Commentary on "error, malpractice, and the problem of universals"

Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3):251-258 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Minogue's criticism of MacIntyre and Gorovitz's concept of medicine as a science of individuals is flawed by an assumption of the perfectibility of science that is not well supported by experience to date. More significantly, both Minogue and MacIntyre and Gorovitz have been led astray by choosing to use the malpractice issue as a philosophical point of departure for an inquiry into medical error. The problem of error in medicine, and moral culpability for error, is of great philosophical interest but requires a more detailed contextual approach than these two studies provide. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Error In 'The Error In The Error Theory'.Richard Joyce - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):519-534.
In defence of error theory.Chris Daly & David Liggins - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (2):209-230.
Can We Believe the Error Theory?Bart Streumer - 2013 - Journal of Philosophy 110 (4):194-212.
Error types.Douglas Allchin - 2001 - Perspectives on Science 9 (1):38-58.
Error, malpractice, and the problem of universals.Brendan P. Minogue - 1982 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3):239-250.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-14

Downloads
18 (#781,713)

6 months
2 (#1,136,865)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Clarifying conflict of interest.Howard Brody - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (1):23 - 28.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references