Order:
See also
Joseph Vukov
Loyola University, Chicago
  1. Rationally Navigating Subjective Preferences in Memory Modification.Joseph Michael Vukov - forthcoming - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy.
    Discussion of the ethics of memory modification technologies (MMTs) has often focused on questions about the limits of their permissibility. In the current paper, I focus primarily on a different issue: when (if ever) is it rational to prefer MMTs to alternative interventions? The question is crucial. Unless those who condone the use of MMTs offer guidance for navigating among various interventions, their account risks becoming a moral endorsement that says little about what one faced with the option of using (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2. Organ Donation and Declaration of Death: Combined Neurologic and Cardiopulmonary Standards.Stephen E. Doran & Joseph Michael Vukov - forthcoming - The Linacre Quarterly 86.
    Prolonged survival after the declaration of death by neurologic criteria creates ambiguity regarding the validity of this methodology. This ambiguity has perpetuated the debate among secular and nondissenting Catholic authors who question whether the neurologic standards are sufficient for the declaration of death of organ donors. Cardiopulmonary criteria are being increasingly used for organ donors who do not meet brain death standards. However, cardiopulmonary criteria are plagued by conflict of interest issues, arbitrary standards for candidacy, and the lack of standardized (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3.  5
    From Epistemic Trespassing to Transdisciplinary Cooperation: The Role of Expertise in the Identification of Usual Care.Joseph Michael Vukov, Kit Rempala, Molly Klug & Marley Hornewer - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):52-54.
    According to Macklin & Natanson (2019), one reason unusual practices can be misidentified as usual care is that “instead of using pertinent, accurate information describing usual care, investigators may rely on the opinion of ‘experts’ in the field, whose information may be out of date or otherwise inaccurate." We find Macklin & Natanson’s insights about misattributed expertise crucial, and suggest their discussion can be elucidated further by characterizing it in the context of Ballantyne (2018)’s recent exploration of what he calls (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark