Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Philosophical Approach”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,009 records · Page 56Linked to original sources

Ethics in research.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Animal Experimentation↗

Animals, science, and ethics -- Section III. Critical anthropomorphism, animal suffering, and the ecological context.

Section III discusses the problem of animal suffering and its recognition by "critical anthropomorphism," a serious and thoughtful attempt to bridge the gap between the understanding of human and animal life. This is a method that involves critically using our human experience to recognize and alleviate animal suffering by checking our immediate intuitions about an animal's subjective life against what we can learn from more objective scientific studies. Yet the necessarily imperfect or imprecise nature of any method to get "inside" the animal and to grasp what it subjectively feels accounts for the ongoing difficulties and controversies over the definition of animal suffering. Just how far should we adhere to an objective, "outside" or subjective, "inside" approach?....

Animal Experimentation↗

Animals, science, and ethics -- Section I. Ethical theory and the moral status of animals.

Section I discusses the moral status of animals as conceived from several theoretical and ethical perspectives. Though any one perspective might not be finally adequate, the juxtaposition of several ethical positions widens and deepens our understanding of the moral status of animals and of the responsibilities this complex status engenders.

Animal Experimentation↗

Animals, science, and ethics -- Section II. Animals in science: the justification issue.

Section II, addressing the ethical justification of the uses of animals in science, does not offer "decisive" arguments for or against particular uses. Rather, conflicting values, goods, and responsibilities pertaining to both humans and animals are identified. Particular uses of animals demand the careful consideration of various ethical claims, which will always require the developed art and wisdom of ethical judgment and will never be reduced to a systematic science. Competing ultimate goods or values and the concrete complexity of the real world defy such rational, abstract, or logical harmony.

Animal Experimentation↗

Constraints and heroes.

A story, perhaps apocryphal, is told about the United States surgical team which pioneered the first artificial heart procedure. It is said that the team received a number of telephone calls from people around the country who, worried about the ailing heart recipient, offered to donate to him their own hearts. When the surgical team, justifiably curious, sent psychiatrists to examine these donors, they found to their surprise that many of the donors were rational, competent, sincere, and fully aware that as a consequence of donating their hearts they would die.... My concerns here will be threefold. First, I want to add some substance to the widely-held intuition that there is something morally objectionable about a physician participating in procedures which put even a willing subject at risk. In so doing, I want to explore the larger question of why such a puzzle arises -- why physicians, and many others, find it morally objectionable to help someone do something which all agree to be heroic. Finally, I will start by examining some ways of framing the issue, widely employed in medical ethics, which I believe are simply wrong. This sort of puzzle is much more interesting than proponents of these standard arguments would have us believe, and it illustrates some larger points about morality which are often overlooked.

Altruism↗