Article Text
PDFResearch Article
A reply to Professor Seedhouse.
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.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Linked Articles
Other content recommended for you
- Arguments at cross-purposes: moral epistemology and medical ethics
- The inconsistency argument: why apparent pro-life inconsistency undermines opposition to induced abortion
- Science fiction in bioethics: a role for feminist narratology
- How care holds humanity: the myth of Cura and theories of care
- Mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics: a controversy?
- Scottish court dismisses a historic smoker’s suit
- Teaching with madness/‘mental illness’ autobiographies in postsecondary education: ethical and epistemological implications
- Criteria for social media-based scholarship in health professions education
- Counterdiagnosis and the critical medical humanities: reading Susanna Kaysen’s Girl, Interrupted and Lauren Slater’s Lying: A Metaphorical Memoir
- Critical medical humanities: embracing entanglement, taking risks