This book continues and revises the ideas of justice as fairness that John Rawls presented in _A Theory of Justice_ but changes its philosophical interpretation in a fundamental way. That previous work assumed what Rawls calls a "well-ordered society," one that is stable and relatively homogenous in its basic moral beliefs and in which there is broad agreement about what constitutes the good life. Yet in modern democratic society a plurality of incompatible and irreconcilable doctrines--religious, philosophical, and moral--coexist within the (...) framework of democratic institutions. Recognizing this as a permanent condition of democracy, Rawls asks how a stable and just society of free and equal citizens can live in concord when divided by reasonable but incompatible doctrines? This edition includes the essay "The Idea of Public Reason Revisited," which outlines Rawls ' plans to revise _Political Liberalism,_ which were cut short by his death. "An extraordinary well-reasoned commentary on _A Theory of Justice_...a decisive turn towards political philosophy." --_Times Literary Supplement_. (shrink)

Laudan constructs a fresh approach to a longtime problem for the philosopher of science: how to explain the simultaneous and widespread presence of both agreement and disagreement in science. Laudan critiques the logical empiricists and the post-positivists as he stresses the need for centrality and values and the interdependence of values, methods, and facts as prerequisites to solving the problems of consensus and dissent in science.

Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index.

The patient-physician relationship, as formulated in the traditional biomedical model of medicine, is inherently flawed. In entering this relationship, most patients seek simply to be delivered from illness back to normal psychosocial functioning. The physician, however, almost invariably responds with a purely biologic approach to diagnosis and treatment that often does not effectively address the patient's needs. This precludes the opportunity for a consensus between them, and may in fact lead to the physician manipulating the patient's decisions about the course (...) of therapy. The relationship should be reshaped within a new scientific model of patient care that combines the biomedical analysis of disease with an empathic understanding of the patient's illness experience. Truly informed consent is viewed as a natural outcome of the application of this more comprehensive framework. (shrink)

Judith Allen Shelly and Arlene B. Miller help and encourage nurses to resolve conflicts between their Christian beliefs and professional ethics.