Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A principled and cosmopolitan neuroethics: considerations for international relevance.John R. Shook & James Giordano - 2014 - Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine 9:1.
    Neuroethics applies cognitive neuroscience for prescribing alterations to conceptions of self and society, and for prescriptively judging the ethical applications of neurotechnologies. Plentiful normative premises are available to ground such prescriptivity, however prescriptive neuroethics may remain fragmented by social conventions, cultural ideologies, and ethical theories. Herein we offer that an objectively principled neuroethics for international relevance requires a new meta-ethics: understanding how morality works, and how humans manage and improve morality, as objectively based on the brain and social sciences. This (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • Socially responsible science: Exploring the complexities.Inmaculada de Melo-Martín & Kristen Intemann - 2023 - European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13 (3):1-18.
    Philosophers of science, particularly those working on science and values, often talk about the need for science to be socially responsible. However, what this means is not clear. In this paper, we review the contributions of philosophers of science to the debate over socially responsible science and explore the dimensions that a fruitful account of socially responsible science should address. Our review shows that offering a comprehensive account is difficult. We contend that broad calls for socially responsible science that fail (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Advance Healthcare Directives: Binding or Informational Value?Gianluca Montanari Vergallo - 2020 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 29 (1):98-109.
    Abstract:Advance directives entail a refusal expressed by a still-healthy patient. Three consequences stem from that fact: (a) advance refusal is unspecific, since it is impossible to predict what the patient’s conditions and the risk-benefit ratio may be in the foreseeable future; (b) those decisions cannot be as well informed as those formulated while the disease is in progress; (c) while both current consent and refusal can be revoked as the disease unfolds, until the treatment starts out, advance directives become effective (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation