Rhetorical devices are of no avail: a rejoinder to Peter Singer.
作者信息
Sundström P
出版信息
J Med Ethics. 1995 Oct;21(5):312. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.5.312.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Rhetorical devices are of no avail: a rejoinder to Peter Singer.修辞手法无济于事：对彼得·辛格的回应
J Med Ethics. 1995 Oct;21(5):312. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.5.312.
2
Mercy, murder, & morality: perspectives on euthanasia. The challenge of definition.怜悯、谋杀与道德：安乐死的视角。定义的挑战。
Hastings Cent Rep. 1989 Jan-Feb;19(1):suppl 2-3.
3
Silencing the Singer. Antibioethics in Germany.让“发声者”沉默：德国的反生物伦理学
Hastings Cent Rep. 1991 Nov-Dec;21(6):20-7.
4
Debate: extraordinary means and the sanctity of life.辩论：特殊手段与生命的神圣性。
J Med Ethics. 1981 Jun;7(2):74-82. doi: 10.1136/jme.7.2.74.
5
[Singer--and no end in sight? Or: can severely handicapped patients be "persons"?].[歌手——且看不到尽头？或者：严重残疾的患者能成为“人”吗？]
Rehabilitation (Stuttg). 1996 May;35(2):126-8.
6
Mercy, murder, & morality: perspectives on euthanasia. Assisted suicide: pro-choice or anti-life?怜悯、谋杀与道德：对安乐死的看法。协助自杀：支持选择还是反对生命？
Hastings Cent Rep. 1989 Jan-Feb;19(1):suppl 16-9.
7
The place of 'good' in the science and art of medicine.“善”在医学科学与艺术中的地位。
Man Med. 1978;3(2):89-100.
8
Palliative care and euthanasia: a continuing need to think again.
J Palliat Care. 2002 Spring;18(1):3-5.
9
Jewish and secular medical ethics share themes but diverge on issues such as heroic measures.犹太医学伦理与世俗医学伦理有共同的主题，但在诸如极端措施等问题上存在分歧。
CMAJ. 1997 Nov 15;157(10):1415-6.
10
Consciously walking the fine line: thoughts on a hospice response to assisted suicide and euthanasia.谨慎行走在微妙界限上：关于临终关怀机构对协助自杀和安乐死回应的思考
J Palliat Care. 1993 Autumn;9(3):25-8.
本文引用的文献
1
Peter Singer and 'lives not worth living'--comments on a flawed argument from analogy.彼得·辛格与“不值得过的生活”——评一个有缺陷的类比论证
J Med Ethics. 1995 Feb;21(1):35-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.1.35.
2
Straw men with broken legs: a response to Per Sundström.腿部骨折的稻草人：对佩尔·桑德斯特伦的回应。
J Med Ethics. 1995 Apr;21(2):89-90. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.2.89.
Zotero 插件