Sometimes, not always, not never: a response to Pickard and Pearce
This paper provides a response to Hanna Pickard and Stephen Pearce’s paper ‘Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings.’ This paper responded to my article ‘Should healthcare professionals sometimes...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
BMJ Publ.
2018
|
Dans: |
Journal of medical ethics
Année: 2018, Volume: 44, Numéro: 3, Pages: 209-210 |
Accès en ligne: |
Accès probablement gratuit Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Résumé: | This paper provides a response to Hanna Pickard and Stephen Pearce’s paper ‘Balancing costs and benefits: a clinical perspective does not support a harm minimisation approach for self-injury outside of community settings.’ This paper responded to my article ‘Should healthcare professionals sometimes allow harm? The case of self-injury.’ There is much in the paper that I would agree with, but I feel it is important to respond to a number of the criticisms of my paper in order to clarify my position and to facilitate ongoing debate in relation to this important issue. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104343 |