<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy via MedWorm.com</title>
        <description>MedWorm.com provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest items from the 'The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy' source.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=The+Journal+of+Medicine+and+Philosophy&t=The+Journal+of+Medicine+and+Philosophy&s=Search&f=source]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:10:14 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>The Noncompliant Patient: A Kantian and Levinasian Response.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5598800&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22246972%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Burcher P
    Abstract
    When a patient fails to follow the advice or prescription of a physician, she is termed to be &quot;noncompliant&quot; by the medical community. The medical community's response to and understanding of patient noncompliance fails to acknowledge noncompliance as either a relational failure between physician and patient or as a patient choice. I offer an analysis of Immanuel Kant and Emmanuel Levinas that refocuses the issue of noncompliance by examining the physician role, the doctor-patient relationship, and the nature of responsibility.
    PMID: 22246972 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5598800</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5598800</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Responsibly Managing Uncertainties In Clinical Ethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5598799&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22246973%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McCullough LB
    Abstract
    It is well-recognized that uncertainty is an endemic feature and limitation of clinical judgment and practice that cannot be eliminated in many cases. Among the tasks of clinical ethics is the responsible management of uncertainties, first articulated in E. Haavi Morreim's very nice concept of the &quot;moral management of medical uncertainty.&quot; The papers in the 2012 Clinical Ethics issue of the Journal provide philosophically innovative and clinically applicable accounts of the varieties of uncertainty in clinical medicine and therefore in clinical ethics: epistemic uncertainty, metaphysical uncertainty, and relational uncertainty.
    PMID: 22246973 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5598799</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5598799</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Abortion and the Argument from Potential: What We Owe to the Ones Who Might Exist.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5598803&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22241864%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Giubilini A
    Abstract
    I challenge the idea that the argument from potential (AFP) represents a valid moral objection to abortion. I consider the form of AFP that was defended by Hare, which holds that abortion is against the interests of the potential person who is prevented from existing. My reply is that AFP, though not unsound by itself, does not apply to the issue of abortion. The reason is that AFP only works in the cases of so-called same number and same people choices, but it falsely presupposes that abortion is such a kind of choice. This refutation of AFP implies that (1) abortion is not only morally permissible but sometimes even morally mandatory and (2) abortion is morally permissible even when the potential person's life is foreseen to be worth living.
    PMID...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5598803</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5598803</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How 'Decent' Is a Decent Minimum of Health Care?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5598802&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22241865%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article tries to analyze the meaning of a decent minimum of health care, by confronting the idea of decent care with the concept of justice. Following the ideas of Margalith about a decent society, the article argues that a just minimum of care is not necessarily a decent minimum. The way this minimum is provided can still humiliate individuals, even if the end result is the best possible distribution of the goods as seen from the viewpoint of justice. This analysis is combined with an analysis from the perspective of solidarity, particularly of reflective solidarity, as a way to develop decent care, which is care that does not humiliate individuals and maintains their dignity.
    PMID: 22241865 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5598802</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5598802</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Epistemic Humility and Medical Practice: Translating Epistemic Categories into Ethical Obligations.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5598801&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22241866%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Schwab A
    Abstract
    Physicians and other medical practitioners make untold numbers of judgments about patient care on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. These judgments fall along a number of spectrums, from the mundane to the tragic, from the obvious to the challenging. Under the rubric of evidence-based medicine, these judgments will be informed by the robust conclusions of medical research. In the ideal circumstance, medical research makes the best decision obvious to the trained professional. Even when practice approximates this ideal, it does so unevenly. Judgments in medical practice are always accompanied by uncertainty, and this uncertainty is a fickle companion-constant in its presence but inconstant in its expression. This feature of medical judgments gives rise t...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5598801</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5598801</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rights and Basic Health Care.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5577948&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22218045%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Trotter G, Macdougall DR
    PMID: 22218045 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5577948</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5577948</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Managing Scientific Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making: The Case of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5548816&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22198966%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article explores the question of how scientific uncertainty can be managed in medical decision making using the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices as a case study. It concludes that where a high degree of technical consensus exists about the evidence and data, decision makers act according to a clear decision rule. If a high degree of technical consensus does not exist and uncertainty abounds, the decision will be based on a variety of criteria, including readily available resources, decision-process constraints, and the available knowledge base, among other things. Decision makers employ a variety of heuristic devices and techniques, thereby employing a pragmatic approach to uncertainty in medical decision making. The article concludes with recommendations for managing scie...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5548816</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5548816</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Advance Directives and Personal Identity: What Is the Problem?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5548817&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22190599%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Furberg E
    Abstract
    The personal identity problem expresses the worry that due to disrupted psychological continuity, one person's advance directive could be used to determine the care of a different person. Even ethicists, who strongly question the possibility of the scenario depicted by the proponents of the personal identity problem, often consider it to be a very potent objection to the use of advance directives. Aiming to question this assumption, I, in this paper, discuss the personal identity problem's relevance to the moral force of advance directives. By putting the personal identity argument in relation to two different normative frameworks, I aim to show that whether or not the personal identity problem is relevant to the moral force of advance directives, and fu...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5548817</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5548817</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Treat Noncompliant Patients? Beyond the Decent Minimum Account.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5533255&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22185704%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Eyal N
    Abstract
    Patients' medical conditions can result from their own avoidable risk taking. Some lung diseases result from avoidable smoking and some traffic accidents result from victims' reckless driving. Although in many nonmedical areas we hold people responsible for taking risks they could avoid, it is normally harsh and inappropriate to deny patients care because they risked needing it. Why? A popular account is that protecting everyone's &quot;decent minimum,&quot; their basic needs, matters more than the benefits of holding people accountable. This account is deficient. Protecting the decent minimum is not always served by offering noncompliant patients either nonbasic or basic care. Nor is protecting that minimum always served by unconditional medical care better than by ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5533255</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5533255</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Foundation For A Natural Right To Health Care.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5512512&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22166259%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Discussions concerning whether there is a natural right to health care may occur in various forms, resulting in policy recommendations for how to implement any such right in a given society. But health care policies may be judged by international standards including the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The rights enumerated in the UDHR are grounded in traditions of moral theory, a philosophical analysis of which is necessary in order to adjudicate the value of specific policies designed to enshrine rights such as a right to health care. We begin with an overview of the drafting of the UDHR and highlight the primary influence of natural law theory in validating the rights contained therein. We then provide an explication of natural law theory by reference to the...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5512512</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5512512</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Medical Minimum: Zero.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5512511&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22166260%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Narveson J
    Abstract
    The question is what the mandated medical minimum for all should be. The correct answer is zero. That is to say, the government should not be forcing anyone to pay for anyone. The most popular arguments within the liberal framework, presumed to be shared by all, are briefly surveyed. Health care is provided by someone to someone else, and that someone else should either be paying for it, or recognize that someone is providing it charitably to him or her. Compelling someone else to pay for it is something we have no basic right to do.
    PMID: 22166260 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5512511</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5512511</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Just Caring: Defining a Basic Benefit Package.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5512510&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22166261%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Fleck LM
    Abstract
    What should be the content of a package of health care services that we would want to guarantee to all Americans? This question cannot be answered adequately apart from also addressing the issue of fair health care rationing. Consequently, as I argue in this essay, appeal to the language of &quot;basic,&quot; &quot;essential,&quot; &quot;adequate,&quot; &quot;minimally decent,&quot; or &quot;medically necessary&quot; for purposes of answering our question is unhelpful. All these notions are too vague to be useful. Cost matters. Effectiveness matters. The clinical circumstances of a patient matters. But what we must ultimately determine is what we mutually agree are the just claims to needed health care of each American in a relatively complex range of clinical circumstances. Answering this question will ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5512510</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5512510</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Toward a confucian family-oriented health care system for the future of china.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379329&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21984753%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Cao Y, Chen X, Fan R
    Abstract
    Recently implemented Chinese health insurance schemes have failed to achieve a Chinese health care system that is family-oriented, family-based, family-friendly, or even financially sustainable. With this diagnosis in hand, the authors argue that a financially and morally sustainable Chinese health care system should have as its core family health savings accounts supplemented by appropriate health insurance plans. This essay's arguments are set in the context of Confucian moral commitments that still shape the background culture of contemporary China.
    PMID: 21984753 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379329</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379329</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The massachusetts health plan, individual mandates, and the neutrality of the liberal state.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379328&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22003251%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Murray D
    Abstract
    In 2007, Massachusetts instituted a universal coverage health plan that requires all citizens to purchase insurance. I argue that there is nothing wrong in principle with the use of an individual mandate to force citizens to secure health insurance. I argue that state neutrality is not tenable on this issue. Then I proceed to show that even if state neutrality were viable, it is not a violation of state neutrality (thought of as neutrality of intent) to force citizens to insure themselves with the primary purpose of securing the normative good of health. I adapt recent work on universal medical coverage to demonstrate that such a mandate is in keeping with several principles of fairness shared in liberal democratic societies. This argument not only applie...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379328</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379328</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379327&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22007001%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bulcock JA
    PMID: 22007001 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379327</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379327</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Respect for personal autonomy, human dignity, and the problems of self-directedness and botched autonomy.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379326&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22021657%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Barilan YM
    Abstract
    This paper explores the value of respect for personal autonomy in relation to clearly immoral and irrational acts committed freely and intentionally by competent people. Following Berlin's distinction between two kinds of liberty and Darwall's two kinds of respect, it is argued that coercive suppression of nonautonomous, irrational, and self-harming acts of competent persons is offensive to their human dignity, but not disrespectful of personal autonomy. Irrational and immoral choices made by competent people may claim only the negative liberty to be left alone. Lives disposed to autonomy are worthy of solidarity and active support in addition to the right of free choice and action. Autonomous premeditated desires (distinguished from mere consent) may e...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379326</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379326</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Ill Body and das Unheimliche (the Uncanny).</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379325&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22025583%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Warsop A
    Abstract
    The ill body is sometimes phenomenologically interpreted as a &quot;broken tool&quot; encountered in an uncanny way. I argue that this is not what is most uncanny about illness. Within the context of an account of Freud and Heidegger's work, I argue that in health, we are generally alienated from the way our bodies will become inert, lifeless corpses. In the uncanniness of illness (and sometimes other situations), we may be reattuned to this horrific certainty and disabused of the comforting view that our bodies are reparable tools. I revisit Zaner's characterization of the uncanny and show how his notion of &quot;chill and implicatedness&quot; captures the dynamic sense of alienation that characterizes how we are bodily Being-toward death.
    PMID: 22025583 [PubMed - in pr...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379325</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379325</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379324&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22025584%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    PMID: 22025584 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379324</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379324</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379323&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22025585%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    PMID: 22025585 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379323</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379323</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subscription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5379322&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D22025586%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    PMID: 22025586 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5379322</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Oct 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5379322</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Researchers and Firing Squads: Questions Concerning the Use of Frozen Human Embryos.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5277113&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21949054%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article challenges Curzer's case and offers reasons to reject the moral acceptability of using even these to-be-discarded embryos as research material.
    PMID: 21949054 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5277113</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5277113</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Should Political Philosophers Think of Health?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5277114&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21949053%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Weinstock DM
    Abstract
    The political philosophy of health care has been characterized by considerable conceptual inflation in recent years. First, the concept of health that lies at its core has come to encompass ever-increasing aspects of individuals' existences. And second, the emergence of the public health perspective has increased the range of resources relevant to health equity. This expansion has not been without cost. The decision to include more rather than less within the ambit of &quot;health&quot; is ultimately a moral/political rather than an ontological or metaphysical one, and there are several ethical reasons to define the scope of theories of distributive justice in health narrowly.
    PMID: 21949053 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medici...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5277114</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 23 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5277114</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Formation in Professional Education: An Examination of the Relationship between Theories of Meaning and Theories of the Self.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5218500&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21903905%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Benner P
    Abstract
    Being formed through learning a practice is best understood within a constitutive theory of meaning as articulated by Charles Taylor. Disengaged views of the person cannot account for the formative changes in a person's identity and capacities upon learning a professional practice. Representational or correspondence theories of meaning cannot account for formation. Formation occurs over time because students actively seek and take up new concerns and learn new knowledge and skills. Engaged situated reasoning about underdetermined practice situations requires well-formed skillful clinicians caring for particular patients in particular situations.
    PMID: 21903905 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5218500</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5218500</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Enhancement Technologies and the Modern Self.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5218499&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21903906%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Elliott C
    Abstract
    Many people feel uneasy about enhancement technologies, yet have a hard time explaining why. This unease is often less with the technologies themselves than about the desires and aspirations that they express. I suggest here that we can diagnose the source of that unease by looking at three themes that emerge in Taylor's writings about the making of the modern self: the importance of social recognition, the ethics of authenticity, and the rise of instrumental reason.
    PMID: 21903906 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5218499</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5218499</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Charles Taylor, Phronesis, and Medicine: Ethics and Interpretation in Illness Narrative.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5218501&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21900540%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Schultz DS, Flasher LV
    Abstract
    This paper provides a brief overview and critique of the dominant objectivist understanding and use of illness narrative in Enlightenment (scientific) medicine and ethics, as well as several revisionist accounts, which reflect the evolution of this approach. In light of certain limitations and difficulties endemic in the objectivist understanding of illness narrative, an alternative phronesis approach to medical ethics influenced by Charles Taylor's account of the interpretive nature of human agency and language is examined. To this end, the account of interpretive medical responsibility previously described by Schultz and Carnevale as &quot;clinical phronesis&quot; (based upon Taylor's notion of &quot;strong&quot; or &quot;radical evaluation&quot;) is reviewed and expan...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5218501</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5218501</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medicine as Combining Natural and Human Science.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5218502&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21890809%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Dreyfus HL
    Abstract
    Medicine is unique in being a combination of natural science and human science in which both are essential. Therefore, in order to make sense of medical practice, we need to begin by drawing a clear distinction between the natural and the human sciences. In this paper, I try to bring the old distinction between the Geistes and Naturwissenschaften up to date by defending the essential difference between a realist explanatory theoretical study of nature including the body in which the scientist discovers the causal properties of natural kinds and the interpretive understanding of human beings as embodied agents which, as Charles Taylor has convincingly argued, requires a hermeneutic account of self-interpreting human practices.
    PMID: 21890809 [PubMed ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5218502</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5218502</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On Metaphorical Concentration: Language and Meaning in Patient-Physician Relations.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5175013&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21868394%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Carson RA
    Abstract
    Charles Taylor's retrieval of an expressivist understanding of persons, and of language as constitutive of meaning, contains promising insights for restoring moral connectedness between patients and physicians.
    PMID: 21868394 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5175013</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5175013</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Toward a Hermeneutical Conception of Medicine: A conversation with Charles Taylor.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5175014&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21865153%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Taylor C, Carnevale FA, Weinstock DM
    PMID: 21865153 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5175014</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Aug 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5175014</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Is Human in Humans? Responses from Biology, Anthropology, and Philosophy.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5175015&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21859676%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bibeau G
    Abstract
    Genomics has brought biology, medicine, agriculture, psychology, anthropology, and even philosophy to a new threshold. In this new context, the question about &quot;what is human in humans&quot; may end up being answered by geneticists, specialists of technoscience, and owners of biotech companies. The author defends, in this article, the idea that humanity is at risk in our age of genetic engineering, biotechnologies, and market-geared genetic research; he also argues that the values at the very core of our postgenomic era bring to its peak the science-based ideology that has developed since the time of Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and Harvey; finally, it shows that the bioindustry has invented a new genomythology that goes against the scientific evidence produced ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5175015</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5175015</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Informed Consent and Relational Conceptions of Autonomy.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5141230&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21825176%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Stoljar N
    Abstract
    The received view in medical contexts is that informed consent is both necessary and sufficient for patient autonomy. This paper argues that informed consent is not sufficient for patient autonomy, at least when autonomy is understood as a &quot;relational&quot; concept. Relational conceptions of autonomy, which have become prominent in the contemporary literature, draw on themes in the thought of Charles Taylor. I first identify four themes in Taylor's work that together constitute a picture of human agency corresponding to the notion of agency implicit in relational accounts of autonomy. Drawing on these themes, I sketch two arguments against the position that informed consent secures autonomy. The first is that informed consent is an &quot;opportunity&quot; concept where...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5141230</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 07 Aug 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5141230</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Multicultural Medicine and the Politics of Recognition.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5097635&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21804073%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Kirmayer LJ
    Health care services increasingly face patient populations with high levels of ethnic and cultural diversity. Cultures are associated with distinctive ways of life; concepts of personhood; value systems; and visions of the good that affect illness experience, help seeking, and clinical decision-making. Cultural differences may impede access to health care, accurate diagnosis, and effective treatment. The clinical encounter, therefore, must recognize relevant cultural differences, negotiate common ground in terms of problem definition and potential solutions, accommodate differences that are associated with good clinical outcomes, and manage irresolvable differences. Clinical attention to and respect for cultural difference (a) can provide experiences of recognition...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5097635</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5097635</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Questions in Contemporary Medicine and the Philosophy of Charles Taylor: An Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5097610&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21804074%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article provides an introduction to the articles in this theme issue. This collection examines epistemological, ontological, moral and political questions in medicine in light of the philosophical ideas of Charles Taylor. A synthesis of Taylor's relevant work is presented. Taylor has argued for a conception of the human sciences that regards human life as meaningful - deriving meaning from surrounding horizons of significance. An overview of the interdisciplinary articles in this issue is presented. This collection advances our thinking in the philosophy of medicine as well as the philosophy of Charles Taylor.
    PMID: 21804074 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5097610</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5097610</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Confronting Moral Pluralism in Posttraditional Western Societies: Bioethics Critically Reassessed.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5001008&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21724971%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Engelhardt HT
    In the face of the moral pluralism that results from the death of God and the abandonment of a God's eye perspective in secular philosophy, bioethics arose in a context that renders it essentially incapable of giving answers to substantive moral questions, such as concerning the permissibility of abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc. Indeed, it is only when bioethics understands its own limitations and those of secular moral philosophy in general can it better appreciate those tasks that it can actually usefully perform in both the clinical and academic setting. It is the task of this paper to understand and reevaluate bioethics by understanding these limits. Academic bioethicists can analyze ideas, concepts, and claims necessary to under...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5001008</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5001008</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Eschewing Definitions of the Therapeutic Misconception: A Family Resemblance Analysis.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4856168&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21606116%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Goldberg DS
    Twenty-five years after the term &quot;therapeutic misconception' (TM) first entered the literature, most commentators agree that it remains widespread. However, the majority of scholarly attention has focused on the reasons why a patient cum human subject might confuse the goals of research with the goals of therapy. Although this paper addresses the social and cultural factors that seem to animate the TM among subjects, it also fills a niche in the literature by examining why investigators too might operate under a similar confusion. In framing these issues, the paper expressly adopts a Wittgensteinian approach to evaluating the TM, suggesting that interlocutors do not need any analytic definition of the TM to use the term meaningfully in thinking about the moral impl...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4856168</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 22 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4856168</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Embryonic Stem Cells and Property Rights.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4856174&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21597085%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article contributes to the current debate on human embryonic stem cell researchers' possible complicity in the destruction of human embryos and the relevance of such complicity for the issue of commodification of human embryos. I will discuss if, and to what extent, researchers who destroy human embryos, and researchers who merely use human embryos destroyed by others, have moral use rights, and/or moral property rights, in these embryos. I argue that the moral status of the human embryo, however justified, places few restrictions on the latter researchers' use of it, and property rights in it, once it is destroyed. I argue that the former researchers have no property rights in the destroyed embryo but use rights in it to the extent allowed by the legitimate owners of the destroyed em...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4856174</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4856174</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Abortion, Metaphysics and Morality: A Review of Francis Beckwith's Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4856181&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21597083%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Nobis N
    In Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice (2007) and an earlier article in this journal, &quot;Defending Abortion Philosophically&quot;(2006), Francis Beckwith argues that fetuses are, from conception, prima facie wrong to kill. His arguments are based on what he calls a &quot;metaphysics of the human person&quot; known as &quot;The Substance View.&quot; I argue that Beckwith's metaphysics does not support his abortion ethic: Moral, not metaphysical, claims that are part of this Substance View are the foundation of the argument, and Beckwith inadequately defends these moral claims. Thus, Beckwith's arguments do not provide strong support for what he calls the &quot;pro-life&quot; view of abortion.
    PMID: 21597083 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4856181</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4856181</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Parental Wisdom, Empirical Blindness, and Normative Evaluation of Prenatal Genetic Enhancement.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4856178&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21597084%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Tonkens R
    The purpose of this paper is to unveil one problem that surrounds the debate over the moral standing of prenatal genetic enhancement (PGE) and to outline a solution to it. The problem is that we have no way to test our speculations about the consequences of prenatal enhancement without begging the question about the moral permissibility of enhancing unborn children. The only way to empirically support our speculations about the consequences of prenatal enhancement is to resort to ethically worrisome (and radical) experimental genetic research. The suggested solution to this problem is to focus on the character of good parents. The virtue of parental wisdom is introduced and used as a basis for evaluating PGE. It is argued that good parents have good reason not to con...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4856178</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4856178</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Euthanasia and Common Sense: A Reply to Garcia.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4856171&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21597086%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Seay G
    J. L. A. Garcia holds that my defense of voluntary euthanasia in an earlier paper amounts to an &quot;assault on traditional common sense&quot; about what medical ethics permits physicians to do, particularly insofar as I hold that a physician's duty to abstain from intentionally killing is only a defeasible duty, not an unconditional one. But I argue here that it is Garcia's views that are more at odds with common sense, and that voluntary euthanasia is in fact a humane alternative that respects patient autonomy and is consistent with the most fundamental moral duties of physicians. Among these is a duty to relieve suffering, which can sometimes outweigh the fundamental duty to conserve life.
    PMID: 21597086 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4856171</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4856171</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Waiting for St. Benedict among the Ruins: MacIntyre and Medical Practice.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4804244&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21551280%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bishop JP
    
    PMID: 21551280 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4804244</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4804244</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Shared Decision Making After MacIntyre.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4578970&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21378085%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Tilburt J
    This paper explores the practical consequences that Enlightenment ideals had on morality as it applies to clinical practice, using Alisdair MacIntyre's conceptualization and critique of the Enlightenment as its reference point. Taking the perspective of a practicing clinician, I critically examine the historical origins of ideas that made shared decision making (SDM) a necessary and ideal model of clinician-patient relationship. I then build on MacIntyre's critique of Enlightenment thought and examine its implications for conceptions of shared decision-making that use an Enlightenment justification, as well as examining contemporary threats to SDM that the Enlightenment made possible. I conclude by offering an alternative framing of SDM that fits with the clinician's...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4578970</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4578970</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Whose Disorder?: A Constructive MacIntyrean Critique of Psychiatric Nosology.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4578972&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21357652%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Kinghorn WA
    The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) has for decades been a locus of dispute between ardent defenders of its scientific validity and vociferous critics who charge that it covertly cloaks disputed moral and political judgments in scientific language. This essay explores Alasdair MacIntyre's tripartite typology of moral reasoning-&quot;encyclopedia,&quot; &quot;genealogy,&quot; and &quot;tradition&quot;-as an analytic lens for appreciation and critique of these debates. The DSM opens itself to corrosive neo-Nietzschean &quot;genealogical&quot; critique, such an analysis holds, only insofar as it is interpreted as a presumptively objective and context-independent encyclopedia free of the contingencies of its originating communities. A MacIntyrean...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4578972</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4578972</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Psychiatry After Virtue: A Modern Practice in the Ruins.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4578971&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21357653%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Michel AA
    Contemporary psychiatry maintains the myth that it is value neutral by appeal to modern medical science for both its diagnostic categories and its therapeutic interventions, leaving the impression that it relies on reason-that is to say, reason divorced from tradition-to master human nature. Such a practice has a certain way of characterizing and defining humanity's lapses from acceptable human behavior-a lapse from human being. The modern practice of psychiatry applies a particular notion (largely influenced by Enlightenment ideals) of scientific instrumentation to the human person in order to diagnose the ailment and manufacture a corresponding treatment in keeping with a hidden conception of human biological flourishing. This covert vision is an impoverished (and ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4578971</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4578971</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Rise of Empirical Research in Medical Ethics: A MacIntyrean Critique and Proposal.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4525392&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21339390%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Lawrence RE, Curlin FA
    Hume's is/ought distinction has long limited the role of empirical research in ethics, saying that data about what something is cannot yield conclusions about the way things ought to be. However, interest in empirical research in ethics has been growing despite this countervailing principle. We attribute some of this increased interest to a conceptual breakdown of the is/ought distinction. MacIntyre, in reviewing the history of the is/ought distinction, argues that is and ought are not strictly separate realms but exist in a close relationship that is clarified by adopting a teleological orientation. We propose that, instead of recovering a teleological orientation, society tends to generate its own goals via democratic methods like those described by Ro...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4525392</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4525392</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Dependent Rational Providers.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4525391&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21339391%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Brothers KB
    Provider claims to conscientious objection have generated a great deal of heated debate in recent years. However, the conflicts that arise when providers make claims to the &quot;conscience&quot; are only a subset of the more fundamental challenges that arise in health care practice when patients and providers come into conflict. In this piece, the author provides an account of patient-provider conflict from within the moral tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas. He argues that the practice of health care providers should be understood as a form of practical reasoning and that this practical reasoning must necessarily incorporate both &quot;moral&quot; and &quot;professional&quot; commitments. In order to understand how the practical reasoning of provider should account for the needs and commitments ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4525391</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4525391</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>From the ideal market to the ideal clinic: constructing a normative standard of fairness for human subjects research.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4470795&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21270474%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Phillips T
    Preventing exploitation in human subjects research requires a benchmark of fairness against which to judge the distribution of the benefits and burdens of a trial. This paper proposes the ideal market and its fair market price as a criterion of fairness. The ideal market approach is not new to discussions about exploitation, so this paper reviews Wertheimer's inchoate presentation of the ideal market as a principle of fairness, attempt of Emanuel and colleagues to apply the ideal market to human subjects research, and Ballantyne's criticisms of both the ideal market and the resulting benchmark of fairness. It argues that the criticism of this particular benchmark is on point, but the rejection of the ideal market is mistaken. After presenting a complete account of t...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4470795</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4470795</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subscription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4470794&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21304058%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 21304058 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4470794</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4470794</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4470793&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21304059%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 21304059 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4470793</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4470793</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4470792&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21304060%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 21304060 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4470792</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4470792</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscientious Objection, Emergency Contraception, and Public Policy.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4400686&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21242325%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Card RF
    Defenders of medical professionals' rights to conscientious objection (CO) regarding emergency contraception (EC) draw an analogy to CO in the military. Such professionals object to EC since it has the possibility of harming zygotic life, yet if we accept this analogy and utilize jurisprudence to frame the associated public policy, those who refuse to dispense EC would not have their objection honored. Legal precedent holds that one must consistently object to all forms of the relevant activity. In the case at hand, then, I argue that these professionals must also oppose morally innocuous practices that may prevent pregnancy after fertilization. These results reveal that such objectors cannot offer a plausible and consistent objection to harming zygotic life. Additiona...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4400686</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4400686</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Breaking Evolution's Chains: The Prospect of Deliberate Genetic Modification in Humans.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4400687&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21228084%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Powell R, Buchanan A
    Many philosophers invoke the &quot;wisdom of nature&quot; in arguing for varying degrees of caution in the development and use of genetic enhancement technologies. Because they view natural selection as akin to a master engineer that creates functionally and morally optimal design, these authors tend to regard genetic intervention with suspicion. In Part II, we examine and ultimately reject the evolutionary assumptions that underlie the master engineer analogy (MEA). By highlighting the constraints on ordinary unassisted evolution, we show how intentional genetic modification can overcome many of the natural impediments to the human good. Our contention is that genetic engineering offers a solution that is more eff icient, reliable, versatile, and morally palatabl...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4400687</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4400687</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Arboriculture in Clinical Ethics: Using Philosophical Critical Appraisal to Clear Away Underbrush in Ethical Analysis and Argument.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337498&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21220521%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McCullough LB
    This paper introduces the 2011 number of the Journal on Clinical Ethics. Philosophical critical appraisal is essential for the success of philosophical analysis and argument in clinical ethics. To clear away conceptual underbrush, papers in this Clinical Ethics number of the Journal address genetic engineering, conscience-based objections to forms of health care, placebos, and preventing exploitation of patients to be recruited to become research subjects.
    PMID: 21220521 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337498</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337498</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Conscience and Collective Duties: Do Medical Professionals Have a Collective Duty to Ensure That Their Profession Provides Non-discriminatory Access to All Medical Services?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337497&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21220522%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Parker JC
    Recent debates have led some to question the legitimacy of physicians refusing to provide legally permissible services for reasons of conscience. In this paper, I will explore the question of whether medical professionals have a collective duty to ensure that their profession provides nondiscriminatory access to all medical services. I will argue that they do not. I will also argue for an approach to dealing with intractable moral disagreements between patients and physicians that gives both parties veto power with regards to participation. Finally, I will respond to three objections to allowing physicians broad freedom to act on their consciences: such allowances would violate the conscience of the patient, would lead to unfairness, and would thwart important societ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337497</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337497</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Understanding and Harnessing Placebo Effects: Clearing Away the Underbrush.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4337496&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21220523%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Miller FG, Brody H
    Despite strong growth in scientific investigation of the placebo effect, understanding of this phenomenon remains deeply confused. We investigate critically seven common conceptual distinctions that impede clear understanding of the placebo effect: (1) verum/placebo, (2) active/inactive, (3) signal/noise, (4) specific/nonspecific, (5) objective/subjective, (6) disease/illness, and (7) intervention/context. We argue that some of these should be eliminated entirely, whereas others must be used with caution to avoid bias. Clearing away the conceptual underbrush is needed to lay down a path to understanding and harnessing placebo effects in clinical medicine.
    PMID: 21220523 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4337496</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4337496</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Contradictions from the Enlightenment Roots of Transhumanism.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4251024&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21135025%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hughes J
    Transhumanism, the belief that technology can transcend the limitations of the human body and brain, is part of the family of Enlightenment philosophies. As such, transhumanism has also inherited the internal tensions and contradictions of the broad Enlightenment tradition. First, the project of Reason is self-erosive and requires irrational validation. Second, although most transhumanists are atheist, their belief in the transcendent power of intelligence generates new theologies. Third, although most transhumanists are liberal democrats, their belief in human perfectibility and governance by reason can validate technocratic authoritarianism. Fourth, transhumanists are divided on the balance between democracy and the market. Fifth, teleological expectations of unstop...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4251024</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4251024</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Transhumanism, Metaphysics, and the Posthuman God.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4185169&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21088098%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bishop JP
    After describing Heidegger's critique of metaphysics as ontotheology, I unpack the metaphysical assumptions of several transhumanist philosophers. I claim that they deploy an ontology of power and that they also deploy a kind of theology, as Heidegger meant it. I also describe the way in which this metaphysics begets its own politics and ethics. In order to transcend the human condition, they must transgress the human.
    PMID: 21088098 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4185169</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4185169</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Transhumanist Fault Line Around Disability: Morphological Freedom and the Obligation to Enhance.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4185173&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21076073%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bradshaw HG, Ter Meulen R
    The transhumanist literature encompasses diverse nonnovel positions on questions of disability and obligation reflecting long-running political philosophical debates on freedom and value choice, complicated by the difficulty of projecting values to enhanced beings. These older questions take on a more concrete form given transhumanist uses of biotechnologies. This paper will contrast the views of Hughes and Sandberg on the obligations persons with &quot;disabilities&quot; have to enhance and suggest a new model. The paper will finish by introducing a distinction between the responsibility society has in respect of the presence of impairments and the responsibility society has not to abandon disadvantaged members, concluding that questions of freedom and respons...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4185173</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4185173</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Moral Transhumanism.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4185172&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21076074%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Persson I, Savulescu J
    In its basic sense, the term &quot;human&quot; is a term of biological classification: an individual is human just in case it is a member of the species Homo sapiens. Its opposite is &quot;nonhuman&quot;: nonhuman animals being animals that belong to other species than H. sapiens. In another sense of human, its opposite is &quot;inhuman,&quot; that is cruel and heartless (cf. &quot;humane&quot; and &quot;inhumane&quot;); being human in this sense is having morally good qualities. This paper argues that biomedical research and therapy should make humans in the biological sense more human in the moral sense, even if they cease to be human in the biological sense. This serves valuable biomedical ends like the promotion of health and well-being, for if humans do not become more moral, civilization is threat...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4185172</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4185172</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Enhanced Humans versus &quot;Normal People&quot;: Elusive Definitions.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4185171&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21076075%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article provides an overview of the concept of enhancement, focusing on six major areas in which usages of the term become slippery and controversial: normal or species-typical functioning, therapeutics or healing, natural functioning, human nature, authenticity, and the ambiguity between &quot;more&quot; and &quot;better.&quot; I argue that we need to be aware of the tendency to embed the concept of enhancement within stark binary oppositions that seem perfectly reasonable at first glance, but that in fact yield little more than conceptual muddles if they are not handled carefully.
    PMID: 21076075 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4185171</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4185171</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>At the Roots of Transhumanism: From the Enlightenment to a Post-Human Future.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4185170&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21076076%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Jotterand F
    
    PMID: 21076076 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4185170</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4185170</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Enhancing Who? Enhancing What? Ethics, Bioethics, and Transhumanism.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4139590&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D21041805%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Koch T
    Transhumanists advance a &quot;posthuman&quot; condition in which technological and genetic enhancements will transform humankind. They are joined in this goal by bioethicists arguing for genetic selection as a means of &quot;enhancing evolution,&quot; improving if not also the species then at least the potential lives of future individuals. The argument of both, this paper argues, is a new riff on the old eugenics tune. As ever, it is done in the name of science and its presumed knowledge base. As ever, the result is destructive rather than instructive, bad faith promoted as high ideal. The paper concludes with the argument that species advancement is possible but in a manner thoroughly distinct from that advanced by either of these groups.
    PMID: 21041805 [PubMed - as supplied by publ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4139590</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4139590</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Beyond the Best Interests of Children: Four Views of the Family and of Foundational Disagreements Regarding Pediatric Decision Making.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4042885&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20923929%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Engelhardt HT
    This paper presents four different understandings of the family and their concomitant views of the authority of the family in pediatric medical decision making. These different views are grounded in robustly developed, and conflicting, worldviews supported by disparate basic premises about the nature of morality. The traditional worldviews are often found within religious communities that embrace foundational metaphysical premises at odds with the commitments of the liberal account of the family dominant in the secular culture of the West. These disputes are substantial and ultimately irresolvable by sound rational argument because of the failure to share common foundational premises and rules of evidence. It is in light of these fundamental disagreements that th...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4042885</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4042885</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Should the Confucian Family-Determination Model Be Rejected? A Case Study.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4042884&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20923930%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Li EC, Wen CF
    This essay explores a tragic event that happened in China, which garnered much attention, the Li case: a young woman who was nine months pregnant and her baby died as a result of the failure to receive a medically necessary c-section due to the hospital having failed to secure her family's consent for the c-section. Differing from some critiques, this essay argues that the Li case should not be used to blame the Confucian family-determination model that has been applied in Chinese society for thousands of years. Based on summarizing the reasons supporting the model, this essay indicates that it is an integral part of the model that, in emergency or special cases, the physician must take medical action to save the patient, without the need to secure the consent of...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4042884</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4042884</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Decision Making and the Family: An Examination of Controversies.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4026431&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20876226%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Wang M, Lo PC, Fan R
    
    PMID: 20876226 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4026431</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4026431</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Adolescent Psychological Development, Parenting Styles, and Pediatric Decision Making.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4003597&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20870933%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Partridge BC
    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child risks harm to adolescents insofar as it encourages not only poor decision making by adolescents but also parenting styles that will have an adverse impact on the development of mature decision-making capacities in them. The empirical psychological and neurophysiological data weigh against augmenting and expression of the rights of children. Indeed, the data suggest grounds for expanding parental authority, not limiting its scope. At the very least, any adequate appreciation of the moral claims regarding the authority of parents with respect to the decision-making capacity of adolescents needs to be set within an understanding of the psychological and neurophysiological facts regarding the development of adol...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4003597</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4003597</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Wrong of Rights: The Moral Authority of the Family.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4003897&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20855425%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Erickson SA
    I argue that the notion of human rights is a flawed notion of relatively recent historical origin, growing primarily out of Enlightenment concerns to separate human beings from their metaphysical and communal heritage. I critique liberal, secular individualism as an abstract perspective that fails to comprehend those fundamental family relations out of which genuine human life emerges and within which it must remain if it is to be perceptive, grounded, and concrete. Finally, I argue that the most important relations humans sustain to each other are internal, not external to them and that the bonding found through empathy is more insightful in decision making than the analytic connections engendered through human reason.
    PMID: 20855425 [PubMed - as supplied by p...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4003897</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4003897</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Family and Harmonious Medical Decision Making: Cherishing an Appropriate Confucian Moral Balance.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4003829&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20855426%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Chen X, Fan R
    This essay illustrates what the Chinese family-based and harmony-oriented model of medical decision making is like as well as how it differs from the modern Western individual-based and autonomy-oriented model in health care practice. The essay discloses the roots of the Chinese model in the Confucian account of the family and the Confucian view of harmony. By responding to a series of questions posed to the Chinese model by modern Western scholars in terms of the basic individualist concerns and values embedded in the modern Western model, we conclude that the Chinese people have justifiable reasons to continue to apply the Chinese model to their contemporary health care and medical practice.
    PMID: 20855426 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Jo...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4003829</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 19 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4003829</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Parental Authority and Pediatric Bioethical Decision Making.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3982128&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20847034%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Cherry MJ
    In this paper, I offer a view beyond that which would narrowly reduce the role of parents in medical decision making to acting as custodians of the best interests of children and toward an account of family authority and family autonomy. As a fundamental social unit, the good of the family is usually appreciated, at least in part, in terms of its ability successfully to instantiate its core moral and cultural understandings as well as to pass on such commitments to future generations. The putative rights of children to expression, information, freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and to freedom of association with others are, in this essay, assessed from the perspective of those conditions necessary for the family to function as a moral community. In so doing, I...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3982128</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3982128</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Toward a Coherent Account of Pediatric Decision Making.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3955103&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20819781%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Iltis AS
    Within and among societies, there are competing understandings of the status of children, including debates over whether they can bear rights and, if so, which rights they bear and against whom, and their capacity to make decisions and be held responsible and accountable for actions. There also are different understandings of what constitutes a family; what authority parents have over and regarding their children; and what should happen to children who are without parents because of death, desertion, or imprisonment. These and other related debates reflect deep differences in worldviews, in how one understands the legitimate role of the state, in how one comes to know the proper way to raise children, and so on. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3955103</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 04 Sep 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3955103</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subscription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3809497&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20670966%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20670966 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3809497</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3809497</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3809496&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20670967%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20670967 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3809496</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3809496</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3809495&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20670968%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20670968 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3809495</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3809495</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Contemporary Healthcare Crisis in China and the Role of Medical Professionalism.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3777298&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20643701%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hui EC
    The healthcare crisis that has developed in the last two decades during China's economic reform has caused healthcare and hospital financing reforms to be largely experienced by patients as a crisis in the patient-healthcare professional relationship (PPR) at the bedside. The nature and magnitude of this crisis were epitomized by the &quot;Harbin Scandal&quot;-an incident that took place in August 2005 in a Harbin teaching hospital in which the family of an elderly patient hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) for 66 days paid over RMB yen6 million. The news was publicized globally and ended in the firing of six top hospital administrators including the hospital president and the ICU director. This paper seeks to show that the Chinese healthcare crisis is ultimately linke...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3777298</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3777298</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Genetic Enhancement, Human Nature, and Rights.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3777299&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20639283%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McConnell T
    Authors such as Francis Fukuyama, the President's Council on Bioethics, and George Annas have argued that biotechnological interventions that aim to promote genetic enhancement pose a threat to human nature. This paper clarifies what conclusions these critics seek to establish, and then shows that there is no plausible account of human nature that will meet the conditions necessary to support this position. Appeals to human nature cannot establish a prohibition against the pursuit of genetic enhancement.
    PMID: 20639283 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3777299</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3777299</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Confucian Philosophy of Medicine and Some Implications.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3764958&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20634269%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Lo PC
    Two crucial topics in the philosophy of medicine are the philosophy of nature and philosophical anthropology. In this essay I engage the philosophy of nature by exploring Anne Fagot-Largeault's study of norms in nature as a way of articulating a Confucian philosophy of medicine. I defend the Confucian position as a moderate naturalism.
    PMID: 20634269 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3764958</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3764958</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3764956&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20634270%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bulcock JA
    
    PMID: 20634270 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3764956</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3764956</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lingering Problems of Currency and Scope in Daniels's Argument for a Societal Obligation to Meet Health Needs.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3764953&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20634271%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Sachs B
    Norman Daniels's new book, Just Health, brings together his decades of work on the problem of justice and health. It improves on earlier writings by discussing how we can meet health needs fairly when we cannot meet them all and by attending to the implications of the socioeconomic determinants of health. In this article I return to the core idea around which the entire theory is built: that the principle of equality of opportunity grounds a societal obligation to meet health needs. I point, first, that nowhere does Daniels say just what version of that principle he accepts. I then proceed to construct a principle on his behalf, based on a faithful reading of Just Health. Once we actually nail down the principle, I argue, we will find that there are two problems: it is...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3764953</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3764953</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tolerance and Illness: The Politics of Medical and Psychiatric Classification.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3759190&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20624764%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Glackin SN
    In this paper, I explore the links between liberal political theory and the evaluative nature of medical classification, arguing for stronger recognition of those links in a liberal model of medical practice. All judgments of medical or psychiatric &quot;dysfunction,&quot; I argue, are fundamentally evaluative, reflecting our collective willingness or reluctance to tolerate and/or accommodate the conditions in question. Illness, then, is &quot;socially constructed.&quot; But the relativist worries that this loaded phrase evokes are unfounded; patients, doctors, and communities will agree in the vast majority of cases about what counts as illness. Where they cannot come to agreement, however, we are faced with precisely the sort of dispute about values and ways of life that the institut...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3759190</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3759190</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Y and Z Are Not Off the Hook: The Survival Lottery Made Fairer.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3759189&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20624765%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Nelson MT
    In this article I show that the argument in John Harris's famous &quot;Survival Lottery&quot; paper cannot be right. Even if we grant Harris's assumptions-of the justifiability of such a lottery, the correctness of maximizing consequentialism, the indistinguishability between killing and letting die, the practical and political feasibility of such a scheme-the argument still will not yield the conclusion that Harris wants. On his own terms, the medically needy should be less favored (and more vulnerable to being killed), than Harris suggests.
    PMID: 20624765 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3759189</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3759189</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Libertarian Perspective on the Stem Cell Debate: Compromising the Uncompromisible.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3759188&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20624766%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Block W
    The present paper attempts to forge a compromise between those who maintain that stem cell research is out-and-out murder of young helpless human beings and those who favor this practice. The compromise is predicated upon the libertarian theory of private property rights. Starting out with the premise that not only the fetus but even the fertilized egg is a human being, with all rights thereto, it offers a competition between those who fertilize eggs for research and those who wish to adopt them. If and only if the former win this competition will they be allowed to use these very young human beings for the purposes they have constructed them. This is justified on grounds of avoiding child abuse.
    PMID: 20624766 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3759188</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jul 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3759188</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subscription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599844&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20494982%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20494982 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599844</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599844</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599843&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20494983%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20494983 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599843</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599843</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599842&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20494984%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20494984 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599842</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599842</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Announcement.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3599841&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20494985%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20494985 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3599841</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 May 2010 17:18:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3599841</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Matter of Respect: A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule and of &quot;Whole-Brain&quot; Criterion for Determination of Death.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3570241&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20466820%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>A Matter of Respect: A Defense of the Dead Donor Rule and of &quot;Whole-Brain&quot; Criterion for Determination of Death.
    J Med Philos. 2010 May 13;
    Authors: Khushf G
    Many accounts of the historical development of neurological criteria for determination of death insufficiently distinguish between two strands of interpretation advanced by advocates of a &quot;whole-brain&quot; criterion. One strand focuses on the brain as the organ of integration. Another provides a far more complex and nuanced account, both of death and of a policy on the determination of death. Current criticisms of the whole-brain criterion are effective in refuting the first interpretation, but not the second, which is advanced in the 2008 President's Council report on the determination of death. In this essay, I seek to furth...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3570241</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3570241</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Death Revisited: Rethinking Death and the Dead Donor Rule.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556625&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20457616%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Iltis AS, Cherry MJ
    Traditionally, people were recognized as being dead using cardio-respiratory criteria: individuals who had permanently stopped breathing and whose heart had permanently stopped beating were dead. Technological developments in the middle of the twentieth century and the advent of the intensive care unit made it possible to sustain cardio-respiratory and other functions in patients with severe brain injury who previously would have lost such functions permanently shortly after sustaining a brain injury. What could and should physicians caring for such patients do? Significant advances in human organ transplantation also played direct and indirect roles in discussions regarding the care of such patients. Because successful transplantation requires that organs ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556625</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556625</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Transplanting Hearts after Death Measured by Cardiac Criteria: The Challenge to the Dead Donor Rule.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3539005&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20439354%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Veatch RM
    The current definition of death used for donation after cardiac death relies on a determination of the irreversible cessation of the cardiac function. Although this criterion can be compatible with transplantation of most organs, it is not compatible with heart transplantation since heart transplants by definition involve the resuscitation of the supposedly &quot;irreversibly&quot; stopped heart. Subsequently, the definition of &quot;irreversible&quot; has been altered so as to permit heart transplantation in some circumstances, but this is unsatisfactory. There are three available strategies for solving this &quot;irreversibility problem&quot;: altering the definition of death so as to rely on circulatory irreversibility, rather than cardiac; defining death strictly on the basis of brain death (...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3539005</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3539005</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Dead Donor Rule: Can It Withstand Critical Scrutiny?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3539004&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20439355%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Miller FG, Truog RD, Brock DW
    Transplantation of vital organs has been premised ethically and legally on &quot;the dead donor rule&quot; (DDR)-the requirement that donors are determined to be dead before these organs are procured. Nevertheless, scholars have argued cogently that donors of vital organs, including those diagnosed as &quot;brain dead&quot; and those declared dead according to cardiopulmonary criteria, are not in fact dead at the time that vital organs are being procured. In this article, we challenge the normative rationale for the DDR by rejecting the underlying premise that it is necessarily wrong for physicians to cause the death of patients and the claim that abandoning this rule would exploit vulnerable patients. We contend that it is ethical to procure vital organs from living...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3539004</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3539004</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Ethics of Creating and Responding to Doubts about Death Criteria.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3539003&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20439356%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Dubois JM
    Expressing doubts about death criteria can serve healthy purposes, but can also cause a number of harms, including decreased organ donation rates and distress for donor families and health care staff. This paper explores the various causes of doubts about death criteria-including religious beliefs, misinformation, mistrust, and intellectual questions-and recommends responses to each of these. Some recommended responses are relatively simple and noncontroversial, such as providing accurate information. However, other responses would require significant changes to the way we currently do business. Policymakers should establish minimum national standards for determining death to foster a trustworthy system; academics and publishers have a duty to publish only materials ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3539003</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3539003</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How the Distinction between &quot;Irreversible&quot; and &quot;Permanent&quot; Illuminates Circulatory-Respiratory Death Determination.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3539002&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20439357%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>How the Distinction between &quot;Irreversible&quot; and &quot;Permanent&quot; Illuminates Circulatory-Respiratory Death Determination.
    J Med Philos. 2010 May 3;
    Authors: Bernat JL
    The distinction between the &quot;permanent&quot; (will not reverse) and &quot;irreversible&quot; (cannot reverse) cessation of functions is critical to understand the meaning of a determination of death using circulatory-respiratory tests. Physicians determining death test only for the permanent cessation of circulation and respiration because they know that irreversible cessation follows rapidly and inevitably once circulation no longer will restore itself spontaneously and will not be restored medically. Although most statutes of death stipulate irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, the accepted medical standa...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3539002</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3539002</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constructing the Death Elephant: A Synthetic Paradigm Shift for the Definition, Criteria, and Tests for Death.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3539001&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20439358%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Shewmon DA
    In debates about criteria for human death, several camps have emerged, the main two focusing on either loss of the &quot;organism as a whole&quot; (the mainstream view) or loss of consciousness or &quot;personhood.&quot; Controversies also rage over the proper definition of &quot;irreversible&quot; in criteria for death. The situation is reminiscent of the proverbial blind men palpating an elephant; each describes the creature according to the part he can touch. Similarly, each camp grasps some aspect of the complex reality of death. The personhood camp, in contrast to the mainstream &quot;organism&quot; camp, recognizes that a human organism can still be a biological living whole even without brain function. The mainstream camp, in contrast to the personhood camp, recognizes that a person can be permanen...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3539001</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 02 May 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3539001</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subscription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3362720&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20223857%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20223857 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3362720</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:42:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3362720</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3362719&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20223858%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20223858 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3362719</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:42:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3362719</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3362718&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20223859%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 20223859 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3362718</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:42:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3362718</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Genetic Testing, Conscientious Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children, and Organ Donation: An Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3340096&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20203138%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hinkley AE
    
    PMID: 20203138 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3340096</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3340096</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Organ Donation by Capital Prisoners in China: Reflections in Confucian Ethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3328151&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20197306%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article discusses the practice and development of organ donation by capital prisoners in China. It analyzes the issue of informed consent regarding organ donation from capital prisoners in light of Confucian ethics and expounds the point that under the influence of Confucianism, China is a country that attaches great importance to the role of the family in practicing informed consent in various areas, the area of organ donation from capital prisoners included. It argues that a proper form of organ donation from capital prisoners can be justified within the Confucian moral context in which the proper interests of capital prisoners and their families, the benefit of organ receptors, and a rightful order of society should all be appropriately considered. From the Confucian perspective, t...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3328151</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3328151</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Reevaluating the Dead Donor Rule.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3316325&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20185451%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Collins M
    The dead donor rule justifies current practice in organ procurement for transplantation and states that organ donors must be dead prior to donation. The majority of organ donors are diagnosed as having suffered brain death and hence are declared dead by neurological criteria. However, a significant amount of unrest in both the philosophical and the medical literature has surfaced since this practice began forty years ago. I argue that, first, declaring death by neurological criteria is both unreliable and unjustified but further, the ethical principles which themselves justify the dead donor rule are better served by abandoning that rule and instead allowing individuals who have suffered severe and irreversible brain damage to become organ donors, even though they ar...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3316325</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3316325</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Evolutionary Biological Implications of Human Genetic Engineering.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3316324&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20185452%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Powell R
    A common worry about the genetic engineering of human beings is that it will reduce human genetic diversity, creating a biological monoculture that could not only increase our susceptibility to disease but also hasten the extinction of our species. Thus far, however, the evolutionary implications of human genetic modification remain largely unexplored. In this paper, I consider whether the widespread use of genetic engineering technology is likely to narrow the present range of genetic variation, and if so, whether this would in fact lead to the evolutionary harms that some authors envision. By examining the nature of biological variation and its relation to population immunity and evolvability, I show that not only will genetic engineering have a negligible impact on...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3316324</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3316324</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>From Brute Luck to Option Luck? On Genetics, Justice, and Moral Responsibility in Reproduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3312091&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20181644%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Denier Y
    The structure of our ethical experience depends, crucially, on a fundamental distinction between what we are responsible for doing or deciding and what is given to us. As such, the boundary between chance and choice is the spine of our conventional morality, and any serious shift in that boundary is thoroughly dislocating. Against this background, I analyze the way in which techniques of prenatal genetic diagnosis (PGD) pose such a fundamental challenge to our conventional ideas of justice and moral responsibility. After a short description of the situation, I first examine the influential luck egalitarian theory of justice, which is based on the distinction between choice and luck or, more specifically, between option luck and brute luck, and the way in which it woul...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3312091</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3312091</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Genetic Nondiscrimination and Health Care as an Entitlement.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3312090&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20181645%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Kious BM
    The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 prohibits most forms of discrimination on the basis of genetic information in health insurance and employment. The findings cited as justification for the act, the almost universal political support for it, and much of the scholarly literature about genetic discrimination, all betray a confusion about what is really at issue. They imply that genetic discrimination is wrong mainly because of genetic exceptionalism: because some special feature of genetic information makes discrimination on the basis thereof wrong. I suggest, to the contrary, that the best arguments against genetic discrimination assume that health care is an entitlement. I do this by examining two different exceptionalist arguments for genetic nondi...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3312090</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3312090</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethics and &quot;Human Dignity&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3312089&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20181646%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Bioethics and &quot;Human Dignity&quot;
    J Med Philos. 2010 Feb 24;
    Authors: Jordan MC
    The term &quot;human dignity&quot; is the source of considerable confusion in contemporary bioethics. It has been used by Kantians to refer to autonomy, by others to refer to the sanctity of life, and by still others (e.g., the President's Council on Bioethics) to refer-albeit obliquely-to an important but infrequently discussed set of human goods. In the first part of this article, I seek to disambiguate the notion of human dignity. The second part is a defense of the philosophical utility of such a notion; I argue that there is nothing implausible about appealing to a deontological &quot;principle of dignity&quot; to solve bioethical problems, especially those concerning the development of new biotechnologies. There may,...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3312089</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3312089</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Illusion of Consensus: Harvesting Human Organs from Prisoners Convicted of Capital Crimes.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3303130&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20176708%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Cherry MJ
    
    PMID: 20176708 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3303130</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3303130</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Rawls and the Refusal of Medical Treatment to Children.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3303129&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20176709%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Macdougall DR
    That Jehovah's Witnesses cannot refuse life-saving blood transfusions on behalf of their children has acquired the status of virtual &quot;consensus&quot; among bioethicists. However strong the consensus may be on this matter, this article explores whether this view can be plausibly defended on liberal principles by examining it in light of one particularly well worked-out liberal political theory, that of Rawls. It concludes that because of the extremely high priority Rawls attributes to &quot;freedom of conscience,&quot; and the implication from the original position that parents must act paternalistically toward their children as their protectors, Jehovah's Witnesses cannot legitimately be barred from making decisions on behalf of their children, even when the consequences of suc...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3303129</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3303129</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Organ Donation and Global Bioethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3303128&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20176710%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Iltis AS
    
    PMID: 20176710 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3303128</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3303128</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Clinical Research in Context: Reexamining the Distinction between Research and Practice.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3153984&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20054011%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Anderson JA
    At least since the seminal work of the (US) National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the 1970s, a fundamental distinction between research and practice has underwritten both conceptual work in research ethics and regulations governing research involving human subjects. Notwithstanding its undoubted historical importance, I believe the distinction is problematic because it misrepresents clinical inquiry. In this essay, I aim to clarify the character of clinical inquiry by identifying crucial contextual constraints on justification constitutive of clinical science. This analysis shows that, from an epistemological point of view, clinical research and clinical practice are not sharply distinct but intimately int...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3153984</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3153984</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Disambiguating Clinical Intentions: The Ethics of Palliative Sedation.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3153983&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20054012%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Jansen LA
    It is often claimed that the intentions of physicians are multiple, ambiguous, and uncertain-at least with respect to end-of-life care. This claim provides support for the conclusion that the principle of double effect is of little or no value as a guide to end-of-life pain management. This paper critically discusses this claim. It argues that proponents of the claim fail to distinguish two different senses of &quot;intention,&quot; and that, as a result, they are led to exaggerate the extent to which clinical intentions in end-of-life contexts are ambiguous and uncertain. It argues further that physicians, like others who make life and death decisions, have a duty to get clear on what their intentions are. Finally, it argues that even if the principle of double effect should ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3153983</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3153983</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Selective Terminations and Respect for the Disabled.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3122613&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20034993%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Stangl R
    It is widely thought that abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality is morally justified. More controversially, Peter Singer has argued that some infants with severe disabilities ought to be killed. Many disability rights activists object that such claims and practices express disrespect toward disabled persons, even if fetuses and infants are only potentially persons. This can seem puzzling. If disabled fetuses are not members of the community of disabled persons, how can our treatment of the former express disrespect toward the latter? In what follows, I shall argue for two claims: first, the he puzzle is only apparent because whether we respect someone depends not only on how we do treat him but also on how we would treat him were circumstances different, and se...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3122613</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3122613</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Exceptional Ethics of the Investigator-Subject Relationship.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3114392&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20026526%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article concerns the validity of six canonical rules that institutional review boards use to constrain the behavior of investigators. These rules require investigators to design their studies in a scientifically valid way, not pay their subjects to take risks, minimize risks to their subjects, secure for their subjects access to effective interventions post-trial, not pay their subjects too much and allow their subjects to withdraw from the study unconditionally. Enforcement of these rules is problematic because there are other relationships that seem to be like the investigator-subject relationship in all ethically relevant respects, such as the employer-employee and volunteer organizer-volunteer relationships, to which we would not dream of applying these same rules. Applying these ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3114392</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3114392</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Proper Role of Evidence in Complementary/Alternative Medicine.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3114383&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20026527%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hansen K, Kappel K
    In this article we explore the role evidence ought to play in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). First, we consider the claim that evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) cannot be obtained for CAMs. Second, we consider various claims to the effect that there are ways of obtaining evidence that do not make use of RCTs. We argue that there is no good reason why CAM should be exempted from the general requirement that treatments undergo evaluation by RCT. Third, we consider two implications for health care policy. First, many activities in conventional medicine have never been rigorously evaluated and are widely in use nonetheless. We argue that this fails to provide a reason for exempting CAM from a demand for evidence. Second, ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3114383</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3114383</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>La Frontera: Responsibly Managing Borders and Boundaries in Clinical Ethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3114382&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D20026528%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McCullough LB
    The papers in the 2010 &quot;Clinical Ethics&quot; number of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy explore issues along La Frontera, the borders and boundaries of clinical ethics. The first three papers in this &quot;Clinical Ethics&quot; number of the Journal explore borders and boundaries drawn within clinical ethics, concerning the moral standing of complementary and alternative medicine, palliative sedation, and induced abortion and feticide. The fourth and fifth papers explore the borders and boundaries between research ethics and clinical ethics.
    PMID: 20026528 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3114382</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3114382</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Subcription.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3009197&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19920167%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 19920167 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3009197</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:32:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3009197</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Editorial Board.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3009196&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19920168%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 19920168 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3009196</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:32:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3009196</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Cover.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3009195&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19920169%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: 
    
    PMID: 19920169 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3009195</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:32:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3009195</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Litmus Test for Exploitation: James Stacey Taylor's Stakes and Kidneys.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2953381&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19880546%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Kuntz JR
    James Stacy Taylor advances a thorough argument for the legalization of markets in current (live) human kidneys. The market is seemly the most abhorrent type of market, a market where the least well-off sell part of their body to the most well off. Though rigorously defended overall, his arguments concerning exploitation are thin. I examine a number of prominent bioethicists' account of exploitation: most importantly, Ruth Sample's exploitation as degradation. I do so in the context of Taylor's argument, with the aim of buttressing Taylor's position that a regulated kidney market is morally allowable. I argue that Sample fails to provide normative grounds consistent with her claim that exploitation is wrong. I then reformulate her account for consistency and plausibil...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2953381</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2953381</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Organ Markets and the Ends of Medicine.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2953380&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19880547%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Davis FD, Crowe SJ
    As the gap between the need for and supply of human organs continues to widen, the aim of securing additional sources of these &quot;gifts of the body&quot; has become a seemingly overriding moral imperative, one that could-and some argue, should-override the widespread ban on organ markets. As a medical practice, organ transplantation entails the inherent risk that one human being, a donor, will become little more than a means to the end of healing for another human being and that he or she will come to have a purely instrumental value. With the establishment of organ markets, not only will the harms of instrumentalization be a reality-the ends of medicine will be further compromised and confused.
    PMID: 19880547 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Jo...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2953380</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2953380</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Autonomy and Organ Sales, Revisited.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2953378&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19880548%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Taylor JS
    In this paper I develop and defend my arguments in favor of the moral permissibility of a legal market for human body parts in response to the criticisms that have been leveled at them by Paul M. Hughes and Samuel J. Kerstein.
    PMID: 19880548 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2953378</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2953378</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Constraint, Consent, and Well-Being in Human Kidney Sales.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2953377&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19880549%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hughes PM
    This paper canvasses recent arguments in favor of commercial markets in human transplant kidneys, raising objections to those arguments on grounds of the role of injustice, exploitation, and coercion in compromising the autonomy of those most likely to sell a kidney, namely, the least well off members of society.
    PMID: 19880549 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2953377</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2953377</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Introduction: Symposium on a Regulated Market in Transplantable Organs.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2917915&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19846477%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hippen BE
    
    PMID: 19846477 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2917915</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2917915</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Should We Compensate Organ Donors When We Can Continue to Take Organs for Free? A Response to Some of My Critics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2917914&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19846478%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Cherry MJ
    In Kidney for Sale by Owner: Human Organs, Transplantation, and the Market, I argued that the market is the most efficient and effective-and morally justified-means of procuring and allocating human organs for transplantation. This special issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy publishes several articles critical of this position and of my arguments mustered in its support. In this essay, I explore the core criticisms these authors raise against my conclusions. I argue that clinging to comfortable, but unfounded, notions that human body parts are not commodities, that the physician-patient relationship transcends commercial practices, and that medicine rises above market-place morality (where &quot;market-place morality&quot; is presented rhetorically as a criticism) ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2917914</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2917914</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Autonomy, Moral Constraints, and Markets in Kidneys.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2917911&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19846479%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article concerns the morality of establishing regulated kidney markets in an effort to reduce the chronic shortage of kidneys for transplant. The article tries to rebut the view, recently defended by James Taylor, that if we hold autonomy to be intrinsically valuable, then we should be in favor of such markets. The article then argues that, under current conditions, the buying and selling of organs in regulated markets would sometimes violate two Kantian principles that are seen as moral constraints. One principle forbids expressing disrespect for the dignity of humanity; the other forbids treating others merely as means. In light of the moral danger posed by regulated markets, the article advocates an alternative way of diminishing the current organ shortage, namely opt-out systems o...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2917911</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2917911</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Animal-Human Chimeras, Sexually Deviant Behavior, and Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2752462&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19717525%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Hinkley AE
    
    PMID: 19717525 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2752462</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2752462</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What They Mean by &quot;Good Science': The Medical Community's Response to Boutique Fetal Ultrasounds.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2725350&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19696156%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>What They Mean by &quot;Good Science': The Medical Community's Response to Boutique Fetal Ultrasounds.
    J Med Philos. 2009 Aug 20;
    Authors: Raucher MS
    Since 1994, when the first fetal imaging boutique appeared in Texas, many sites have been established around the country for parents to receive nonmedical fetal imaging using three- and four-dimensional ultrasound machines. These businesses boast the benefits they offer to parental-fetal bonding, but the medical community objects to the use of ultrasound machines for nonmedical purposes. In this article, I present the statements released by the medical community, highlighting the alarmist strategies used to paint boutique ultrasounds as bad science and elevate the medical use of ultrasounds. Through a close reading of the statements, i...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2725350</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2725350</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Metaphysical and Ethical Perspectives on Creating Animal-Human Chimeras.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2720454&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19692673%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Eberl JT, Ballard RA
    This paper addresses several questions related to the nature, production, and use of animal-human (a-h) chimeras. At the heart of the issue is whether certain types of a-h chimeras should be brought into existence, and, if they are, how we should treat such creatures. In our current research environment, we recognize a dichotomy between research involving nonhuman animal subjects and research involving human subjects, and the classification of a research protocol into one of these categories will trigger different ethical standards as to the moral permissibility of the research in question. Are a-h chimeras entitled to the more restrictive and protective ethical standards applied to human research subjects? We elucidate an Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysic...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2720454</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2720454</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Search for Reasons in a Unified Relationship.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2720453&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19692674%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Koppelman-White ER
    The paternalism, autonomy debate was influenced by traditional ideas that reasons are either objective (based on values existing independent of any particular person) or subjective (based on values tied to individual's personal histories). This dichotomy has been rewarding for the health care community. However, the tenets of this debate have influenced the nature of deliberation in a way that seriously compromises the ability of health care professionals and patients to bring reflection (the search for justified reasons) to a successful end. It sets up the moral landscape not as one of unity and reciprocity, but as one of divisiveness and distance-where one person (the physician) does something to another (paternalism) or for another (patient autonomy), rat...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2720453</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2720453</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Evidence-Based Medicine Must Be ...</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2720457&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19690324%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: La Caze A
    Proponents of evidence-based medicine (EBM) provide the &quot;hierarchy of evidence&quot; as a criterion for judging the reliability of therapeutic decisions. EBM's hierarchy places randomized interventional studies (and systematic reviews of such studies) higher in the hierarchy than observational studies, unsystematic clinical experience, and basic science. Recent philosophical work has questioned whether EBM's special emphasis on evidence from randomized interventional studies can be justified. Following the critical literature, and in particular the work of John Worrall, I agree that many of the arguments put forward by advocates of EBM do not justify the ambitious claims that are often made on behalf of randomization. However, in contrast to the recent philosophical work,...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2720457</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2720457</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Sex, Immorality, and Mental Disorders.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2720456&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19690325%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Gert B, Culver CM
    Although the definition of a mental disorder has remained essentially the same from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, Third Edition, Revised (DSM-III-R) through DSM-IV to DSM-IV-TR, the account of the paraphilias has changed continually. Although the definition in all the DSMs explicitly rules out deviant sexual behavior as sufficient for labeling someone as having a mental disorder, deviant sexual behavior counts as sufficient for all the paraphilias in DSM-III-R. In DSM-IV, the account of all the paraphilias is made consistent with the definition. In DSM-IV-TR, mere deviant sexual behavior is not sufficient for being classified as having a paraphilia, but immoral deviant sexual behavior is. Thus, in DSM-IV-TR, only those paraphilias that...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2720456</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2720456</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>A Regulatory Argument Against Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2720455&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19690326%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>This article explores the plausibility of an argument against embryonic stem cell research based on what the regulations already say about research on pregnant women and fetuses. The center of the argument is the notion of vulnerability and whether such a concept is applicable to human embryos. It is argued that such an argument can be made plausible. The article concludes by responding to several important objections.
    PMID: 19690326 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2720455</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2720455</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who Can Resist Foucault?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549038&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19549725%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bleakley A, Bligh J
    Michel Foucault's analysis of &quot;the birth of the clinic&quot; describes the genesis of a unified discourse that, in retrospect, has shaped western medicine for two centuries. However, in looking prospectively toward a 21st century medicine, Foucault's analysis is necessary but not sufficient. To better critically address medicine and medical education in the era of simulation, we could draw on frameworks developed by futurists such as Jean Baudrillard. Foucault's analysis does not account for contemporary, complex developments of the clinical gaze as the gaze is distributed across practitioners in increasing use of sophisticated, representational diagnostic imaging. Further, Foucault's antihumanist rhetoric sometimes strays into the antihumane, and this is distur...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549038</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549038</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Docile Bodies: Transnational Research Ethics as Biopolitics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549037&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19549726%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Lysaught MT
    This essay explores the claim that bioethics has become a mode of biopolitics. It seeks to illuminate one of the myriad of ways that bioethics joins other institutionalized discursive practices in the task of producing, organizing, and managing the bodies-of policing and controlling populations-in order to empower larger institutional agents. The focus of this analysis is the contemporary practice of transnational biomedical research. The analysis is catalyzed by the enormous transformation in the political economy of transnational research that has occurred over the past three decades and the accompanying increase in the numbers of human bodies now subjected to research. This essay uses the work of Michel Foucault, particularly his notion of docile bodies, to anal...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549037</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549037</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Foucauldian Diagnostics: Space, Time, and the Metaphysics of Medicine.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549041&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19546145%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bishop JP
    This essay places Foucault's work into a philosophical context, recognizing that Foucault is difficult to place and demonstrates that Foucault remains in the Kantian tradition of philosophy, even if he sits at the margins of that tradition. For Kant, the forms of intuition-space and time-are the a priori conditions of the possibility of human experience and knowledge. For Foucault, the a priori conditions are political space and historical time. Foucault sees political space as central to understanding both the subject and objects of medicine, psychiatry, and the social sciences. Through this analysis one can see that medicine's metaphysics is a metaphysics of efficient causation, where medicine's objects are subjected to mechanisms of efficient control.
    PMID: 19...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549041</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549041</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Governmentality, Biopower, and the Debate over Genetic Enhancement.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549040&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19546146%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McWhorter L
    Although Foucault adamantly refused to make moral pronouncements or dictate moral principles or political programs to his readers, his work offers a number of tools and concepts that can help us develop our own ethical views and practices. One of these tools is genealogical analysis, and one of these concepts is &quot;biopower.&quot; Specifically, this essay seeks to demonstrate that Foucault's concept of biopower and his genealogical method are valuable as we consider moral questions raised by genetic enhancement technologies. First, it examines contemporary debate over the development, marketing, and application of such technologies, suggesting that what passes for ethical deliberation is often little more than political maneuvering in a field where stakes are very high an...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549040</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549040</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Foucault, Genealogy, Ethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549039&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19546147%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Scott CE
    By establishing the sciences of life while, at the same time, forming a certain self-knowledge, the human being altered itself as a living being by taking on the character of a rational subject acquiring the power to act on itself, changing its living conditions and its own life .... [There is a] kinship between the discourse on limit-experience, when it was a matter of the subject transforming itself, and the discourse on the transformation of the subject itself through the construction of a knowledge. (Foucault, 2000, 296)1.
    PMID: 19546147 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549039</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549039</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Revisiting Foucault.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2549042&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19541790%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bishop JP
    
    PMID: 19541790 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2549042</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2549042</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472565&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19386998%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Andorno R
    The principle of respect for human dignity plays a crucial role in the emerging global norms relating to bioethics, in particular in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. This instrument, which is a legal, not merely an ethical document, can be regarded as an extension of international human rights law into the field of biomedicine. Although the Declaration does not explicitly define human dignity, it would be a mistake to see the emphasis put on this notion as a mere rhetorical strategy. Rather, the appeal to dignity reflects a real concern about the need to promote respect both for the intrinsic worth of human beings and for the integrity of the human species. But dignity alone cannot solve most of the dilemmas posed by biomedical practice...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472565</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472565</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>UNESCO, &quot;universal bioethics,&quot; and state regulation of health risks: a philosophical critique.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472544&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19386999%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>UNESCO, &quot;universal bioethics,&quot; and state regulation of health risks: a philosophical critique.
    J Med Philos. 2009 Jun;34(3):274-95
    Authors: Cherry MJ
    The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights announces a significant array of welfare entitlements--to personal health and health care, medicine, nutrition, water, improved living conditions, environmental protection, and so forth--as well as corresponding governmental duties to provide for such public health measures, though the simple expedient of announcing that such entitlements are &quot;basic human rights.&quot; The Universal Declaration provides no argument for the legitimacy of the sweeping governmental authority, taxation, and regulation to crea...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472544</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472544</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Solidarity and the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472525&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19387000%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Gunson D
    Recent work has stressed the importance of the concept of solidarity to bioethics and social philosophy generally. But can and should it feature in documents such as the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights as anything more than a vague notion with multiple possible interpretations? Although noting the tension between universality and particularity that such documents have to deal with, and also noting that solidarity has a political content, the paper explores the suggestion that solidarity should feature more centrally in international regulations. The paper concludes with the view that when solidarity is seen aright, the UDBHR is an implicitly solidaristic document.
    PMID: 19387000 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philoso...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472525</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472525</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethics as public discourse and second-order discipline.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472507&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19387001%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Kopelman LM
    Bioethics is best viewed as both a second-order discipline and also part of public discourse. Since their goals differ, some bioethical activities are more usefully viewed as advancing public discourse than academic disciplines. For example, the &quot;Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights&quot; sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization seeks to promote ethical guidance on bioethical issues. From the vantage of philosophical ethics, it fails to rank or specify its stated principles, justify controversial principles, clarify key terms, or say what is meant by calling potentially conflicting norms &quot;foundational.&quot; From the vantage of improving the public discourse about bioethical problems and seeking ethical solutions in th...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472507</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472507</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: a canon for the ages?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472487&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19387002%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Trotter G
    The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of 2005 purports to articulate universal norms for bioethics. However, this document has met with mixed reviews. Some deny that the elaboration of universal bioethics norms is needed; some deny that UNESCO has the expertise or authority to articulate such norms; some regard the content of the UNESCO document as too vague or general to be useful; and some regard the document as a cog in the effort of like-minded cosmopolitans to codify their particular moral intuitions in international law. This issue examines the potential merits and pitfalls of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.
    PMID: 19387002 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472487</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472487</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Bioethics and self-governance: the lessons of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472466&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19395366%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Snead OC
    The following article analyzes the process of conception, elaboration, and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights, and reflects on the lessons it might hold for public bioethics on the international level. The author was involved in the process at a variety of levels: he provided advice to the IBC on behalf of the President's Council of Bioethics; he served as the U.S. representative to UNESCO's Intergovernmental Bioethics Committee; and led the U.S. Delegation in the multilateral negotiation of Government experts that culminated in the adoption of the declaration in its final form. The author is currently serving a 4-year term as a member of UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee.
    PMID: 19395366 [PubMed - in process] (Source: The ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472466</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472466</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Normative foundations of technology transfer and transnational benefit principles in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2472443&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19395367%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Faunce TA, Nasu H
    The United Nations Scientific, Education, and Cultural Organization Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights (UDBHR) expresses in its title and substance a controversial linkage of two normative systems: international human rights law and bioethics. The UDBHR has the status of what is known as a &quot;nonbinding&quot; declaration under public international law. The UDBHR's foundation within bioethics (and association, e.g., with virtue-based or principlist bioethical theories) is more problematic. Nonetheless, the UDBHR contains socially important principles of technology transfer and transnational benefit (articles 14, 15, and 21). This paper is one of the first to explore how the disciplines of bioethics and international human rights law may interact in t...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2472443</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2472443</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Introduction.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2259009&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19276130%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Bulcock JA
    
    PMID: 19276130 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2259009</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2259009</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, Reproductive Freedom, and Deliberative Democracy.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2234790&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19251775%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Farrelly C
    In this paper I argue that the account of deliberative democracy advanced by Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson (1996, 2004) is a useful normative theory that can help enhance our deliberations about public policy in morally pluralistic societies. More specifically, I illustrate how the prescriptions of deliberative democracy can be applied to the issue of regulating non-medical uses of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD), such as gender selection. Deliberative democracy does not aim to win a philosophical debate among rival first-order theories, such as libertarianism, egalitarianism or feminism. Rather, it advances a second-order analysis that strives to help us determine what would constitute a reasonable balance between the conflicting fundamental values that ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2234790</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2234790</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Children, ADHD, and Citizenship.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2234788&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19251776%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Cohen EF, Morley CP
    The diagnosis of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder is a subject of controversy, for a host of reasons. This paper seeks to explore the manner in which children's interests may be subsumed to those of parents, teachers, and society as a whole in the course of diagnosis, treatment, and labeling, utilizing a framework for children's citizenship proposed by Elizabeth Cohen. Additionally, the paper explores aspects of discipline associated with the diagnosis, as well as distributional pathologies resulting from the application of the diagnosis in potentially biased ways.
    PMID: 19251776 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2234788</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2234788</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tinkering with the Survival Lottery during a Public Health Crisis.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2223962&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19246352%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Herrera C
    A well-known thought experiment has us ponder a lottery system that selects one person as the source of transplantable organs for two others. The organs are forcibly harvested and the &quot;donor&quot; dies, whereas the other two patients live. The Survival Lottery is supposed to get at the distinction between killing and letting die, but it is also a challenge to beliefs about moral duties: what are my obligations if my life could be used to save yours and another person's as well? A less extreme version of this thought experiment might have us imagining that officials of the public healthcare system would devise a similar lottery in the aftermath of a large-scale medical emergency. We could imagine that a natural disaster or an attack using biological weapons, for example, h...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2223962</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2223962</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Egalitarianism and Responsibility in the Genetic Future.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2223961&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19246353%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Barclay L
    Recent discussions of genetic enhancement have argued that unregulated access to genetic enhancement technology will have a mainly negative impact on equality, a development that an egalitarian approach to distributive justice should be concerned with and seek to address. I argue that the extent to which egalitarians should be concerned about unequal access to genetic enhancement therapies has been overplayed. Many of the genetic differences that exist between people, including those that arise from differential access to genetic enhancement technology, are simply irrelevant to egalitarian concerns. I also argue that most commentators have failed to appreciate that an egalitarian-inspired program of equal access to genetic enhancement technology may not be altogether...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2223961</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2223961</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Therapeutic Cloning and Reproductive Liberty.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2218044&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19240247%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Sparrow R
    Concern for &quot;reproductive liberty&quot; suggests that decisions about embryos should normally be made by the persons who would be the genetic parents of the child that would be brought into existence if the embryo were brought to term. Therapeutic cloning would involve creating and destroying an embryo, which, if brought to term, would be the offspring of the genetic parents of the person undergoing therapy. I argue that central arguments in debates about parenthood and genetics therefore suggest that therapeutic cloning would be prima facie unethical unless it occurred with the consent of the parents of the person being cloned. Alternatively, if therapeutic cloning is thought to be legitimate, this undermines the case for some uses of reproductive cloning by implying tha...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2218044</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2218044</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>From a Genetic Predisposition to an Interactive Predisposition: Rethinking the Ethical Implications of Screening for Gene-Environment Interactions.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2164291&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19193693%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Tabery J
    In a widely acclaimed study from 2002, researchers found a case of gene-environment interaction for a gene controlling neuroenzymatic activity (low vs. high), exposure to childhood maltreatment, and antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). Cases of gene-environment interaction are generally characterized as evincing a genetic predisposition; for example, individuals with low neuroenzymatic activity are generally characterized as having a genetic predisposition to ASPD. I first argue that the concept of a genetic predisposition fundamentally misconstrues these cases of gene-environment interaction. This misconstrual will be diagnosed, and then a new concept-interactive predisposition-will be introduced. I then show how this conceptual shift reconfigures old questions an...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2164291</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2164291</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Brain Damage and the Moral Significance of Consciousness.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2164290&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19193694%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Savulescu J, Kahane G
    Neuroimaging studies of brain-damaged patients diagnosed as in the vegetative state suggest that the patients might be conscious. This might seem to raise no new ethical questions given that in related disputes both sides agree that evidence for consciousness gives strong reason to preserve life. We question this assumption. We clarify the widely held but obscure principle that consciousness is morally significant. It is hard to apply this principle to difficult cases given that philosophers of mind distinguish between a range of notions of consciousness and that is unclear which of these is assumed by the principle. We suggest that the morally relevant notion is that of phenomenal consciousness and then use our analysis to interpret cases of brain damage...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2164290</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2164290</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Payments to Normal Healthy Volunteers in Phase 1 Trials: Avoiding Undue Influence While Distributing Fairly the Burdens of Research Participation.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2164292&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19190076%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Iltis AS
    Clinical investigators must engage in just subject recruitment and selection and avoid unduly influencing research participation. There may be tension between the practice of keeping payments to participants low to avoid undue influence and the requirements of justice when recruiting normal healthy volunteers for phase 1 drug studies. By intentionally keeping payments low to avoid unduly influenced participation, investigators, on the recommendation or insistence of institutional review boards, may be targeting or systematically recruiting healthy adult members of lower socio-economic groups for participation in phase 1 studies. Investigators are at risk of routinely failing to fulfill the obligation of justice, which prohibits the systematic targeting and recruiting ...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2164292</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2164292</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Theoretical and Practical Issues in the Definition of Health: Insights from Aboriginal Australia.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2157470&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19181891%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: Boddington P, R&amp;#xE4;is&amp;#xE4;nen U
    This paper discusses attempts to define health within a public policy arena and practical and conceptual difficulties that arise. An Australian Aboriginal definition of health is examined. Although there are certain difficulties of translation, this definition is prominent in current Australian health policy and discourse about health. The definition can be seen as broadly holistic in comparison to other holistic definitions such as that of the World Health Organization. The nature of this holism and its grounding within the context of Aboriginal Australia is discussed. In particular, its implications for the phenomenon of medicalization, which may be associated with a holistic notion of health, is critically explored, as is the link of notio...</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2157470</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2157470</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Tracking the Variability of Authority and Power in the Physician-Patient Relationship.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2149990&amp;cid=s_37099_74_f&amp;fid=37099&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Ftmpl%3DNoSidebarfile%26db%3DPubMed%26cmd%3DRetrieve%26list_uids%3D19179459%26dopt%3DAbstract</link>
            <description>Authors: McCullough LB
    
    PMID: 19179459 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] (Source: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy)</description>
            <author>The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy</author>
            <type>journals</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2149990</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2149990</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

