Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A reply to Professor Seedhouse.

Michael H Kottow

    Journal of Medical Ethics
    |October 20, 2001
    PubMed
    Summary

    This study challenges Professor Seedhouse's assertions, providing references to support counterarguments. It refutes claims of scholarly slovenliness and ad hominem attacks, deeming them inappropriate and easily disproven.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Clinical and research ethics as moral strangers.

    Archivum immunologiae et therapiae experimentalis·2009
    Same author

    Should research ethics triumph over clinical ethics?

    Journal of evaluation in clinical practice·2007
    Same author

    The disease-subject as a subject of literature.

    Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM·2007
    Same author

    Letter to the editor: a commentary on M. K. Wynia's "consequentialism and harsh interrogations".

    The American journal of bioethics : AJOB·2006
    Same author

    Vulnerability: what kind of principle is it?

    Medicine, health care, and philosophy·2005
    Same author

    The vulnerable and the susceptible.

    Bioethics·2004

    Area of Science:

    • Academic Discourse
    • Scholarly Communication

    Background:

    • Professor Seedhouse's recent assertions have been noted.
    • Criticism has been raised regarding the quality of scholarship and argumentation presented.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critically evaluate Professor Seedhouse's assertions.
    • To provide references and clarify points in response to criticism.
    • To address claims of scholarly slovenliness and ad hominem argumentation.

    Main Methods:

    • Literature review and citation of relevant references.
    • Point-by-point clarification of debated assertions.
    • Analysis of argumentation style and scholarly rigor.

    Main Results:

    • Several of Professor Seedhouse's assertions are identified as debatable.
    • Criticism regarding scholarly slovenliness is found to be unfounded.
    • Ad hominem arguments are deemed out of place and refutable.

    Conclusions:

    • The response provides a rebuttal to specific points raised by Professor Seedhouse.
    • The critique of scholarship and argumentation is addressed and refuted.
    • Further discussion is encouraged based on clarified points and evidence.
    Keywords:
    Bioethics and Professional Ethics

    Related Experiment Videos