- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
An apology for socratic bioethics
American Journal of Bioethics 8 (7):3 – 7 (2008)
Abstract
Bioethics is a hybrid discipline. As a theoretical enterprise it stands for untrammeled inquiry and argument. Yet it aims to influence medical practice and policy. In this article we explore tensions between these two dimensions of bioethics and examine the merits and perils of a “Socratic” approach to bioethics that challenges “the conventional wisdom.”.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Resolving Inconsistencies in Plato: the Problem of Socratic Wisdom in the Apology and the Charmides.Will Rasmussen - 2006 - Dissertation, King's College London
On the possibility of a pragmatic discourse bioethics: Putnam, Habermas, and the normative logic of bioethical inquiry.Elizabeth F. Cooke - 2003 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (5 & 6):635 – 653.
Observing bioethics.Renée C. Fox - 2008 - New York: Oxford University Press. Edited by Judith P. Swazey & Judith C. Watkins.
The ethics of bioethics: Mapping the moral landscape.Carolyn Ells - 2010 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 3 (2):170-175.
Feminist bioethics: At the center, on the margins. [REVIEW]Robyn Bluhm - 2011 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):154-159.
Law and bioethics : a rights-based relationship and its troubling implications.Daniel Sperling - 2008 - In Michael D. A. Freeman (ed.), Law and Bioethics / Edited by Michael Freeman. Oxford University Press.
The future of bioethics: Three dogmas and a cup of hemlock.Angus Dawson - 2010 - Bioethics 24 (5):218-225.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
30 (#521,181)
6 months
7 (#418,426)
2009-01-28
Downloads
30 (#521,181)
6 months
7 (#418,426)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Death, Brain Death, and the Limits of Science: Why the Whole-Brain Concept of Death Is a Flawed Public Policy.Mike Nair-Collins - 2010 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 38 (3):667-683.
Challenging norms in bioethics—helping others to find their voice.Barry DeCoster - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (7):9 – 11.
References found in this work
A Critique of Clinical Equipoise: Therapeutic Misconception in the Ethics of Clinical Trials.Franklin G. Miller & Howard Brody - 2003 - Hastings Center Report 33 (3):19-28.
Life and death: philosophical essays in biomedical ethics.Dan W. Brock - 1993 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brain Death - Too Flawed to Endure, Too Ingrained to Abandon.Robert D. Truog - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (2):273-281.
Truth or consequences: The role of philosophers in policy-making.Dan W. Brock - 1987 - Ethics 97 (4):786-791.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-7c76586df8-5tf24 uwo