| Title |
Respect for Human Vulnerability: The Emergence of a New Principle in Bioethics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9641-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henk ten Have |
| Abstract |
Vulnerability has become a popular though controversial topic in bioethics, notably since 2000. As a result, a common body of knowledge has emerged (1) distinguishing between different types of vulnerability, (2) criticizing the categorization of populations as vulnerable, and (3) questioning the practical implications. It is argued that two perspectives on vulnerability, i.e., the philosophical and political, pose challenges to contemporary bioethics discourse: they re-examine the significance of human agency, the primacy of the individual person, and the negativity of vulnerability. As a phenomenon of globalization, vulnerability can only be properly addressed in a global bioethics that takes the social dimension of human existence seriously. |
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 | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 27 | 31% |
| Unknown | 12 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 02 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,283,528
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#92
of 615 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,877
of 264,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#4
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 615 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 264,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.