Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics from Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing”

American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):1-3 (2010)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

(2010). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics from Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing”. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. W1-W3

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1080/15265160903493088

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,783

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

The Pitfalls of Deducing Ethics From Behavioral Economics: Why the Association of American Medical Colleges Is Wrong About Pharmaceutical Detailing.Thomas S. Huddle - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):1-8.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Withdrawal of Nonfutile Life Support After Attempted Suicide”.Samuel M. Brown, C. Gregory Elliott & Robert Paine - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics: 13 (3):W3 - W5.
Forfeited Health: Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “What's Wrong With Chemoprevention of Prostate Cancer?”.Stewart Justman - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (12):W1-W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Rationing Just Medical Care”.Lawrence J. Schneiderman - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):W1 - W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Ethics Consultation in U.S. Hospitals: A National Survey".Ellen Fox, Sarah Myers & Robert A. Pearlman - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (2):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries for “Unnecessary Time Pressure in Refusal of Life-Sustaining Therapies”.Thomas I. Cochrane - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (4):5-6.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
Genetic Enhancement Revisited: Response to Open Peer Commentaries.Ruiping Fan - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (4):6-8.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Stem Cell Tourism and the Power of Hope”.Charles E. Murdoch & Christopher Thomas Scott - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (5):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Ethos and Ethics of Translational Research”.Jason Scott Robert, Mary Sunderland, Rachel A. Ankeny & Jane Maienschein - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (3):1-3.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-14

Downloads
66 (#245,602)

6 months
6 (#514,728)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

All Gifts Large and Small.Dana Katz, Arthur L. Caplan & Jon F. Merz - 2003 - American Journal of Bioethics 3 (3):39-46.
The limits of objective assessment of medical practice.Thomas S. Huddle - 2007 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (6):487-496.
The AAMC Exhibits the Behavior it Condemns.Thomas P. Stossel - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (1):26-27.

View all 12 references / Add more references