- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Goldilocks and the Thanatron: A Response to Open Peer Commentaries
American Journal of Bioethics 23 (12):4-6 (2023)
Abstract
I want to begin this brief response by thanking all of those who took the time to read and reflect upon this piece. There were many thoughtful and thought provoking responses and I have learned fro...Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Identity and Liberalism in Public Health: A Response to the Open Peer Commentaries.Hafez Ismaili M'hamdi - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (10):1-5.
Response to Bernard Reginster, Jorah Dannenberg, and Andrew Huddleston.Paul Katsafanas - 2016 - Journal of Nietzsche Studies 47 (3):457-478.
Response to Commentators on Waking, Dreaming, Being.Evan Thompson - 2016 - Philosophy East and West 66 (3):982-1000.
An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”.Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Deidentification and Its Discontents: Response to the Open Peer Commentaries.Mark A. Rothstein - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (9):W1-W2.
Response to open Peer commentaries on “why treat the wounded?”.Michael L. Gross - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):W1 – W3.
Response to open Peer commentaries on "neuroethics and national security".Turhan Canli, Susan Brandon, William Casebeer, Philip J. Crowley, Don DuRousseau, Henry T. Greely & Alvaro Pascual-Leones - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (5):W1 – W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Ethical Issues in Using Behavior Contracts to Manage the ‘Difficult’ Patient Family”.Autumn Fiester - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (3):1-4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
Access to Expanded Prenatal Genetic Testing: Response to Open Peer Commentaries.Michelle J. Bayefsky & Benjamin E. Berkman - 2022 - American Journal of Bioethics 22 (5):1-3.
Analytics
Added to PP
2023-11-28
Downloads
12 (#1,092,892)
6 months
3 (#1,207,367)
2023-11-28
Downloads
12 (#1,092,892)
6 months
3 (#1,207,367)
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
The Last Kevorkorium: Rights and Responsibilities at Death's Door.George J. Annas - 1994 - Hastings Center Report 24 (3):16-17.
Canada Welcomes Tundra’s Immortality Project to Prevent Death ( Wall Street Journal, July 13, 2060, p. D1, “Travel and Leisure” Section). [REVIEW]George J. Annas & Heidi B. Kummer - 2023 - American Journal of Bioethics 23 (11):115-117.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6686886f5-sqlzn uwo