Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
In the article by Epstein (J Med Ethics 2007;33:473–4) there were several errors, which are listed below.
page 473, column 1: “Rather, the debate will remain focused on the orthodox bioethical arguments…”
page 473, column 2: “Free, uncoerced, people…”
page 473, column 2: “It is true that some forms of coercion are, like the dilemma they impose on people, simply tragic.”
page 473, column 2: “the prospect of having to choose, autonomously or non-autonomously, … ”
page 473, column 3: “Well, it does.”
page 473, column 3: “After all, people see their labour power as an alternative to abject poverty only because they are deprived of the freedom to sell the products of their own labour (or that of others).
Acknowledgements: “Thanks to Professor Len Doyal for his comments on early drafts of this paper.”doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.017855corr1
Other content recommended for you
- The ethics of poverty and the poverty of ethics: the case of Palestinian prisoners in Israel seeking to sell their kidneys in order to feed their children
- Is supervised community treatment ethically justifiable?
- Ethics of deliberation, consent and coercion in psychiatry
- Making sense of dignity
- If I were a rich man could I sell a pancreas? A study in the locus of oppression
- Autonomy in medical ethics after O’Neill
- Means, ends and the ethics of fear-based public health campaigns
- Informal coercion in inpatient mental healthcare: a scoping review protocol
- Global bioethics: did the universal declaration on bioethics and human rights miss the boat?
- Beyond coercion: reframing the influencing other in medically assisted death