↓ Skip to main content

Emmanuel Levinas and the face of Terri Schiavo: bioethical and phenomenological reflections on a private tragedy and public spectacle

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Emmanuel Levinas and the face of Terri Schiavo: bioethical and phenomenological reflections on a private tragedy and public spectacle
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11017-012-9234-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael D. Dahnke

Abstract

The controversial case of Terri Schiavo came to a close on March 31, 2005, with her death following the removal of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube. This event followed years of controversy and social upheaval. Voices from across the entire political and cultural spectrums filled the airwaves and op-ed pages of major newspapers. Protests ensued outside of Ms. Schiavo's care facility. Ms. Schiavo's parents published videos of their daughter on the internet in an effort to prove that she was not in a vegetative state and could potentially recover. There is a certain mystery to the entire controversy given the fact that, legally, it was largely a matter of settled law. Precedent cases and legal statutes clearly set out the proper procedures and decisions to be followed in this case. Nonetheless, powerful challenges and virulent opposition to these standards arose. Through an investigation of this case as well as a comparative study of the case of Dax Cowart (in particular, the documentary depictions of Dax Cowart's case) and of a photograph by Joel-Peter Witkin, I plan to investigate the source of these social upheavals and hypothesize that they were largely the result of a phenomenological reaction to the human face.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 26 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 11%
Psychology 3 11%
Neuroscience 2 7%
Engineering 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 3 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 December 2013.
All research outputs
#13,871,657
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#145
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,649
of 168,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 168,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.