What is infectious conjunctivitis?
1.2 Of the four micro-organisms listed below, justify which one is more likely to be the cause of John’s eye infection.
Indicate why the other micro-organisms from the list are less likely to cause the infection.
➲ Legionella pneumophila
➲ Plasmodium ovale
➲ Staphylococcus aureus
Q2. Mechanism of action and adverse reactions (Total: 5 marks)
2.1 Describe the mechanism of action of gentamicin
2.2 Name two possible adverse reactions to this drug
Q3. Physiological basis of signs (Total: 10 marks).
3.1-3.3 Describe the physiological basis of the three (3) signs observed in John’s eye. Relate your response to this
Q4. Infection control issues (Total 5 marks)
4.1-4.2 Identify and discuss two infection control issues associated with high dependency aged care facilities that can
contribute to the spread of conjunctivitis.
Q5. Transmission of infection (Total: 5 marks)
5.1 Mary who resides in the room next door was diagnosed with the same eye infection 4 days later. Describe how
the organism could have been transmitted from John’s eye to Mary’s eye (describe the chain of infection that could
have occurred from John’s eye to Mary’s eye).
Q6. Breaking the chain of infection (Total: 5 marks)
6.1 Describe two procedures nurses will need to undertake to prevent the infection from John’s eye being transmitted
to another individual. Clearly explain how each procedure will effectively break the chain of infection.
that is all the questions
Nguyen comments “Hamlet explores his own mortality”. (Nguyen 27/11/09) In exploring the elements of life and death, both plays delve into these themes, and not only because ‘Hamlet’ is a tragedy, but because of the character Hamlet’s, inability to seek the meaning of life and his obsession of death, which consolidates my suspicion of finding truth through death because it seems to the characters of both plays to be the only certainty. As Jimmy Stephens asserts “that life is a mystery and that this mystery ends in death, are the two truths Rosencrantz and Guildenstern do discover as the play proceeds.” (Stephens 27/11/09) Ros and Guil’s refusal to accept responsibility for making choices and taking control of their existence, leads them to suffer almost in a purgatory made inevitably by themselves; which is supported by Nguyen’s statement that “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern never quite grasp the plight of their destiny, reflecting modern uncertainty and disillusionment of the twentieth century, where “the only beginning is birth, and the only end is death”. (Nguyen 27/11/09) By referring to a definition existent in existentialism, “Because of what I am… I cannot stop time, except through death, suicide, insanity, alcoholism, or narcotics addiction” (Stephens 27/11/09) We can aptly see the universal ideas of existentialism revolving around the theme of death, explicit in both of these plays. Therefore, in reply to the statement above, by considering the extent of what is lost and what is gained by Stoppard intertextualising his play alongside Shakespeare’s is we see an inextricable link of themes and ideas. However, what is lost by reading both plays separately is the extent of how two minds from two different periods are so alike in their philosophy yet so vastly apart in their language and the outcomes of this consequence dependent on the audience target they seek. Thus as discussed above the elements in Shakespeare’s Hamlet are not apparent in Stoppard’s play, so it would be deduced that the extent of the theme existentialism would not seemingly run parallel throughout the two plays if read separately. Yet if the texts are read concurrently then ultimately much is gained by the reflection of themes within a different historical and social context in comparison to another as we can fully understand appreciate their value within our own contexts as a modern audience. Moving on, in contemplating what is lost and what is gained, it is important to establish a definition of which this can be measured. By these terms I seek to explore from an audience perspective what is revealed through Stoppard’s play, that we would not necessarily have found through just reading Hamlet alone. As it is common knowledge, Stoppard takes two minor characters from Hamlet and transforms them into two major characters, with much of the action happening in Hamlet, taking place in a minor context in Stoppard’s play. My initial reaction to Hamlet, informed me of the two minor characters of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, were that they were a function to help move the action of the plot along, they were a device that enabled Shakespeare to enhance further the manipulating and deceiving nature of Claudius. The characters themselves did seem strange in the context that they are Hamlet’s childhood friends, and as Hamlet subtly reveals in Act III scene II, lines 340-63 he perceives them to be conniving. “Hamlet Will you play upon this pipe?” to Guildenstern “… It is as easy as lying…” However, Stoppard’s revelation of the characters provokes a more sympathetic/ pitiful visualization of the two characters. They seem to be unaware of their true existence, forgetting their past and who they are. Recurring expression of the need to seek the true meaning of their existence is prolonged continually up until their death, even when Guildenstern and Rosencrantz learn of their fate they are still unable to comprehend it, and further question what was it all about? In addition the lack of control over their existence and environment possibly lends itself to the religious backdrop that is a subtle subtext. For example, in Hamlet the religious emphasis often inhibits the acti>GET ANSWER