Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Notes on substantance in orthodox theory: a reply to Badano
  1. William R Smith
  1. Correspondence to William R Smith, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; William.Smith{at}uphs.upenn.edu

Abstract

Gabriele Badano offers three criticisms of my challenge to the orthodox family of theories of legitimacy in bioethics. First, I assumed an ‘oversimplified version of the orthodoxy’. Second, I failed to appreciate its domain of application. Third, I only addressed the ways in which orthodox theorists incorporate substance as an ‘afterthought’—and, even then, only by rehashing Gopal Sreenivasan’s argument. Here, I respond to each, taking up the first and third before ending with reflections on the second. The first underestimates the insight that criticism of the simplified version provides to that of the more complex relatives. The third misunderstands the relationship between my view and Sreenivasan’s and neglects an entire argument of my paper. The second fails in light of these two, but raises interesting questions about how the method I suggest might be extended to other domains.

  • resource allocation
  • political philosophy
  • right to healthcare
  • public health ethics

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.

Footnotes

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles