Advance directives permit competent adult patients to provide guidance regarding their care in the event that they lose the capacity to make medical decisions. One concern about the use of advance directives is the possibility that, in certain cases in which a patient undergoes massive psychological change, the individual who exists after such change is literally a (numerically) distinct individual from the person who completed the directive. If this is true, there is good reason to question the authority of the directive -- which is supposed to apply to the individual who completed it, not to someone else. This is 'the someone else problem'. After briefly introducing advance directives as a basis for medical decision-making, this paper elaborates 'the someone else problem' in the context of severe dementia. The paper then reconstructs the reasoning that leads to this putative problem and exposes the important underlying assumption that we are essentially persons. An alternative view of what we are, one that regards personhood as inessential, is then considered, before several arguments are advanced in favor of that alternative view. The paper next explores implications for advance directives: 'The someone else problem' is effectively dissolved, while it is noted that a related problem (one beyond the paper's scope) may persist. A few implications beyond advance directives are also identified.
Someone Else
Someone Else is divergent fashion journalism. The divergence is away from What to Why. You can find What anywhere. Instagram is at its core an advertising app that ushers forth an endless blitz of What. Products get hawked by brands and people hoping to become brands. Sadly, the heritage-menswear world that Someone Else orbits is not immune. You might think that a community / scene whose slogans include, "Buy less, buy better" and whose byword / buzzword is "authenticity" might show restraint in terms of Instagram narcissism, but no. The #heritagestyle hashtag points to endless shots of the same denim bros in the same well-appointed apartments, hands wrapped around a rough-hewn coffee mug with turquoise rings on most fingers. Occasionally someone does something new, maybe with immediately recognizable overhead shots of thousands of dollars of neotraditional garments arranged just so. "Buy less, buy better" and "conspicuous consumption" should cause cognitive dissonance, but we merrily Like our way through it.
What we found was two-fold: Not only did participants choose differently when it was for themselves rather than for someone else, but the way they chose was different. When choosing for themselves, participants focused more on a granular level, zeroing in on the minutiae, something we described in our research as a cautious mindset. Employing a cautious mindset when making a choice means being more reserved, deliberate, and risk averse. Rather than exploring and collecting a plethora of options, the cautious mindset prefers to consider a few at a time on a deeper level, examining a cross-section of the larger whole.
It's OK to help someone apply for Medicare. A child, spouse, friend, advocate, attorney or employer are among the people who may offer assistance. You don't need to be appointed as a representative of the person to help.
There is no pre-Roman London to be located. Any argument for sophisticated pre-Roman polities in Britain must look elsewhere: the Roman towns of Colchester, St Albans, Chichester and Silchester were all built over important Celtic settlements. Here agreement ends. There is no settled understanding of the rapid growth of the new foundation. London was a greenfield site in 43 AD, when the Roman army under the emperor Claudius opened its campaign in southern Britain. Less than two decades later in 60 AD it was a prosperous city burned to the ground by a rebel army (if you are Roman) or liberating force (if you are British) under Boudica (if you are British) or Boadicea (if you are Roman).
If you have access to files in Google Drive that someone else owns, you will be able to access them so long as that file remains in the owner's Drive. You can use search in Google Drive to find content you have access to that someone else owns (a specific person or anyone else). If the file were to be deleted, you would lose access to the file. Prior to them being in the trash, you can, however, make a copy of those files to assure continued access.
When another driver causes an accident with someone else driving your car, the other driver is liable for damages. You would then have the right to file a claim for damages from their insurance company according to the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) 51-1-6. When filing, all you would need to do when filing is show that you were less than 50% responsible for your accident.
If someone you know used your car without your permission, they can be liable for any of the damages they caused. However, you will need to prove that they did not have permission to use your car, which can be challenging.
In general, insurance companies will never side with car accident victims. Whether someone else caused an accident, or you were victim to one yourself, insurance companies can be extremely unforgiving and apathetic.
Play a classic whodunit role-play game with friends and see who breaks down in tears first! The board game, Clue, is a fun game that can result in blaming someone. Blame Space is a card game that is mean-spirited and petty, and the only way to win is to blame someone else. Another board game that goes along these lines is called Pass The Blame.
There may be times when you are called upon to make medical decisions for someone else. When you are making decisions for a person who is not able to make decisions for themselves, you are acting as a surrogate decision-maker.
If you are looking to serve papers to your spouse or another individual that you cannot track down, you might wonder if someone else can accept served papers on their behalf. In the state of Maryland, the process of serving papers is straightforward. You cannot serve papers to another individual in your case. When serving, the individual must be over the age of 18, a family member or friend, or you can hire a professional process server to serve papers on your behalf. However, serving papers can get complicated if you cannot locate who you want to serve. So, what happens next?
My first reaction was that I agreed with yello.cape.cod's conclusion but not their argument. After all, "Someone else", like "attorney general", is a noun (well, pronoun, but close enough) plus a trailing adjective, so gee, why aren't the two constructions the same?
Though (I suppose) this thread is closed, may I add that, for me, "someone else's" is quite clearly a reference in the "possessive" sense, rather than "plural" sense.On the other hand and as has been already discussed, "passer-by" and "passers-by" (hyphens may be incorrect as has been pointed out) are references with respect to numbers, being singular and plural. If a speaker/writer wanted to make a plural reference still maintaining the "possessive" sense that is meant by "someone else's", definitely the word "someone" will have to change to some other word, maybe not even one single word as I can think of. Like "Some other people's" or something else.
That's interesting. Do you have an authority to cite, hairyscot, or are you just making stuff up so that you don't have to address the substance of my argument? I find it funny that you think a grammar issue can be decided by my use of a single phrase. But for fun I'll go along with your evasion by saying that, in the U.S., hairyscot is good at argumentation. (Also, aren't you really talking about someone who makes a sweeping statement with those phrases, rather than someone who simply designates the location of a space program?) I really only have one question for hairyscot and anyone else who would like to reply: is there something wrong with my explanation of the grammar involved in pluralizing certain terms?
Fascinating discussion! Found the link to see what objections there might be to "someone else's," as in "I think this is someone else's pen, not mine! I don't chew my pens." Someone's else can never be correct - that would mean that someone possesses an else... hmm - what is an else? However, someone else is some person other than the speaker, the other interlocutor, or some person previously mentioned in the conversation or text. Passersby! See - no red squiggle! If the freaking morons who create spell-checkers (and they're not morons, but they can be pains in the ass (hold on to that idea) think passersby is correct, it must be! Touchdowns. Yes - but that is one word. Not touchesdown. See - red squiggle! But BrockawayBaby, your logic is flawed - interesting, but flawed. Let's look back at the discussion (I know - it's 8 months old - so what?). Eagle... said passers-by is a noun + adjective construction, but it is not. Neither is touchdown. By can be used as a preposition, of course, but also as an adverb. It answers the question "Where did the passers pass?" They passed by something, somewhere, etc. A touchdown is a similar construction - the score occurs when the player touches down in the end zone. Verb + adverb. But, the word touchdown is no longer a verb + adverb. It has become a one word noun, so of course its plural is touchdowns. Most of the nouns Brock uses are verb + adverb combos that have become common nouns. A push up is a form of exercise in which one does pushups. No red squiggly line!But you COULD say, "After several pushes up the stairs, we stopped for breath; that's when that old refrigerator came sliding back down the stairs and crushed... " We gave the X several pushes! Up, down, etc. So - work on this: I have two mothers-in-law, having been married twice. I walked into a room of mother-in-laws! What an odd convention! I'll bet you no more than a nickel, Brock-o-baby, that both are correct - and I really have no idea why... yet!Someone else's turn! (Stupid squiggly red line!) 2ff7e9595c