{"title":"年龄限制","authors":"U. Lehr","doi":"10.1109/paiee.1907.6742192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Age Limit. Tiie question of an age limit was settled by the Court of Contributors of the Eoyal Infirmary, at the meeting of the Court on 2nd January, on the principle that 111 future the holders of appointments shall retire at the age of sixty-five, but that the senior members of the present staff shall be ^t liberty to retain office without an age limitation. Although no definite opinion was expressed, the Court appeared to be influenced by the feeling that, were the present holders of office included in rule, injustice would be done to men who had been appointed Ujider use and wont which had existed for upwards of a century. The plain fact is, that only a very small proportion of the members of the Court appreciated what important issues were involved 111 the proposition. It is subject for regret that the question was Raised on a false issue. The original argument presented to the","PeriodicalId":11487,"journal":{"name":"Edinburgh Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Age Limit\",\"authors\":\"U. Lehr\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/paiee.1907.6742192\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Age Limit. Tiie question of an age limit was settled by the Court of Contributors of the Eoyal Infirmary, at the meeting of the Court on 2nd January, on the principle that 111 future the holders of appointments shall retire at the age of sixty-five, but that the senior members of the present staff shall be ^t liberty to retain office without an age limitation. Although no definite opinion was expressed, the Court appeared to be influenced by the feeling that, were the present holders of office included in rule, injustice would be done to men who had been appointed Ujider use and wont which had existed for upwards of a century. The plain fact is, that only a very small proportion of the members of the Court appreciated what important issues were involved 111 the proposition. It is subject for regret that the question was Raised on a false issue. The original argument presented to the\",\"PeriodicalId\":11487,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Edinburgh Medical Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1989-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Edinburgh Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/paiee.1907.6742192\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Edinburgh Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/paiee.1907.6742192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Age Limit. Tiie question of an age limit was settled by the Court of Contributors of the Eoyal Infirmary, at the meeting of the Court on 2nd January, on the principle that 111 future the holders of appointments shall retire at the age of sixty-five, but that the senior members of the present staff shall be ^t liberty to retain office without an age limitation. Although no definite opinion was expressed, the Court appeared to be influenced by the feeling that, were the present holders of office included in rule, injustice would be done to men who had been appointed Ujider use and wont which had existed for upwards of a century. The plain fact is, that only a very small proportion of the members of the Court appreciated what important issues were involved 111 the proposition. It is subject for regret that the question was Raised on a false issue. The original argument presented to the