69 e-Letters

published between 2001 and 2004

  • United we gain, divided we lose: A response to ‘The Olivieri symposium’.
    Dr V Mohanan Nair

    Dear Editor

    Professor F. Baylis in her symposium on the ‘Olivieri debacle’ examines a highly debated controversy.[1]

    I would like to look at the developments from a different angle. Olivieri debacle, to me, is an example of a crisis where academia, researchers and the bioethicists worked in unison for a common noble cause.

    The situation that the author tries to portray as "a proud moment in time...

    Show More
  • Reponse to McIntyre
    Edzard Ernst

    Dear Editor

    Re: Ethical problems arising in evidencebased complementary and alternative medicine Edzard Ernst, Michael H. Cohen, Julie Stone

    Mr McIntyre [1] rightly states that, in the UK, initiatives are underway to regulate acupuncturists and herbalists. At the time of writing this letter, a draft document is circulating. At the time of writing the actual article (about one year ago), these initiat...

    Show More
  • Response to Symposium on consent and confidentiality
    Jan Schildmann

    Dear Editor

    Regarding the Symposium on consent and confidentiality.[1]

    We read with interest the recent papers on informed consent published in a recent edition of the JME.[1] Whatever their differences, and however much they questioned some aspects of the duty to respect autonomy through attempting to obtain informed consent for therapeutic interventions, there was a general agreement that competent adult...

    Show More
  • Reply to 'Differences in medical students'
    - Medical School Council

    Dear Editor

    We write in response to the original article “Differences in medical students’ attitudes to academic misconduct and reported behaviour across the years-a questionnaire study” by Rennie and Rudland published in this journal April 2003 edition.[1] Current and former Dundee Medical School students are concerned at the media misinterpretation of the study and the consequences that this branding of “disho...

    Show More
  • Reponse to the Olivieri Symposium
    Paula Chidwick

    Dear Editor:

    We would like to thank the authors and editors of the JME’s mini- symposium on the Olivieri case for continuing and extending the dialogue about this important challenge to the North American bioethics community.

    This mini-symposium is of special interest to us as members of the Canadian Bioethics Society’s “Working Group on Employment Standards for Bioethics.” We are members of this Workin...

    Show More
  • Reply to response from Levy
    Bennett M Foddy

    Dear Editor

    I very much like Levy’s first argument in his letter of response[1]:

    ‘[I]t is false to think that in all cases in which X is worse off as a result of Y's actions, X has had her rights violated by Y.’

    Levy makes a good point that members of society are not discriminating against the deaf, when they use the spoken word and audible alarms, and so forth, as part of their everyday lives. Nobody...

    Show More
  • Positive developments in CAM in the UK
    Michael J McIntyre

    Dear Editor

    I am surprised by glaring omissions in your article, Ethical problems arising in evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine by Ernst, Cohen and Stone. Their paper undoubtedly presents an outdated picture of the development of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) in the UK at this time

    The authors state “that providers of CAM are often not medically trained” and that “their...

    Show More
  • Reply to Paul Biegler
    Charles A Foster

    Dear Editor

    I am grateful to Dr Biegler for his response.[1]

    I do not think that Dr Biegler’s thesis demands any legally "counterintuitive claims". On the contrary, what he suggests seems in many ways to be intuitively right. His law is wrong, not his intuition. The law is sometimes counterintuitive (and downright unethical) in some situations in order to preserve principles which generally give just results....

    Show More
  • Deaf Children - A Response to Foddy
    Neil Levy

    Dear Editor

    Bennett Foddy interprets the view I express in 'Deafness, culture, and choice' (JME 2002: 28) correctly: deaf children are contingently, and not necessarily, worse off as a result of their disability. Indeed, this claims seems almost tautological: to be better or worse off is inherently relational, so it is easy to imagine worlds in which the deaf would not be worse off. A world in which everyone was de...

    Show More
  • Re: Patient consent to DNR orders: some legal observations
    Paul Biegler

    Dear Editor

    I thank Mr Foster for his response.[1]

    If I understand him correctly he advances three claims. Firstly, he suggests that the question of consent might not be a relevant consideration in relation to DNR orders if the treating doctor is able to “wash his (or her) hands” of a duty of care to the patient. Secondly, he suggests that in the case of a competent patient the best interests criterion d...

    Show More