What are considered ‘good facts’?
In the January edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Fujita and Tabuchi (hereafter, Authors) responded that we misunderstood the ‘facts’ in our previous article. Our article’s method was twofold. First, it appealed to normative analysis and publicly accessible materials, and second, it targeted...
| Authors: | ; ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2019
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2019, Volume: 45, Issue: 7, Pages: 473-475 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 181616044X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230428063517.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2019 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2018-105333 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)181616044X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP181616044X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Akabayashi, Akira |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a What are considered ‘good facts’? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a In the January edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics, Fujita and Tabuchi (hereafter, Authors) responded that we misunderstood the ‘facts’ in our previous article. Our article’s method was twofold. First, it appealed to normative analysis and publicly accessible materials, and second, it targeted a policy-making approach to public funding. We specifically did not focus on the Center for iPS Cell Research and Application or induced pluripotent stem stock projects. The Authors raised five criticisms, including transparency of our interpretation of public funding policy. We reply to these criticisms by clarifying facts, and demonstrating new data (facts), and asking the Authors what qualifies as a ‘good fact’ in medical ethics. We note that in some cases, it might be possible to examine to what extent facts are ‘true’, while in other cases, ‘facts’ are laden with ‘values’, which cannot be confirmed or falsified with observation alone. The level of ‘good’ implicit in a fact is a challenging issue that goes well beyond science and makes metaethical assumptions about the relationships between facts and values more broadly. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Nakazawa, Eisuke |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Jecker, S. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 45(2019), 7, Seite 473-475 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:45 |g year:2019 |g number:7 |g pages:473-475 |
| 856 | |u https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/45/7/473.full.pdf |x unpaywall |z Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang |h publisher [open (via page says license)] | ||
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105333 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/45/7/473.abstract |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 418561439X | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 181616044X | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053736 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#4FF89BF7A9F701D91C833320DA6858037B915587 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||