Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3):251-258 (1982)

Minogue's criticism of MacIntyre and Gorovitz's concept of medicine as a science of individuals is flawed by an assumption of the perfectibility of science that is not well supported by experience to date. More significantly, both Minogue and MacIntyre and Gorovitz have been led astray by choosing to use the malpractice issue as a philosophical point of departure for an inquiry into medical error. The problem of error in medicine, and moral culpability for error, is of great philosophical interest but requires a more detailed contextual approach than these two studies provide. CiteULike Connotea What's this?
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/jmp/7.3.251
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 56,141
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Clarifying Conflict of Interest.Howard Brody - 2011 - American Journal of Bioethics 11 (1):23 - 28.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Error In 'The Error In The Error Theory'.Richard Joyce - 2011 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 89 (3):519-534.
In Defence of Error Theory.Chris Daly & David Liggins - 2010 - Philosophical Studies 149 (2):209-230.
Can We Believe the Error Theory?Bart Streumer - 2013 - Journal of Philosophy 110 (4):194-212.
Error Types.Douglas Allchin - 2001 - Perspectives on Science 9 (1):38-58.
Error, Malpractice, and the Problem of Universals.Brendan P. Minogue - 1982 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 7 (3):239-250.


Added to PP index

Total views
13 ( #712,361 of 2,404,053 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #550,679 of 2,404,053 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes