patient-controlled analgesia, and Foley and intravenous catheters. Results: In total, 704 patients (352 pre-ERATS, 352 post-ERATS) were included. Mobilization-related process measures, including time to first activity (16.5 vs. 6.8 hours, p<0.001), out-of-bed (17.6 vs. 8.9 hours, p<0.001), and ambulation (32.4 vs. 25.4 hours, p=0.04) saw statistically significant improvements by 1-3 months post-ERATS implementation compared to pre-ERATS. Time to Foley removal improved by 4-6 months post-ERATS (19.5 vs. 18.2 hours, p=0.003). Outcome measures, including the 30-day readmission rate and emergency department visits, steadily decreased post-ERATS. By 7-9 months post-ERATS, both minor (18.2% vs. 7.9%, p=0.009) and major (13.6% vs. 4.4%, p=0.007) adverse events demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Length of stay trended towards improvement from 6.2 days pre-ERATS to 4.8 days by 7-9 months post-ERATS (p=0.06). Conclusion: The adoption of ERATS led to improvements in multiple process-of-care measures, which may collectively and gradually achieve optimization of clinical outcomes.