回应Ford， Morley, and Sankary，“关注创伤，平衡权力，优先考虑道德咨询中的利益相关者”。

Q3 Medicine

Journal of Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1086/733390

Autumn Fiester

{"title":"回应Ford， Morley, and Sankary，“关注创伤，平衡权力，优先考虑道德咨询中的利益相关者”。","authors":"Autumn Fiester","doi":"10.1086/733390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractIn their article \"Attending to Trauma, Balancing Power, and Prioritizing Stakeholders in Ethics Consultation,\" Ford, Morley, and Sankary respond to my argument about surrogate trauma and prioritization. They offer the most challenging set of arguments against my thesis. They also offer the sharpest critique of Lanphier and Anani's original TIEC proposal. Ford, Morley, and Sankary likely represent the reaction that most professional clinical ethicists will have to my proposal, and their voice is essential in this debate, both for their own philosophical insights and for the representation of the views of many in the field.","PeriodicalId":39646,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","volume":"36 1","pages":"69-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Ford, Morley, and Sankary, \\\"Attending to Trauma, Balancing Power, and Prioritizing Stakeholders in Ethics Consultation\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Autumn Fiester\",\"doi\":\"10.1086/733390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractIn their article \\\"Attending to Trauma, Balancing Power, and Prioritizing Stakeholders in Ethics Consultation,\\\" Ford, Morley, and Sankary respond to my argument about surrogate trauma and prioritization. They offer the most challenging set of arguments against my thesis. They also offer the sharpest critique of Lanphier and Anani's original TIEC proposal. Ford, Morley, and Sankary likely represent the reaction that most professional clinical ethicists will have to my proposal, and their voice is essential in this debate, both for their own philosophical insights and for the representation of the views of many in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"69-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1086/733390\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/733390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

Ford， Morley和Sankary在他们的文章“关注创伤，平衡权力，优先考虑道德咨询中的利益相关者”中回应了我关于替代创伤和优先考虑的论点。他们对我的论点提出了最具挑战性的论证。他们还对兰菲尔和阿纳尼最初的TIEC提议提出了最尖锐的批评。Ford、Morley和Sankary可能代表了大多数专业临床伦理学家对我的建议的反应，他们的声音在这场辩论中至关重要，无论是出于他们自己的哲学见解，还是代表了该领域许多人的观点。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Response to Ford, Morley, and Sankary, "Attending to Trauma, Balancing Power, and Prioritizing Stakeholders in Ethics Consultation".

AbstractIn their article "Attending to Trauma, Balancing Power, and Prioritizing Stakeholders in Ethics Consultation," Ford, Morley, and Sankary respond to my argument about surrogate trauma and prioritization. They offer the most challenging set of arguments against my thesis. They also offer the sharpest critique of Lanphier and Anani's original TIEC proposal. Ford, Morley, and Sankary likely represent the reaction that most professional clinical ethicists will have to my proposal, and their voice is essential in this debate, both for their own philosophical insights and for the representation of the views of many in the field.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Clinical Ethics Medicine-Medicine (all)

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Clinical Ethics is written for and by physicians, nurses, attorneys, clergy, ethicists, and others whose decisions directly affect patients. More than 70 percent of the articles are authored or co-authored by physicians. JCE is a double-blinded, peer-reviewed journal indexed in PubMed, Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences, the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and other indexes.