John Crowley

Using the model of random censorship, a necessary and sufficient condition for the consistency of the standard (actuarial) life table estimate of a survival distribution is derived. We establish the asymptotic normality of this estimate, showing that Greenwood's variance formula is nearly correct. In the case of a continuous survival distribution we establish limiting normality for the product limit estimate and for the closely related cumulative hazard process. Some applications of these results are outlined.

We compared the outcome of marrow transplantation with that of continued chemotherapy for adults with acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia who achieve a first remission. From May 1977 to July 1982, 111 consecutive adults (ages 17 to 50) with newly diagnosed acute nonlymphoblastic leukemia were treated with induction chemotherapy. Ninety patients (81%) had a complete remission. Forty-four remission patients had available donors: 33 received a transplant and 11 did not. Forty-six patients in remission without matched donors were treated with continued chemotherapy. Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year, disease-free survival from complete remission are 49% +/- 18% for the transplant group and 20% +/- 13% for the chemotherapy group. When compared to the chemotherapy group, patients undergoing transplantation had a higher risk of dying during the first 6 months after remission induction but a lower risk of dying thereafter. Within the transplant group, only age influenced survival. Within the chemotherapy group, a leukocyte count of greater than 10 000 mm3 at diagnosis, a French-American-British (FAB) Cooperative Group morphologic status of M-4, M-5, or M-6, and the presence of infection at diagnosis were all associated with shorter survival.

Few works of economic thought have such a close association with the intellectual and economic history of their period as Adam Smith's An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations . Three recent careful assessments of the ‘influence’ of Smith's work, however, have found little direct evidence for its positive significance for economic policy in the 1780s and 1790s. Parliamentary debate seldom referred to the Wealth of nations , and then usually negatively unless by Smith's friends, or ‘radicals and Foxite whigs’. John Locke, David Hume, Charles Davenant, Sir Josiah Child, William Petty, Josiah Tucker and Arthur Young were all cited more frequently. A wide range of parliamentary leaders read Smith carefully, and several ministers knew him well and sought his advice, but with the exception of Shelburne they appear to have applied Smith's thought eclectically. Salim Rashid has noted that in 1776 there were already influential economic authorities, notably Arthur Young and Josiah Tucker, who advocated freer markets. Conversely, for over a decade after the publication of the Wealth of nations , articles on economic matters in the major periodical reviews made scanty reference to Smith's work, while the protectionist views of Sir James Steuart, whom Smith had ignored, were often authoritative. Smith's views became respectable among the political after negotiation of the Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1786, but it was this liberal economic policy which gave the wealth of nations currency, not the reverse.

Journal Article The Sensibility of Comfort Get access John E. Crowley John E. Crowley professor of history Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 104, Issue 3, June 1999, Pages 749–782, https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/104.3.749 Published: 01 June 1999