Objections still fail: a response to Faria
In her reply to my critical assessment of objections to the Weatherall report’s justification of non-human primate (NHP) research, Catia Faria focuses on three objections which she entitles ‘the disanalogy’, ‘the utilitarian calculus’ and ‘species overlap’. Faria finds my assessment unconvincing, bu...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2018
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2018, Volume: 44, Issue: 5, Pages: 334-335 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In her reply to my critical assessment of objections to the Weatherall report’s justification of non-human primate (NHP) research, Catia Faria focuses on three objections which she entitles ‘the disanalogy’, ‘the utilitarian calculus’ and ‘species overlap’. Faria finds my assessment unconvincing, butI argue that the objections still fail. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2017-104586 |