This chapter considers rules applicable in the UK to shareholders exercising power in their own interests, rather than the interests of the company, and asks whether these create any problems for private equity investors, in theory and in practice. It also looks at other ways in which shareholders and directors can be held liable for the actions of their companies, including Bribery Act rules, health and safety laws, competition law rules and tortious liability.

Correct choice and use of drugs is fundamental to airway management success and safety. This is true for both elective and emergency anaesthesia and at the start and end of anaesthesia. This chapter describes the key elements of drug selection for safe, effective airway management in both the awake and anaesthetised patient. Drugs can importantly facilitate airway management and influence conditions for tracheal intubation or inserting a supraglottic airway. Depression of reflexes and muscle tone can be provided by several hypnotics, but propofol is usually most effective. Neuromuscular blocking agents are not needed for many forms of airway management but can optimise conditions when necessary. The anaesthetist must be familiar with dosing and timing and with quantitative monitoring during reversal. Local anaesthesia may be the only safe choice in managing the difficult airway and sedation can enhance patient tolerance but maintaining adequate spontaneous ventilation is sometimes a challenge.

Chapter 3 rewrites two cases that deal with pregnancy discrimination: International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, and Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc. The original Johnson Controls case struck down a broad fetal protection policy forbidding women of childbearing age from working in jobs with lead exposure, but the Court failed to acknowledge the hardships of the individual women excluded, ignored evidence that men’s offspring also suffer harm from excess lead exposure, and failed to suggest cleaning up workplaces with toxic substances, rather than excluding employees from valuable jobs. The rewritten opinion cures these omissions and disavows the stereotypes of a policy assuming that all women are potentially mothers. The feminist judgment in Young holds that an employer providing accommodations for employees with physical restrictions similar to those of pregnancy must provide the same accommodations to a pregnant employee. It highlights the history of discrimination against pregnant women – a significant cause of women’s subordination in the workplace, with many women forced to quit as a consequence of employers’ shortcomings.

What kind of abilities are apt for producing knowledge? Alternatively: How should we understand the notion of 'cognitive ability', in the virtue-theoretic idea that knowledge is true belief attributable to cognitive ability? Robust virtue epistemology understands the notion in such a way that the ability condition on knowledge entails a safety condition as well. Greco relativizes abilities to environments, Sosa does not. Pritchard's modest virtue epistemology denies that ability grounds safety, but adds an additional safety condition on knowledge. Turri (2011) requires that knowledge-producing abilities manifest safety as well as truth, while Turri (2015 and 2016) denies that knowledge requires safety. This chapter considers the dispute among these alternatives in light of questions regarding the value of knowledge: In what sense is knowledge valuable, and in what sense of 'ability' does success-from-ability give knowledge its value? The chapter defends a version of robust virtue epistemology in light of these questions.

This chapter compares virtue epistemology to two types of Internalisms, Statism and Propositionalism in light of the intelligibility problem first raised by Sellars. It explains the problem and argues that both virtue epistemology and Statism are subject to this problem. Even thoughPrropositionalism is designed to address the problem, the problem is much more difficult to solve than is recognized. I show why, and what a solution to the problem might look like.

Support is canvassed for a new way of approaching some core epistemic issues: anti-risk epistemology. It is explained how anti-risk epistemology differs from anti-luck epistemology by examining some of the subtle (but epistemologically significant) differences between the notions of luck and risk. It is argued that anti-risk epistemology, while essentially an adaption of anti-luck epistemology, can nonetheless resolve some motivational issues that face the latter proposal. In the process, it can provide other important benefits, such as enabling a broader range of epistemic assessments, including capturing the complexity of some important epistemic assessments involving collaborative inquiry. Our ultimate concern, however, is to examine how anti-risk epistemology fits into a wider virtue-theoretic account of knowledge, one that replaces anti-luck virtue epistemology with anti-risk virtue epistemology. As we will see, the latter proposal inherits all the strengths of the former but none of its flaws. It is also better placed to explain why knowledge is never compatible with unsafe belief, and to provide us with a diagnostic handle on the path taken by post-Gettier epistemology.

The thalidomide disaster of 1958 and later isotretinoin from 1995 showed that drugs do reach the foetus and can cause harm. Even now, of the babies born with a recognised birth defect, drugs are implicated in 1–2%. As a result, there is a perception that any drug at any time in pregnancy could cause harm; however, this is not the case! It’s important to consider the benefit to the mother, the risk to the foetus and the form of administration. This chapter discusses some of the most common drug classes and whether and when they can be safely used in pregnancy.

Prescribing in breastfeeding is a specialist field, where the evidence base is far from exhaustive. Readers are presented with basic rules for prescribing in breastfeeding, and advised on how to interpret the reputable literature. Drug classes are categorised into those which are safe, those with which caution should be exercised, those to avoid where possible and those which should be always avoided.

This chapter focuses on how early years’ educators can foster wellbeing through learning in health and physical education. This chapter is organised into sections that provide the background knowledge that is relevant to the health promotion and wellbeing of all early years learners, paying particular attention to students with backgrounds that for many reasons can be described as educationally disadvantaged. Recent policies that should guide educator decision-making across the dimensions of health and physical education and wellbeing will be canvassed. Insights are given into the relationship between recognition of culture and identity and educational rights, building resilience, safety and pride in the early years and the educator’s role in fostering their development. While this discussion does canvass some social and contextual factors underpinning healthy development for children who experience disadvantage, the focus is more on what you can do as a teacher to promote these dimensions from a strengths-based or salutogenic approach (Antonovsky, 1996; Quennerstedt, 2008; 2019). The chapter concludes with a case study of how teachers can act locally and in partnership with national and community-level organisations to facilitate wellbeing in early years learners via the health and physical education learning area.

Keeping children safe in Australian education settings is a priority. In 2012, the National Quality Standards were implemented for early childhood education and care throughout Australia. Standard 2 relates to children’s health and safety. It encompasses children’s physical health and comfort, healthy eating and physical activity, and safety and protection from harm. A safe environment for a child is one that provides freedom from harm and offers a strong sense of security and belonging from which to play, learn and develop. A healthy and safe environment also promotes children’s psychological wellbeing by allowing them to exercise their independence through making decisions and taking on new challenges. Educators are responsible for providing and maintaining safe environments for children in their care, including the development of strategies to prevent injury in indoor and outdoor environments. Injury prevention promotes safety, protects the child and minimises risk. By protecting children from hazards, injury prevention offers children the sense of safety and security that allows them to develop to their fullest potential.

This chapter focuses on how early years’ educators can foster wellbeing through learning in health and physical education. This chapter is organised into sections that provide the background knowledge that is relevant to the health promotion and wellbeing of all early years learners, paying particular attention to students with backgrounds that for many reasons can be described as educationally disadvantaged. Recent policies that should guide educator decision-making across the dimensions of health and physical education and wellbeing will be canvassed. Insights are given into the relationship between recognition of culture and identity and educational rights, building resilience, safety and pride in the early years and the educator’s role in fostering their development. While this discussion does canvass some social and contextual factors underpinning healthy development for children who experience disadvantage, the focus is more on what you can do as a teacher to promote these dimensions from a strengths-based or salutogenic approach (Antonovsky, 1996; Quennerstedt, 2008; 2019). The chapter concludes with a case study of how teachers can act locally and in partnership with national and community-level organisations to facilitate wellbeing in early years learners via the health and physical education learning area.

Keeping children safe in Australian education settings is a priority. In 2012, the National Quality Standards were implemented for early childhood education and care throughout Australia. Standard 2 relates to children’s health and safety. It encompasses children’s physical health and comfort, healthy eating and physical activity, and safety and protection from harm. A safe environment for a child is one that provides freedom from harm and offers a strong sense of security and belonging from which to play, learn and develop. A healthy and safe environment also promotes children’s psychological wellbeing by allowing them to exercise their independence through making decisions and taking on new challenges. Educators are responsible for providing and maintaining safe environments for children in their care, including the development of strategies to prevent injury in indoor and outdoor environments. Injury prevention promotes safety, protects the child and minimises risk. By protecting children from hazards, injury prevention offers children the sense of safety and security that allows them to develop to their fullest potential.