PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11645178

A reply to Professor Seedhouse.

Michael H Kottow
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This brief reply gives a few references and clarifies some points in order to emphasize that a number of Professor Seedhouse's assertions are debatable and that his criticism of slovenly scholarship and his unbridled ad hominem argumentation are out of place and easily refuted.

Explore related subjects

BioethicsEthics, MedicalGoalsMedicinePhysiciansProfessional CompetenceBioethics and Professional EthicsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael H Kottow. 1999. A reply to Professor Seedhouse.. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.25.4.349

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

High hopes and automatic escalators: a critique of some new arguments in bioethics.

Two protechnology arguments, the "hopeful principle" and the "automatic escalator", often used in bioethics, are identified and critically analysed in this paper. It is shown that the hopeful principle is closely related to the problematic precautionary principle, and the automatic escalator argument has close affinities to the often criticised empirical slippery slope argument. The hopeful principle is shown to be really hopeless as an argument, and automatic escalator arguments often lead nowhere when critically analysed. These arguments should therefore only be used with great caution.

Bioethics↗