Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (3) (1997)
|Abstract||This paper examines the concept of ‘openness with patients’ from the stand-point of the limitations of biomedical ethics. Initially we review contemporary critiques of bioethics and, in particular, of principlism; we relate how other; somewhat neglected, forms of medical ethics can yield useful information and provide moral guidance. The main section of the paper then shows how a bioethical approach to openness misses the social context in our example, the viewpoints of patients; we present some of the increasing wealth of research evidence which points towards patients wanting more information and a greater degree of openness.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Erich H. Loewy (1988). Oh Death, Where is Thy Sting? Reflections on Dealing with Dying Patients. Journal of Medical Humanities and Bioethics 9 (2):135-142.
Stephen Wear (1983). Patient Autonomy, Paternalism, and the Conscientious Physician. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 4 (3).
Kenneth V. Iserson (2007). Has Emergency Medicine Research Benefited Patients? An Ethical Question. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (3).
Amy M. Bovi (2003). Ethical Guidelines for Use of Electronic Mail Between Patients and Physicians. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (3):43-47.
David Shaw (2010). An Extra Reason to Roll the Dice: Balancing Harm, Benefit and Autonomy in 'Futile' Cases. Clinical Ethics 5 (217):219.
Christian Munthe & Stellan Welin (1996). The Morality of Scientific Openness. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4).
Michael G. F. Martin (2001). Epistemic Openness and Perceptual Defeasibility. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):441-448.
David B. Resnik (2005). Openness Versus Secrecy in Scientific Research. Episteme 2 (3):135-147.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #114,013 of 549,067 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,067 )
How can I increase my downloads?