Function of Bile in Fat Digestion and Absorption Essay

Function of Bile in Fat Digestion and Absorption - Essay Example The nature of bile acids enables them to emulsify lipid aggregates in a detergent like action. The fats, which are hydrophobic, tend to join together with other fat droplets to form large molecules. However, the bile hinders this from happening. In the ileum, the hydrophobic section of the bile is absorbed in the fat droplet leaving a tail like hydrophilic end which repels other fat molecules. The emulsification increases the surface area of the fats hence increasing the rate of digestion by enzymatic lipases. The bile acids further solubilize the lipids by forming micelles and aid in their transport through aqueous environments. The micelles are acted up on by lipases and broken down into fatty acids and mono glycerides. These broken down units are small enough to penetrate through the walls of the small intestine through the process of absorption. They then enter the epithelial cells of the intestinal walls where the mono glycerides and fatty acids are converted into triglycerides with a protein coating. The newly formed water soluble chylomicrons enter into the lymphatic system and are transported through the bloodstream to various organs of the body for usage. In conclusion, almost 90 percent of used bile salts are recycled via enterohepatic circulation. The cycle is repeated about fifteen times before the bile salts are discarded in the feces. Nevertheless, there is constant secretion of bile salts in small amounts by the liver to replace those salts that are not recycled.

Laws of Blasphemy and Human Rights Is there a modern connection Essay

Laws of Blasphemy and Human Rights Is there a modern connection - Essay Example At a point when legal developments have come to focus on the excitement created by renewed controversy, the social and cultural significance of the offence and the legal strategies have been questioned. In the course of this paper, I have attempted to examine the law of blasphemy in uncertainties surrounding the impact of secularization and cultural pluralism, which invest it with considerable symbolic consequence. This brings to the fore the recent revival of blasphemy laws through an assessment of the paradoxical nature of its effects, with particular emphasis on those difficulties that have been posed for liberalism as a political philosophy that tries to steer through an era of plurality and harmonious co - existence. In this way, the significance of blasphemy is related to the question of the status of religion in contemporary western societies in context of the appropriate response of the legal machinery of various countries, as well as the conflict that exists between the desire to rationalize the offence and the desire to equalize the protection it affords. Further, in recent times, there have been numerous accounts of the parameters of the law which has sparked a critical analysis of its relationship to laws dealing with the adjacent areas of sedition, obscenity, outrage to public decency and offences against public order. Therefore, dissension over the future of the blasphemy law arises at the intersection of a cluster of intractable debates which have rendered the topic as extremely sensitive and hard to judge. It is now imperative to chart a brief history and evolution of blasphemy to understand the journey of its evolution and how it has come about to be associated with Human Rights in the present day. Having originally been a part of canon law, in the 17th century the offence of blasphemy was declared a common law offence by the Court of King's Bench, punishable by the common law courts. From the 16th century to the mid-19th century, blasphemy against Christianity was held as an offence against common law, apart from being used a legal instrument to persecute atheists, Unitarians, and others. All contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, and finally all blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, were punishable by the temporal courts with fine, imprisonment, and corporal punishment. In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor suffered flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker. An act of Edward VI (repealed 1553 and revived 1558) set a punishment of imprisonment for reviling the sacrament of the Last Supper. Further, it was in the 1676 case of Rex v Taylor, when the Lord Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale stated that "Such kinds of blasphemous words were not only an offence to God and religion, but a crime against the laws, State and Government, and therefore punishable in that Court.... Christianity is parcel of the laws of England and therefore to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law." (www.google.com) Those denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of the Act of Toleration by an act of 1688. Commonly called the Blasphemy Act, an act of 1697-1698, stated that if any person, educated in or having