Arguments at cross-purposes: moral epistemology and medical ethics

Journal of Medical Ethics 28 (1):28-32 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Different beliefs about the nature and justification of bioethics may reflect different assumptions in moral epistemology. Two alternative views (put forward by David Seedhouse and Michael H Kottow) are analysed and some speculative conclusions formed. The foundational questions raised here are by no means settled and deserve further attention

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The virtues in their place: Virtue ethics in medicine.Lynn A. Jansen - 2000 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 21 (3):261-276.
Moral theory and medical practice. [REVIEW]Grant Gillett - 1991 - Philosophical Quarterly 41 (164):379.
Cases in medical ethics and law.David Lloyd - 2005 - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Heather Widdows & Donna Dickenson.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-08-24

Downloads
38 (#408,165)

6 months
10 (#257,583)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

The language of morals.Richard Mervyn Hare - 1952 - Oxford,: Clarendon Press.
Against medical ethics: a response to Cassell.D. Seedhouse - 1998 - Journal of Medical Ethics 24 (1):13-17.
Camouflage is no defence--a response to Kottow.D. Seedhouse - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (4):344-350.
A reply to Professor Seedhouse.M. H. Kottow - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (4):349-350.

View all 8 references / Add more references