A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.
Identifieur interne : 000202 ( Ncbi/Merge ); précédent : 000201; suivant : 000203A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.
Auteurs : David Levy [Australie] ; Ben Gadd ; Ian Kerridge ; Paul A. KomesaroffSource :
- Journal of bioethical inquiry [ 1176-7529 ] ; 2015.
Abstract
Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.
DOI: 10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y
PubMed: 25037244
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream PubMed, to step Corpus: 000007
- to stream PubMed, to step Curation: 000007
- to stream PubMed, to step Checkpoint: 000007
Links to Exploration step
pubmed:25037244Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Levy, David" sort="Levy, David" uniqKey="Levy D" first="David" last="Levy">David Levy</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, 92-94 Parramatta Rd., Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia, David.c.levy@sydney.edu.au.</nlm:affiliation>
<country wicri:rule="url">Australie</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, 92-94 Parramatta Rd., Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia</wicri:regionArea>
<wicri:noRegion>Australia</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gadd, Ben" sort="Gadd, Ben" uniqKey="Gadd B" first="Ben" last="Gadd">Ben Gadd</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kerridge, Ian" sort="Kerridge, Ian" uniqKey="Kerridge I" first="Ian" last="Kerridge">Ian Kerridge</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Komesaroff, Paul A" sort="Komesaroff, Paul A" uniqKey="Komesaroff P" first="Paul A" last="Komesaroff">Paul A. Komesaroff</name>
</author>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PubMed</idno>
<date when="2015">2015</date>
<idno type="doi">10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y</idno>
<idno type="RBID">pubmed:25037244</idno>
<idno type="pmid">25037244</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Corpus">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PubMed">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Curation">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="PubMed" wicri:step="Curation">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/PubMed/Checkpoint">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Checkpoint" wicri:step="PubMed">000007</idno>
<idno type="wicri:Area/Ncbi/Merge">000202</idno>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en">A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.</title>
<author><name sortKey="Levy, David" sort="Levy, David" uniqKey="Levy D" first="David" last="Levy">David Levy</name>
<affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:affiliation>Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, 92-94 Parramatta Rd., Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia, David.c.levy@sydney.edu.au.</nlm:affiliation>
<country wicri:rule="url">Australie</country>
<wicri:regionArea>Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, 92-94 Parramatta Rd., Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia</wicri:regionArea>
<wicri:noRegion>Australia</wicri:noRegion>
</affiliation>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Gadd, Ben" sort="Gadd, Ben" uniqKey="Gadd B" first="Ben" last="Gadd">Ben Gadd</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Kerridge, Ian" sort="Kerridge, Ian" uniqKey="Kerridge I" first="Ian" last="Kerridge">Ian Kerridge</name>
</author>
<author><name sortKey="Komesaroff, Paul A" sort="Komesaroff, Paul A" uniqKey="Komesaroff P" first="Paul A" last="Komesaroff">Paul A. Komesaroff</name>
</author>
</analytic>
<series><title level="j">Journal of bioethical inquiry</title>
<idno type="ISSN">1176-7529</idno>
<imprint><date when="2015" type="published">2015</date>
</imprint>
</series>
</biblStruct>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<profileDesc><textClass></textClass>
</profileDesc>
</teiHeader>
<front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.</div>
</front>
</TEI>
<pubmed><MedlineCitation Owner="NLM" Status="In-Process"><PMID Version="1">25037244</PMID>
<DateCreated><Year>2015</Year>
<Month>06</Month>
<Day>01</Day>
</DateCreated>
<Article PubModel="Print-Electronic"><Journal><ISSN IssnType="Print">1176-7529</ISSN>
<JournalIssue CitedMedium="Internet"><Volume>12</Volume>
<Issue>2</Issue>
<PubDate><Year>2015</Year>
<Month>Jun</Month>
</PubDate>
</JournalIssue>
<Title>Journal of bioethical inquiry</Title>
<ISOAbbreviation>J Bioeth Inq</ISOAbbreviation>
</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy.</ArticleTitle>
<Pagination><MedlinePgn>203-9</MedlinePgn>
</Pagination>
<ELocationID EIdType="doi" ValidYN="Y">10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y</ELocationID>
<Abstract><AbstractText>Recent discourses about the legitimacy of homeopathy have focused on its scientific plausibility, mechanism of action, and evidence base. These, frequently, conclude not only that homeopathy is scientifically baseless, but that it is "unethical." They have also diminished patients' perspectives, values, and preferences. We contend that these critics confuse epistemic questions with questions of ethics, misconstrue the moral status of homeopaths, and have an impoverished idea of ethics-one that fails to account either for the moral worth of care and of relationships or for the perspectives, values, and preferences of patients. Utilitarian critics, in particular, endeavour to present an objective evaluation-a type of moral calculus-quantifying the utilities and disutilities of homeopathy as a justification for the exclusion of homeopathy from research and health care. But these critiques are built upon a narrow formulation of evidence and care and a diminished episteme that excludes the values and preferences of researchers, homeopaths, and patients engaged in the practice of homeopathy. We suggest that homeopathy is ethical as it fulfils the needs and expectations of many patients; may be practiced safely and prudentially; values care and the virtues of the therapeutic relationship; and provides important benefits for patients.</AbstractText>
</Abstract>
<AuthorList CompleteYN="Y"><Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Levy</LastName>
<ForeName>David</ForeName>
<Initials>D</Initials>
<AffiliationInfo><Affiliation>Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sydney, 92-94 Parramatta Rd., Camperdown, NSW, 2006, Australia, David.c.levy@sydney.edu.au.</Affiliation>
</AffiliationInfo>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Gadd</LastName>
<ForeName>Ben</ForeName>
<Initials>B</Initials>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Kerridge</LastName>
<ForeName>Ian</ForeName>
<Initials>I</Initials>
</Author>
<Author ValidYN="Y"><LastName>Komesaroff</LastName>
<ForeName>Paul A</ForeName>
<Initials>PA</Initials>
</Author>
</AuthorList>
<Language>eng</Language>
<PublicationTypeList><PublicationType UI="D016428">Journal Article</PublicationType>
</PublicationTypeList>
<ArticleDate DateType="Electronic"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>07</Month>
<Day>19</Day>
</ArticleDate>
</Article>
<MedlineJournalInfo><Country>Netherlands</Country>
<MedlineTA>J Bioeth Inq</MedlineTA>
<NlmUniqueID>101250741</NlmUniqueID>
<ISSNLinking>1176-7529</ISSNLinking>
</MedlineJournalInfo>
<CitationSubset>IM</CitationSubset>
<CommentsCorrectionsList><CommentsCorrections RefType="CommentIn"><RefSource>J Bioeth Inq. 2016 Mar;13(1):21-5</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">26732397</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="CommentIn"><RefSource>J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Dec;12(4):549-53</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">26659862</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
<CommentsCorrections RefType="CommentIn"><RefSource>J Bioeth Inq. 2015 Dec;12(4):545-7</RefSource>
<PMID Version="1">26631232</PMID>
</CommentsCorrections>
</CommentsCorrectionsList>
</MedlineCitation>
<PubmedData><History><PubMedPubDate PubStatus="received"><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>6</Month>
<Day>24</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="accepted"><Year>2013</Year>
<Month>12</Month>
<Day>22</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="aheadofprint"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>19</Day>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="entrez"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>20</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="pubmed"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>20</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
<PubMedPubDate PubStatus="medline"><Year>2014</Year>
<Month>7</Month>
<Day>20</Day>
<Hour>6</Hour>
<Minute>0</Minute>
</PubMedPubDate>
</History>
<PublicationStatus>ppublish</PublicationStatus>
<ArticleIdList><ArticleId IdType="doi">10.1007/s11673-014-9563-y</ArticleId>
<ArticleId IdType="pubmed">25037244</ArticleId>
</ArticleIdList>
</PubmedData>
</pubmed>
<affiliations><list><country><li>Australie</li>
</country>
</list>
<tree><noCountry><name sortKey="Gadd, Ben" sort="Gadd, Ben" uniqKey="Gadd B" first="Ben" last="Gadd">Ben Gadd</name>
<name sortKey="Kerridge, Ian" sort="Kerridge, Ian" uniqKey="Kerridge I" first="Ian" last="Kerridge">Ian Kerridge</name>
<name sortKey="Komesaroff, Paul A" sort="Komesaroff, Paul A" uniqKey="Komesaroff P" first="Paul A" last="Komesaroff">Paul A. Komesaroff</name>
</noCountry>
<country name="Australie"><noRegion><name sortKey="Levy, David" sort="Levy, David" uniqKey="Levy D" first="David" last="Levy">David Levy</name>
</noRegion>
</country>
</tree>
</affiliations>
</record>
Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/EpistemeV1/Data/Ncbi/Merge
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000202 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd -nk 000202 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien |wiki= Ticri/CIDE |area= EpistemeV1 |flux= Ncbi |étape= Merge |type= RBID |clé= pubmed:25037244 |texte= A gentle ethical defence of homeopathy. }}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:25037244" \ | HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Ncbi/Merge/biblio.hfd \ | NlmPubMed2Wicri -a EpistemeV1
![]() | This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. | ![]() |