| Title |
A Not-So-Gentle Refutation of the Defence of Homeopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11673-015-9682-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jakub Zawiła-Niedźwiecki, Jacek Olender |
| Abstract |
In a recent paper, Levy, Gadd, Kerridge, and Komesaroff attempt to defend the ethicality of homeopathy by attacking the utilitarian ethical framework as a basis for medical ethics and by introducing a distinction between evidence-based medicine and modern science. This paper demonstrates that their argumentation is not only insufficient to achieve that goal but also incorrect. Utilitarianism is not required to show that homeopathic practice is unethical; indeed, any normative basis of medical ethics will make it unethical, as a defence of homeopathic practice requires the rejection of modern natural sciences, which are an integral part of medical ethics systems. This paper also points out that evidence-based medicine lies at the very core of modern science. Particular arguments made by Levy et al. within the principlist medical ethics normative system are also shown to be wrong. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 5 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
| Canada | 3 | 7% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Central African Republic | 1 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 23 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 32 | 78% |
| Scientists | 4 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 16% |
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 32% |
| Philosophy | 2 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 11% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#920,921
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#28
of 675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,728
of 402,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
#1
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 675 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 402,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.