↓ Skip to main content

The Ghost in the Machine Is the Elephant in the Room: Souls, Death, and Harm at the End of Life

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
The Ghost in the Machine Is the Elephant in the Room: Souls, Death, and Harm at the End of Life
Published in
Journal of Medicine & Philosophy, October 2012
DOI 10.1093/jmp/jhs037
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The idea that we human beings have souls that can continue to have conscious experiences after the deaths of our bodies is controversial in contemporary academic bioethics; this idea is obviously present whenever questions about harm at the end of life are discussed, but this idea is often ignored or avoided because it is more comfortable to do so. After briefly discussing certain types of experiences that lead some people to believe in souls that can survive the deaths of their bodies, I begin to answer the question, "If personal postmortem survival of some sort is real, then how should this alter the way we approach our bioethical discussions about death, the harm of death, and harming the dead?" The bioethics issues I briefly discuss in the remaining two sections are the debate about defining death and the decision whether to forego life-prolonging treatments.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Ireland 1 4%
Unknown 23 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 25%
Researcher 3 13%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Other 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 21%
Psychology 3 13%
Philosophy 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 29 October 2013.
All research outputs
#12,286,841
of 34,364,397 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medicine & Philosophy
#275
of 685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,851
of 244,857 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medicine & Philosophy
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,364,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 244,857 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them