Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorHofmann, Bjørn
dc.date.accessioned2009-11-18T10:53:13Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Medical Ethics, 2009, vol. 35, nr. 11, 684-687 p.en
dc.identifier.issn0306-6800
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11250/142450
dc.descriptionOriginally published in Journal of Medical Ethics: http://jme.bmj.com/content/35/11/684en
dc.description.abstractIn a seminal article in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Søren Holm and Tuja Takala analysed two protechnology arguments in bioethics: the hopeful principle and the automatic escalator. They showed how these arguments relate to problematic arguments such as the precautionary principle and the empirical slippery slope argument, and argued that they should be used with great caution. The present article investigates the recent debate on proton beam therapy, where the hopeful principle and the automatic escalator are identified. However, the debate reveals a series of other arguments that deserve similar caution. An analysis of these arguments indicates that the roots of their fallacies are to be found in the ignorance of the uncertainties about risks and benefits and an overly optimistic attitude towards technology and progress. The point is not to argue against proton therapy, but rather to point out that flawed arguments for new technologies, such as proton therapy, can actually hamper their implementation instead of promoting it. Patients deserve the best technology available, not only on the basis of the best available evidence, but also on the basis of the best arguments.en
dc.format.extent210496 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoengen
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen
dc.subjectproton therapyen
dc.subjectprotechnologyen
dc.subjectbioethicsen
dc.titleFallacies in the arguments for new technology: the case of proton therapyen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.typePeer revieweden
dc.subject.nsiVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical medical disciplines: 750::Oncology: 762en
dc.source.pagenumber684-687en
dc.source.volume35en
dc.source.journalJournal of Medical Ethicsen
dc.source.issue11en
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.030981en


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel