What Constitutes a Just Match?: A Reply to Murphy

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 12 (1):78-82 (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In April of 2001 I published a brief commentary in the journal Academic Medicine questioning the current character and functioning of the National Residency Matching Program. The purpose of the article was to stimulate a rethinking of process. At 50 years old, the environment through which the match operates has changed, and as such I thought it time to ask ourselves whether or not the match, its algorithm, and, more important, the values it manifests might well need an overhaul

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

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

Chess & Schizophrenia: Murphy v Mr Endon, Beckett v Bion. [REVIEW]Gary Winship - 2011 - Journal of Medical Humanities 32 (4):339-351.
Reply to Mark Murphy.John Deigh - 2003 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 41 (1):97-109.
Harm, Sharm, and One Extremely Creepy Argument.Kenneth Einar Himma - 2004 - Faith and Philosophy 21 (2):250-255.
Reply to Murphy and Husak.Michael Gorr - 1991 - Criminal Justice Ethics 10 (1):24-26.
Acts and omissions doctrine and abortion: reply to Dr. Toon.T. F. Murphy - 1986 - Journal of Medical Ethics 12 (1):53-54.
When Public Health Meets the Judiciary.Michael J. Murphy, Anne M. Murphy, Maureen E. Conner & Linda Chezem - 2003 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (s4):54-55.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
27 (#542,098)

6 months
9 (#210,105)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references