Linked Life Data

17264201

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/17264201

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
2007-1-31
pubmed:abstractText
In a recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Le Morvan and Stock claim that the kantian ideal of treating people always as ends in themselves and never merely as a means is in direct and insurmountable conflict with the current medical practice of allowing practitioners at the bottom of their "learning curve" to "practise their skills" on patients. In this response, I take up the challenge they issue [corrected] and try to reconcile this conflict. The kantian ideal offered in the paper is an incomplete characterisation of Kant's moral philosophy, and the formula of humanity is considered in isolation without taking into account other salient kantian principles. I also suggest that their argument based on "necessary for the patient" assumes too narrow a reading of "necessary". This reply is intended as an extension to, rather than a criticism of, their work.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
E
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Feb
pubmed:issn
0306-6800
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
33
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
119-22
pubmed:dateRevised
2010-9-14
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2007
pubmed:articleTitle
Kant, curves and medical learning practice: a reply to Le Morvan and Stock.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Primary Care and General Practice, Centre for Biomedical Ethics, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham,B38 9AJ, UK. ivesjz@adf.bhm.ac.uk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comment