Selected Product:
| Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics
Paperback
Edition: 5
Author: Gregory Pence
Publisher: McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages
Release Date: 2007-07-11
ISBN-10: 0073535737
ISBN-13: 9780073535739
List Price: $47.47
Average Customer Rating:
   | |
Clinical Ethics: A Practical Approach to Ethical Decisions in Clinical Medicine
ISBN-10: 0071441999
ISBN-13: 9780071441995
List Price:$34.95
Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Beauchamp))
ISBN-10: 0195335708
ISBN-13: 9780195335705
List Price:$49.95
Biomedical Ethics (Biomedical Ethics (Mappes))
ISBN-10: 0072976446
ISBN-13: 9780072976441
List Price:$84.37
Basics of Bioethics, The (2nd Edition)
ISBN-10: 0130991619
ISBN-13: 9780130991614
List Price:$45.80
Classic Works in Medical Ethics: Core Philosophical Readings
ISBN-10: 0070381151
ISBN-13: 9780070381155
List Price:$45.67
|
To use our price comparison to get the cheapest price, please click on the "Find the Cheapest Price" button located above for Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics by Gregory Pence (ISBN-10: 0073535737, ISBN-13: 9780073535739).
At this time we have not yet written a review for Medical Ethics: Accounts of the Cases that Shaped and Define Medical Ethics by Gregory Pence (ISBN-10: 0073535737, ISBN-13: 9780073535739). Please continue to keep checking back to this page as we are constantly adding reviews.
Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com
This rich collection, popular among teachers and students alike, provides an in-depth look at major cases that have shaped the field of medical ethics. The book presents each famous (or infamous) case using extensive historical and contextual background, and then proceeds to illuminate it by careful discussion of pertinent philosophical theories and legal and ethical issues..
Very Helpful but also slanted
| Customer Rating: | Having taught Medical Ethics on the undergraduate level, I found this book to be helpful by giving a general acquaintance to students about the cases which have challenged and required extraordinary thought about how we establish our values about what it means to be human and what that means in the field of medical treatment.
The author's introduction to the philosophy was decidedly shallow and in many cases his bias against Christianity is very obvious. I used those opportunities to discuss these issues with my students. The over-all experience was positive. Terry Bell author of "The Love Ethic: Rediscovering Our Moral Compass."The Love Ethic |
Everyone, Clinicians and Patients Alike, Should Know This Material
| Customer Rating: | I have not read many medical/clinical ethics materials.
I am currently reading this as part of an undergraduate and post-bac philosophy class, however, and enjoy the material greatly.
I would recommend this read to anyone who sees doctors, is a doctor, or wants to be a doctor - which should be quite a large population |
A travesty of poor research and poor editing
| Customer Rating: | | I've been incredibly dissapointed by this book. Not only is the author obviously biased but the editing is remarkably sloppy. The book averages several grammatical errors per chapter, and at least one major factual error per chapter. Large sections of this book have been lifted from other books he has written, so the reader is left to wonder why the author felt the need of a 5th edition. Perhaps most troubling is that Dr. Pence has failed to produce anything that even resembles an honest discussion of Medical Ethics. Rather he has produced a book that informs the reader of Dr. Pence's opinions and precious little else. Buyer beware! Do not buy this book. Unless, of course, you are forced to buy it by Dr. Pence himself. |
Looking for prolife information will not find it here.
| Customer Rating: | I had to use this particular book for a class I was taking. I was hoping for at least a balanced presentation, but I was very disappointed with this book. I found it to have a definite anti-life view.
I found that the author minimized the role of morality in the field of bioethics. Especially how religion contributes to moral views and how that effects bioethics.
I also found that the author tried to present Catholic Church teachings specifically without even a basic understanding of how the Church developed these views. |
Biased and Inaccurate
| Customer Rating: | As the professor of a Health Care Ethics class, I must admit to being very disappointed in this book. The first chapter's definitions of classical ethical theories is dense and not helpful at all. I didn't even have the students read it. But, as a lawyer and someone finishing his PhD in philosophy, it is the abortion chapter that I found to be quite troubling. He selectively uses quotations and selectively lays out arguments in order to refute the position he doesn't agree with. Here it is the anti-abortion position. I tell my students that the true philosopher is he or she who can see the other side's complete argument and can restate it even better than they. It is only such a person who can make an informed ethical decision. This text does not adhere to that intellectually honest principle.
Here are a few examples of where either the facts are wrong or the text is slanted. The introduction to the abortion chapter lays out a "history" of the debate and basically says that abortion was legal until men sought to show women their place and until the Catholic Church engaged in a war against science. He really says this--see p. 125. "As the church retreated from science during the period from about 1869 to 1900, it encouraged attention to Mary (who had been neglected), supported 'creationism' against geological explanations of the origins of the universe, emphasized miracles (the miracle of Fatima was recognized shortly after the First Vatican Council), and vigorously attacked Darwinism." Not only is most of this historically inaccurate or incomplete, it certainly has no place in a textbook, let alone one on Health Care Ethics. (By the way, Fatima was in 1917 and the First Vatican Council ended in 1870. When does something 47 years later become "shortly after"? Numberwise, 47 years ago was 1959. Would we say that events in 2006 occurred "shortly after" something that happened in 1959? That's my point. You have to go way out of your way to be this biased--and it has no place in a textbook!) Further, he says on p.137 that the fetus does not have brain waves until the 25th week of gestation. He states this without a footnote. In fact, the fetus has detectable brain waves between the 40th and 43rd day post-conception. That is the end of the sixth week. (See Eric Olson's _The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology_ and John Kavanaugh's _Who Count as Persons_.) Nor does he address questions about a beating heart, fingerprints, or the ability to feel pain. These are all marks of a person and should be part of any intellectually honest discussion of abortion. His discussion of the potentiality question relies very heavily on the legal definition of a "person," but never says why that matters. A 1-day old baby is a "person" under the law, but has no sense of self and is not rational. Why then is it protected but the 2-week old fetus is not? He says the difference is that one is a "person" and one is not. The problem is that that is a legal definition, under a 14th Amendment analysis. It, however, does nothing to dispute Noonan, as he suggests that it does on p. 137. Listen to how bad his reasoning is: "However, having the potential to become a person is not being a person, as we realize when we consider the thousands of frozen embryos...[Also, this argument] collapses the distinction between being human and being a person." The problem is, however, that he has never told us why the fetus is not a person. He just assumes it--basically saying, "Well the law says it's not a person, so it's not a person." What kind of reasoning is that? Reader, I suggest you pore over Chapter 5 closely and tell me if you find anywhere where he offers an ARGUMENT of why a fetus is not a person and a 1-day old child is. He doesn't because it's not part of his agenda.
I could go on an on, about what he chose to talk about and what he chose to ignore, about what he chose to characterize fully and what he chose to caricature. I think that the book has some strong points, but just don't go into it expecting a full and philosophical, let alone historical, discussion of an ethical issue.
As a professor, I could easily present slanted arguments and try to sway students. One of the reasons I chose this textbook, however, was because I wanted something decidedly neutral. I wanted the students to *think* and see clearly the issues on both sides. Toward that end, I have been very disappointed. |
|
