|
Title: Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds
Purchase
Item
Manufacturer: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages
Our Price: $19.98
|
|
| Customer Reviews: |
| Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages Everyone, Clinicians and Patients Alike, Should Know This Material | I have not read many medical/clinical ethics materials.
I am currently reading this as part of an undergraduate and post-bac philosophy class, however, and enjoy the material greatly.
I would recommend this read to anyone who sees doctors, is a doctor, or wants to be a doctor - which should be quite a large population | | Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages A travesty of poor research and poor editing | | I've been incredibly dissapointed by this book. Not only is the author obviously biased but the editing is remarkably sloppy. The book averages several grammatical errors per chapter, and at least one major factual error per chapter. Large sections of this book have been lifted from other books he has written, so the reader is left to wonder why the author felt the need of a 5th edition. Perhaps most troubling is that Dr. Pence has failed to produce anything that even resembles an honest discussion of Medical Ethics. Rather he has produced a book that informs the reader of Dr. Pence's opinions and precious little else. Buyer beware! Do not buy this book. Unless, of course, you are forced to buy it by Dr. Pence himself. | | Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages Looking for prolife information will not find it here. | I had to use this particular book for a class I was taking. I was hoping for at least a balanced presentation, but I was very disappointed with this book. I found it to have a definite anti-life view.
I found that the author minimized the role of morality in the field of bioethics. Especially how religion contributes to moral views and how that effects bioethics.
I also found that the author tried to present Catholic Church teachings specifically without even a basic understanding of how the Church developed these views. | | Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages Biased and Inaccurate | As the professor of a Health Care Ethics class, I must admit to being very disappointed in this book. The first chapter's definitions of classical ethical theories is dense and not helpful at all. I didn't even have the students read it. But, as a lawyer and someone finishing his PhD in philosophy, it is the abortion chapter that I found to be quite troubling. He selectively uses quotations and selectively lays out arguments in order to refute the position he doesn't agree with. Here it is the anti-abortion position. I tell my students that the true philosopher is he or she who can see the other side's complete argument and can restate it even better than they. It is only such a person who can make an informed ethical decision. This text does not adhere to that intellectually honest principle.
Here are a few examples of where either the facts are wrong or the text is slanted. The introduction to the abortion chapter lays out a "history" of the debate and basically says that abortion was legal until men sought to show women their place and until the Catholic Church engaged in a war against science. He really says this--see p. 125. "As the church retreated from science during the period from about 1869 to 1900, it encouraged attention to Mary (who had been neglected), supported 'creationism' against geological explanations of the origins of the universe, emphasized miracles (the miracle of Fatima was recognized shortly after the First Vatican Council), and vigorously attacked Darwinism." Not only is most of this historically inaccurate or incomplete, it certainly has no place in a textbook, let alone one on Health Care Ethics. (By the way, Fatima was in 1917 and the First Vatican Council ended in 1870. When does something 47 years later become "shortly after"? Numberwise, 47 years ago was 1959. Would we say that events in 2006 occurred "shortly after" something that happened in 1959? That's my point. You have to go way out of your way to be this biased--and it has no place in a textbook!) Further, he says on p.137 that the fetus does not have brain waves until the 25th week of gestation. He states this without a footnote. In fact, the fetus has detectable brain waves between the 40th and 43rd day post-conception. That is the end of the sixth week. (See Eric Olson's _The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology_ and John Kavanaugh's _Who Count as Persons_.) Nor does he address questions about a beating heart, fingerprints, or the ability to feel pain. These are all marks of a person and should be part of any intellectually honest discussion of abortion. His discussion of the potentiality question relies very heavily on the legal definition of a "person," but never says why that matters. A 1-day old baby is a "person" under the law, but has no sense of self and is not rational. Why then is it protected but the 2-week old fetus is not? He says the difference is that one is a "person" and one is not. The problem is that that is a legal definition, under a 14th Amendment analysis. It, however, does nothing to dispute Noonan, as he suggests that it does on p. 137. Listen to how bad his reasoning is: "However, having the potential to become a person is not being a person, as we realize when we consider the thousands of frozen embryos...[Also, this argument] collapses the distinction between being human and being a person." The problem is, however, that he has never told us why the fetus is not a person. He just assumes it--basically saying, "Well the law says it's not a person, so it's not a person." What kind of reasoning is that? Reader, I suggest you pore over Chapter 5 closely and tell me if you find anywhere where he offers an ARGUMENT of why a fetus is not a person and a 1-day old child is. He doesn't because it's not part of his agenda.
I could go on an on, about what he chose to talk about and what he chose to ignore, about what he chose to characterize fully and what he chose to caricature. I think that the book has some strong points, but just don't go into it expecting a full and philosophical, let alone historical, discussion of an ethical issue.
As a professor, I could easily present slanted arguments and try to sway students. One of the reasons I chose this textbook, however, was because I wanted something decidedly neutral. I wanted the students to *think* and see clearly the issues on both sides. Toward that end, I have been very disappointed. | | Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages A fine job of writing for a difficult topic! | | I am researching bioethics and especially eugenics in the United States as far as it concerns the Deaf and Hard-of-hearing. Because I work in the university bookstore, I went to see what the classes which teach bioethics are using for textbooks. Dr. Pence's books were being used, and as I looked through them, I could see he dealt with many of the topics I am concerned with...allocations of scarce resources, infant non-treatment on the basis of disability, and the worth that our society puts on the life of someone with a disability. (Nice story about a Deaf-mute who wasn't informed he was going to be the experiment for piggybacking a chimp heart). Dr. Pence is an excellent writer. This book was an easy and interesting read. It told details concerning prominent cases that I didn't know, and he gives the references to everything, so that makes my research much easier. Again, this is one of those books that is a must-read for medical students, anyone in public health, educators, and the disabled. Knowledge is power. We can only protect ourselves in the medical community when we know about the conflicts of interests that doctors and researchers face, and how ethicists and politicians perceive not only the disabled, but everyone. In this new world where the Human Genome Project is almost finished, and doctors are already clamoring for testing of all newborns (and fetuses), and there are no protective laws on the books against discrimination...it is very apparent we may possibly have another eugenic movement on our hands. It is up to all of us as informed readers to read someone like Pence and get involved with legislation to stop this from occurring again. Karen Sadler, Science Education, University of Pittsburgh | | Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds by McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages Product Description | | This rich collection, popular among teachers and students alike, provides an in-depth look at major cases that have shaped the field of medical ethics. The book presents each famous (or infamous) case using extensive historical and contextual background, and then proceeds to illuminate it by careful discussion of pertinent philosophical theories and legal and ethical issues. |
No item elements found in rss feed.
|
