Response to “The Creation Lottery” by Julian Savulescu and John Harris (CQ Vol 13, No 1): The Creation Lottery and Method in Bioethics: A Comment on Savulescu and Harris
I am in general a great admirer of the work of Savulescu and Harris (S&H), not because I think their conclusions are often right but because they state these conclusions and their arguments very clearly. In their joint paper “The Creation Lottery,” they do, nevertheless, tendentiously overstate...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2004
|
| In: |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Year: 2004, Volume: 13, Issue: 3, Pages: 283-287 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000naa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1827982543 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20221220235209.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221220s2004 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/S0963180104133136 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1827982543 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1827982543 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |e VerfasserIn |0 (DE-588)101688954 |0 (DE-627)630198322 |0 (DE-576)325227624 |4 aut |a Holm, Søren |d 1901-1971 | |
| 109 | |a Holm, Søren 1901-1971 |a Holm, Sören 1901-1971 | ||
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Response to “The Creation Lottery” by Julian Savulescu and John Harris (CQ Vol 13, No 1): The Creation Lottery and Method in Bioethics: A Comment on Savulescu and Harris |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2004 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a I am in general a great admirer of the work of Savulescu and Harris (S&H), not because I think their conclusions are often right but because they state these conclusions and their arguments very clearly. In their joint paper “The Creation Lottery,” they do, nevertheless, tendentiously overstate their case both with regard to the conclusions that flow from identifying natural reproduction as a creation lottery (CL) and in seeing their exchange as an example of good method in bioethics. In the following short comment I want to point to some of the problematic areas in S&H's arguments. | ||
| 601 | |a Lotterie | ||
| 601 | |a Harris, John | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics |d Cambridge : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992 |g 13(2004), 3, Seite 283-287 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)306655039 |w (DE-600)1499985-7 |w (DE-576)081985010 |x 1469-2147 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:13 |g year:2004 |g number:3 |g pages:283-287 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180104133136 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/response-to-the-creation-lottery-by-julian-savulescu-and-john-harris-cq-vol-13-no-1-the-creation-lottery-and-method-in-bioethics-a-comment-on-savulescu-and-harris/14A762F30FFF00AD6D6BB0AE0E28ABC3 |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 936 | u | w | |d 13 |j 2004 |e 3 |h 283-287 |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4235387456 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1827982543 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20221220052655 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 221220||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-12-06#DFECC6861005891B191E70789AF0A0B75FF4E217 | ||
| 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 | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||