Title |
Against culturally sensitive bioethics
|
---|---|
Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, July 2013
|
DOI | 10.1007/s11019-013-9504-2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Tomislav Bracanovic |
Abstract |
This article discusses the view that bioethics should become "culturally sensitive" and give more weight to various cultural traditions and their respective moral beliefs. It is argued that this view is implausible for the following three reasons: it renders the disciplinary boundaries of bioethics too flexible and inconsistent with metaphysical commitments of Western biomedical sciences, it is normatively useless because it approaches cultural phenomena in a predominantly descriptive and selective way, and it tends to justify certain types of discrimination. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 20% |
United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 18% |
Student > Master | 3 | 18% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
Other | 2 | 12% |
Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Philosophy | 3 | 18% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 18% |
Social Sciences | 3 | 18% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 12% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 12% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2015.
All research outputs
#13,698,935
of 23,938,580 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#291
of 609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,428
of 201,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,938,580 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 609 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,934 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.