Search results for 'Shirli Kopelman' (try it on Scholar)

78 found
Sort by:
  1. Stephen M. Garcia, Max H. Bazerman, Shirli Kopelman, Avishalom Tor & Dale T. Miller (2010). The Price of Equality. Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (1):75-88.score: 240.0
    This paper explores the influence of social categories on the perceived trade-off between a relatively bad but equal distribution of resources between two parties and a profit maximizing yet unequal one. Studies 1 and 2 showed that people prefer to maximize profitswhen interacting within their social category, but chose not to maximize individual and joint profits when interacting across social categories. Study 3 demonstrated that outside observers, who were not members of the focal social categories, also were less likely to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Stephen M. Garcia, Max H. Bazerman, Shirli Kopelman, Avishalom Tor & Dale T. Miller (2010). The Price of Equality: Suboptimal Resource Allocations Across Social Categories. Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (1).score: 240.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Loretta M. Kopelman & Anton A. van Niekerk (2002). AIDS and Africa. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (2):139 – 142.score: 60.0
    Sub-Saharan Africa is the epicenter of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, and in this issue of the Journal, seven authors discuss the moral, social and medical implications of having 70% of those stricken living in this area. Anton A. van Niekerk considers complexities of plague in this region (poverty, denial, poor leadership, illiteracy, women's vulnerability, and disenchantment of intimacy) and the importance of finding responses that empower its people. Solomon Benatar reinforces these issues, but also discusses the role of global politics in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). Using the Best Interests Standard to Decide Whether to Test Children for Untreatable, Late-Onset Genetic Diseases. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):375 – 394.score: 30.0
    A new analysis of the Best Interests Standard is given and applied to the controversy about testing children for untreatable, severe late-onset genetic diseases, such as Huntington's disease or Alzheimer's disease. A professional consensus recommends against such predictive testing, because it is not in children's best interest. Critics disagree. The Best Interests Standard can be a powerful way to resolve such disputes. This paper begins by analyzing its meaning into three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions showing it: is an "umbrella" (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Loretta M. Kopelman (2012). On Justifying Pediatric Research Without the Prospect of Clinical Benefit. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (1):32 - 34.score: 30.0
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 12, Issue 1, Page 32-34, January 2012.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). The Best Interests Standard for Incompetent or Incapacitated Persons of All Ages. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (1):187-196.score: 30.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Loretta M. Kopelman, David Resnick & Douglas L. Weed (2004). What is the Role of the Precautionary Principle in the Philosophy of Medicine and Bioethics? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):255 – 258.score: 30.0
    (2004). What is the Role of the Precautionary Principle in the Philosophy of Medicine and Bioethics? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 255-258.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Kenneth DeVille & Loretta M. Kopelman (2003). Diversity, Trust, and Patient Care: Affirmative Action in Medical Education 25 Years After Bakke. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 28 (4):489 – 516.score: 30.0
    The U.S. Supreme Court's seminal 1978 Bakke decision, now 25 years old, has an ambiguous and endangered legacy. Justice Lewis Powell's opinion provided a justification that allowed leaders in medical education to pursue some affirmative action policies while at the same time undermining many other potential defenses. Powell asserted that medical schools might have a "compelling interest" in the creation of a diverse student body. But Powell's compromise jeopardized affirmative action since it blocked many justifications for responding to increases (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Loretta M. Kopelman (2002). If HIV/AIDS is Punishment, Who is Bad? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (2):231 – 243.score: 30.0
    HIV/AIDS strikes with the greatest frequency in sub-Saharan Africa, a region lacking resources to deal with this epidemic. To keep millions more people from dying, wealthy countries must provide more help. Yet deeply ingrained biases may distance the sick from those who could provide far more aid. One such prejudice is viewing disease as punishment for sin. This 'punishment theory of disease" ascribes moral blame to those who get sick or those with special relations to them. Religious versions hold that (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Loretta M. Kopelman (2005). Rejecting the Baby Doe Rules and Defending a "Negative" Analysis of the Best Interests Standard. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (4):331 – 352.score: 30.0
    Two incompatible policies exist for guiding medical decisions for extremely premature, sick, or terminally ill infants, the Best Interests Standard and the newer, 20-year old "Baby Doe" Rules. The background, including why there were two sets of Baby Doe Rules, and their differences with the Best Interests Standard, are illustrated. Two defenses of the Baby Doe Rules are considered and rejected. The first, held by Reagan, Koop, and others, is a "right-to-life" defense. The second, held by some leaders of the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Loretta M. Kopelman (1994). Case Method and Casuistry: The Problem of Bias. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).score: 30.0
    Case methods of reasoning are persuasive, but we need to address problems of bias in order to use them to reach morally justifiable conclusions. A bias is an unwarranted inclination or a special perspective that disposes us to mistaken or one-sided judgments. The potential for bias arises at each stage of a case method of reasoning including in describing, framing, selecting and comparing of cases and paradigms. A problem of bias occurs because to identify the relevant features for such purposes, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Loretta M. Kopelman & Arthur E. Kopelman (2007). Using a New Analysis of the Best Interests Standard to Address Cultural Disputes: Whose Data, Which Values? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 28 (5):373-391.score: 30.0
    Clinicians sometimes disagree about how much to honor surrogates’ deeply held cultural values or traditions when they differ from those of the host country. Such a controversy arose when parents requested a cultural accommodation to let their infant die by withdrawing life saving care. While both the parents and clinicians claimed to be using the Best Interests Standard to decide what to do, they were at an impasse. This standard is analyzed into three necessary and jointly sufficient conditions and used (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Loretta M. Kopelman (2000). Children as Research Subjects: A Dilemma. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 25 (6):723-744.score: 30.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Loretta M. Kopelman (1996). Ethical Assumptions and Ambiguities in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (2):187-208.score: 30.0
    The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) promotes social justice by protecting disabled persons from discrimination and prejudice. It seeks equality of opportunity for them and protects their well being by giving them fair access to goods, services and benefits. These rights are circumscribed in the ADA, however, by constraints of cost, efficiency, utility, and certain social mores. The ADA offers little direction about how to set priorities when these values come into conflict, or about whether equality of opportunity favors equivalent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. L. M. Kopelman (1997). The Best-Interests Standard as Threshold, Ideal, and Standard of Reasonableness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (3):271-289.score: 30.0
    The best-interests standard is a widely used ethical, legal, and social basis for policy and decision-making involving children and other incompetent persons. It is under attack, however, as self-defeating, individualistic, unknowable, vague, dangerous, and open to abuse. The author defends this standard by identifying its employment, first, as a threshold for intervention and judgment (as in child abuse and neglect rulings), second, as an ideal to establish policies or prima facie duties, and, third, as a standard of reasonableness. Criticisms of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Loretta M. Kopelman (1990). What is Applied About "Applied" Philosophy? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):199-218.score: 30.0
    "Applied" is a technical term describing a variety of new philosophical enterprises. The author examines and rejects the view that these fields are derivative. Whatever principles, judgments, or background theories that are employed to solve problems in these areas are either changed by how they are used, or at least the possibility exists of their being changed. Hence we ought to stop calling these endeavors "applied", or agree that the meaning of "apply" will have to include the possibility that what (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Loretta M. Kopelman (1995). Conceptual and Moral Disputes About Futile and Useful Treatments. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 20 (2):109-121.score: 30.0
    A series of cases have crystallized disputes about when medical treatments are useful or futile, and consequently about the doctor-patient relationship, resource allocation, communication, empathy, relief of suffering, autonomy, undertreatment, overtreatment, paternalism and palliative care. It is helpful to understand that utility and futility are complimentary concepts and that judgments about whether treatments are useful or futile in the contested cases have common features. They are: (1) grounded in medical science, (2) value laden, (3) at or near the threshold of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Loretta M. Kopelman (2004). Minimal Risk as an International Ethical Standard in Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (3):351 – 378.score: 30.0
    Classifying research proposals by risk of harm is fundamental to the approval process and the most pivotal risk category in most regulations is that of “minimal risk.” If studies have no more than a minimal risk, for example, a nearly worldwide consensus exists that review boards may sometimes: (1) expedite review, (2) waive or modify some or all elements of informed consent, or (3) enroll vulnerable subjects including healthy children, incapacitated persons and prisoners even if studies do not hold out (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Loretta M. Kopelman (2004). Adolescents as Doubly-Vulnerable Research Subjects. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (1):50-52.score: 30.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Loretta M. Kopelman & Wendy E. Mouradian (2001). Do Children Get Their Fair Share of Health and Dental Care? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (2):127 – 136.score: 30.0
  21. Loretta M. Kopelman & Laurence B. McCullough (1999). Hume, Bioethics, and Philosophy of Medicine. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (4):315 – 321.score: 30.0
  22. Loretta M. Kopelman (1998). Bioethics and Humanities: What Makes Us One Field? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23 (4):356 – 368.score: 30.0
    Bioethics and humanities (inclusive of medical ethics, health care ethics, environmental ethics, research ethics, philosophy and medicine, literature and medicine, and so on) seems like one field; yet colleagues come from different academic disciplines with distinct languages, methods, traditions, core curriculum and competency examinations. The author marks six related "framework" features that unite and make it one distinct field. It is a commitment to (1) work systematically on some of the momentous and well-defined sets of problems about the human condition (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Loretta M. Kopelman (1994). Informed Consent and Anonymous Tissue Samples: The Case of Hiv Seroprevalence Studies. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 19 (6):525-552.score: 30.0
    anonymous tissue samples obtained in hospitals and clinics without donor consent. This can be justified as a response to a public health emergency, but should not be seen as setting a precedent for waiving consent whenever samples are anonymous. The following recommendations grow out of this discussion: (1) Studies using anonymous tissue samples should not be automatically exempt from consent requirements, and consent should not be waived simply to avoid anticipated refusals, low participation rates or self selection bias. (2) The (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Loretta M. Kopelman (1994). Normal Grief: Good or Bad? Health or Disease? Philosophy, Psychiatry, and Psychology 1 (4):209-220.score: 30.0
  25. Loretta M. Kopelman (2006). Bioethics as a Second-Order Discipline: Who is Not a Bioethicist? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (6):601 – 628.score: 30.0
    A dispute exists about whether bioethics should become a new discipline with its own methods, competency standards, duties, honored texts, and core curriculum. Unique expertise is a necessary condition for disciplines. Using the current literature, different views about the sort of expertise that might be unique to bioethicists are critically examined to determine if there is an expertise that might meet this requirement. Candidates include analyses of expertise based in "philosophical ethics," "casuistry," "atheoretical or situation ethics," "conventionalist relativism," "institutional guidance," (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Loretta Kopelman & Gregory E. Pence (1985). Reviews. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 6 (2).score: 30.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Loretta M. Kopelman (2004). What Conditions Justify Risky Nontherapeutic or "No Benefit" Pediatric Studies: A Sliding Scale Analysis. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (4):749-758.score: 30.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Kenneth A. Ville & Loretta M. Kopelman (1999). Fetal Protection in Wisconsin's Revised Child Abuse Law: Right Goal, Wrong Remedy. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 27 (4):332-342.score: 30.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. L. M. Kopelman (2009). Bioethics as Public Discourse and Second-Order Discipline. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 34 (3):261-273.score: 30.0
    Bioethics is best viewed as both a second-order discipline and also part of public discourse. Since their goals differ, some bioethical activities are more usefully viewed as advancing public discourse than academic disciplines. For example, the “Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights” sponsored by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization seeks to promote ethical guidance on bioethical issues. From the vantage of philosophical ethics, it fails to rank or specify its stated principles, justify controversial principles, clarify key (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. L. M. Kopelman (1997). Children and Bioethics: Uses and Abuses of the Best-Interests Standard. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (3):213-217.score: 30.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Loretta Kopelman (1986). Consent and Randomized Clinical Trials: Are There Moral or Design Problems? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 11 (4):317-345.score: 30.0
    The purpose of this paper is to examine whether randomized clinical trial (RCT) methods are necessarily morally problematic. If they are intrinsically problematic, then there may be a dilemma such that tragic choices might have to be made between this socially very useful method for making medical progress on the one hand, and patients' rights and welfare, or physicans' duties on the other. It is argued that the dilemma may be avoided if RCTs can sometimes be viewed as an honorable (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Loretta M. Kopelman (1999). Help From Hume Reconciling Professionalism and Managed Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 (4):396 – 410.score: 30.0
    Health care systems are widely criticized for limiting doctors' roles as patient-advocates. Yet unrestricted advocacy can be unfairly partial, costly, and prejudicial. This essay considers three solutions to the problem of how to reconcile the demands of a just health care system for all patients, with the value of advocacy for some. Two views are considered and rejected, one supporting unlimited advocacy and another defending strict impartiality. A third view suggested by Hume's moral theory seeks to square the moral demands (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Loretta M. Kopelman (2001). On Duties to Provide Basic Health and Dental Care to Children. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 26 (2):193 – 209.score: 30.0
  34. Loretta M. Kopelman (2005). The Incompatibility of the United Nations' Goals and Conventionalist Ethical Relativism. Developing World Bioethics 5 (3):234-243.score: 30.0
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Loretta M. Kopelman (1990). Philosophical Critique of Bioethics: Introduction to the Issue. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):121-124.score: 30.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Loretta M. Kopelman (2002). Pediatric Research Regulations Under Legal Scrutiny: Grimes Narrows Their Interpretation. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):38-49.score: 30.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Loretta Kopelman, Frank H. Marsh, Laurence B. McCullough, Cheshire Calhoun, Manfred Gessler, Guenter B. Risse, Corinna Delkeskamp-Hayes & Christian Probst (1983). Reviews. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 4 (3).score: 30.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Loretta Kopelman (2006). What is Unique About the Doctor and Patient Medical Encounter? A Moral and Economic Perspective. American Journal of Bioethics 6 (2):85-88.score: 30.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Anton A. van Niekerk & Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). Response to G.R. McLean's Review of Ethics and Aids in Africa: The Challenge to Our Thinking. Developing World Bioethics 7 (3):163–165.score: 30.0
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. K. D. Clouser & L. M. Kopelman (1990). Philosophical Critique of Bioethics: Introduction to the Issue. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (2):121-124.score: 30.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Loretta M. Kopelman (1992). Introduction. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 17 (2):121-126.score: 30.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Loretta Kopelman (1986). Review. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 7 (1).score: 30.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). When Can Children with Conditions Be in No-Benefit, Higher-Hazard Pediatric Studies? American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):15 – 17.score: 30.0
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Janet Malek & Loretta M. Kopelman (2007). The Well-Being of Subjects and Other Parties in Genetic Research and Testing. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):311 – 319.score: 30.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Michael D. Kopelman (1992). Autobiographical Memory in Clinical Research and Practice. In Martin A. Conway, David C. Rubin, H. Spinnler & W. Wagenaar (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory. Kluwer. 427--450.score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. L. Kopelman & J. Moskop (2000). Dren and Health Care: Moral and Social Issues. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press, 1989: Xx-Xx. Weijer C. Thinking Clearly About Re. [REVIEW] Irb 22.score: 30.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Loretta M. Kopelman (2004). Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association February 2004, Volume 6, Number 2 Medical Education. Ethics 6 (2).score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Loretta M. Kopelman (2000). Multiculturalism and Truthfulness: Negotiating Differences by Finding Similarities. South African Journal of Philosophy 19 (1).score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Loretta M. Kopelman (2013). Make Her a Virgin Again: When Medical Disputes About Minors Are Cultural Clashes. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (1):jht055.score: 30.0
    Recalcitrant disputes among health care providers and patients or their families may signal deep cultural differences about what interventions are needed or about clinicians’s professional duties. These issues arose in relation to a mother’s request for hymenoplasty or revirgination for her minor daughter to enable an overseas, forced marriage and protect her from an honor killing. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology committee recommends against members performing a hymenoplasty or other female genital cosmetic surgeries due to a lack of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Loretta M. Kopelman (forthcoming). Moral Problems in Assessing Research Risk. Irb.score: 30.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 78