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
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Poland | 6 | 14% |
United Kingdom | 4 | 10% |
United States | 4 | 10% |
Canada | 3 | 7% |
Central African Republic | 1 | 2% |
Australia | 1 | 2% |
Sweden | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 22 | 52% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 33 | 79% |
Scientists | 4 | 10% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 7% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
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% |