Blog spam: We Need Your Head!
I made this!
Mornin', b3ta!
As some of you know, I write and edit a blog on behalf of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is part of the British Medical Journal family.
The editor’s choice paper in the latest JME is called “Ethical Dilemmas in Medical Humanitarian Practice: Cases for reflection from Medecins Sans Frontières”. Because it’s the editors’ choice, you should be able to access it as a .pdf for free here.
(EDIT: or else try this: jme.bmj.com/content/37/3/162.full - I'll check with the gnomes who run the journal that there really is access...)
The paper outlines four moral dilemmas, each presented with an ethicist’s response.
Over the next day or so, I’m going to open four new threads on the blog – one for each dilemma, staggered slightly - so that readers can engage in the discussion themselves. Is the ethical analysis in the paper correct? Does it address the real problem? Is there a problem at all?
The first thread’s is up now, the next'll appear in a few hours. Comments will be moderated, so people commenting for the first time may find that their thoughts don’t appear immediately. I’ll try to approve stuff pretty quickly; and once you’re whitelisted, you should be able to comment without further moderation from me.
I would ask you to resist the urge to b3ta-fy it: I'll only blacklist you and delete your comments if I think you're taking the piss.
UPDATE: It should work now...
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:02, Share, Reply)
Mornin', b3ta!
As some of you know, I write and edit a blog on behalf of the Journal of Medical Ethics, which is part of the British Medical Journal family.
The editor’s choice paper in the latest JME is called “Ethical Dilemmas in Medical Humanitarian Practice: Cases for reflection from Medecins Sans Frontières”. Because it’s the editors’ choice, you should be able to access it as a .pdf for free here.
(EDIT: or else try this: jme.bmj.com/content/37/3/162.full - I'll check with the gnomes who run the journal that there really is access...)
The paper outlines four moral dilemmas, each presented with an ethicist’s response.
Over the next day or so, I’m going to open four new threads on the blog – one for each dilemma, staggered slightly - so that readers can engage in the discussion themselves. Is the ethical analysis in the paper correct? Does it address the real problem? Is there a problem at all?
The first thread’s is up now, the next'll appear in a few hours. Comments will be moderated, so people commenting for the first time may find that their thoughts don’t appear immediately. I’ll try to approve stuff pretty quickly; and once you’re whitelisted, you should be able to comment without further moderation from me.
I would ask you to resist the urge to b3ta-fy it: I'll only blacklist you and delete your comments if I think you're taking the piss.
UPDATE: It should work now...
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:02, Share, Reply)
I only seem to be able to get the abstract without a subscription.
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:05, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:05, Share, Reply)
Won't let me access it mate, I'm in Sweden though, could that be the problem?
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:08, Share, Reply)
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 11:08, Share, Reply)
I don't think it would be...
How about jme.bmj.com/content/37/3/162.full ?
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 12:03, Share, Reply)
How about jme.bmj.com/content/37/3/162.full ?
( , Thu 3 Mar 2011, 12:03, Share, Reply)