eLetters

484 e-Letters

  • 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 Their paper undoubtedly presents an outdated picture of the development of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) in the UK at this time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
  • Consent in 'an ethical market in human organs'
    Jeffrey D Tee

    Dear Editor

    Erin and Harris [1] suggest that we need a regulated market in live donor organs to make good the shortfall in organs available for transplantation. However, the example of the third world shows that to sell a kidney is virtually always an act of desperation when other options for raising money are exhausted, for example Goyal et al.[2] reported that 96% of participants in their survey of kidney...

    Show More
  • Why not?
    A David Melton

    Dear Editor

    Everyone makes money or dare I say a profit from "traditional" organ transplatation through out the world, except the donor. What happened to supply and demand and free markets? Ultimately it's my body and if I can help someone prolong their life and not have a high risk to mine and make something to cover my time and expense..why not?

    I'm a healthy mid-40 professional, that does not smoke. Hey s...

    Show More
  • Patient consent to DNR orders: some legal observations
    Charles A Foster

    Dear Editor

    Dr. Biegler concludes that patient consent to a DNR order should be required [1]. He rightly locates the reason for that ethical demand in the principle of autonomy. If autonomy means anything, it must mean a right to be involved in decisions about one’s own survival. It is also correct to say that the law of consent, at least in common law jurisdictions, is built on the philosophical foundation of au...

    Show More
  • Re: Rogers and Draper: Confidentiality and the ethics
    Susanne McCabe (Stevens)

    Dear Editor

    In response to your interesting article I would thank you for raising the issue of potential breach of confidence in relation to the teaching of ethics.

    I think what is missing from your account, from my perspective, is the concept of members of OUR society being in this together. It is not simply an issue which should be debated in the rather 'them-patients' and 'us-practitioners' manne...

    Show More
  • Supporting whistleblowers in academic medicine:training and respecting the courage of professionals
    Susanne McCabe

    Dear Editor,

    Although the article highlights the reaction of practitioners in the medical profession to whistleblowers, I would point out that the same bullying, stigmatising, undermining of the person's credibility, by for example 'mentalising' or subtle or overt bullying and collusion - happens to users of health services who have experienced unethical actions and to those who have come across unethical resear...

    Show More

Pages