首页> 外文OA文献 >The intellectual and moral integrity of bioethics: response to commentaries on \u22A case study in unethical transgressive bioethics: \u27Letter of concern from bioethicists\u27 about the prenatal administration of dexamethasone\u22.
【2h】

The intellectual and moral integrity of bioethics: response to commentaries on \u22A case study in unethical transgressive bioethics: \u27Letter of concern from bioethicists\u27 about the prenatal administration of dexamethasone\u22.

机译:生命伦理学的知识和道德完整性:对不道德的海侵生物伦理学案例研究的评论的回应:生物伦理学家对地塞米松产前管理的关注。\ u22。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In our target article we showed that the Letter of Concern (LoC) fails to meet accepted standards for presenting empirical data for the purpose of supplementing a normative claim and for argument-based normative ethics. The LoC fails to meet the standards of evidence-based reasoning by making false claims, failing to reference data that undermine its key premises, and misrepresenting and misinterpreting the scientific publications it selectively references. The LoC fails to meet the standards of argument-based reasoning by treating as settled matters what are, instead, ongoing controversies, offering “mere opinion” as a substitute for argument, and making contradictory claims. The LoC is methodologically defective and thus a case study in unethical transgressive bioethics. Not withdrawing the LoC will damage the field of bioethics, making this case study in unethical transgressive bioethics important for the entire field.
机译:在我们的目标文章中,我们表明,出于补充规范性主张和基于论据的规范性伦理的目的,担忧信(LoC)不符合公认的提供经验数据的标准。 LoC不能通过提出虚假声明,未能引用破坏其关键前提的数据以及歪曲和误解它选择性引用的科学出版物来满足循证推理的标准。 LoC通过将正在发生的争议视为已解决的问题,提供“仅意见”作为论点的替代,并提出矛盾的主张,从而无法满足基于论点的推理标准。 LoC在方法上存在缺陷,因此是不道德违规生物伦理学的案例研究。不撤回LoC将会损害生物伦理学领域,这使得不道德的违法生物伦理学中的案例研究对于整个领域都很重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号