Customer Reviews

Biomedical Ethics (Opposing Viewpoints Digests)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I am the editor of this book and would like to make some clarifications concerning the reviews for this book.
I believe the two previous reviewers are discussing a different book than Biomedical Ethics: Opposing Viewpoints edited by Tamara L. Roleff for Greenhaven Press. Greenhaven Press also owns Lucent Books, and Lucent has published two other books titled Biomedical Ethics. I believe the reviews published below should go with one of the Lucent Books. For one thing, this book does not include a timeline, a copy of a uniform donor card, a copy of the Nuremburg Code or black-and-white photos.
As to BK Peters' objections to using "biased" and "value laden" arguments, that is the whole point of the Opposing Viewpoints books. Each book presents previously published articles supporting or opposing a particular point of view. The intent is to get the reader to consider the pro argument, then read the con argument, consider the merits of each argument and decide for him/herself which argument they believe is valid. Including "urban legends" and other goofy reasoning is part of the process and is designed to show the reader how far out some arguments truly are. The Opposing Viewpoints books are designed to present the different sides of the issue.

This book was great. I used it to research an essay. It was the only source I needed! It was great having both sides of an arguement in the same book. There were lot's of pertinent facts about the topic in all of the articles. As with all of the Opposing Viewpoints series, this one was great. I recommend anyone interested in such a field or if you're doing a research paper like myself to buy it.

The Opposing Viewpoints series is a series of books I first found several years ago when looking for pro and con information for papers for high school students I was tutoring. They provide articles and chapters on different sides - the "opposing viewpoints" - of the arguments and topics they cover. They are written at advanced high school and early college levels.

This book on Biomedical Ethics I have used a few times. The area of biomedical ethics is a growing and diverse field because technological advances keep increasing, as do the questions that exist around the limits of life at the beginning and the end. There are also quality of life issues to consider. Some issues seem to be very simple, but others become very complex. Can we provide unlimited medical care to everyone? Who gets to decide treatment? Can a terminally ill patient decide for himself to stop treatment? Are systems set up so that they are fair?

The introduction brings up these questions. The author uses the example of Mickey Mantle, who managed to avoid the national waiting list when he needed an organ transplant -- was that fair? Since his illness was caused by years of substance abuse, is that fair? Other examples include the possible uses of the Human Genome Project, cloning, animal testing in research, and more.

This is a good and balanced book overall. It includes a good set chapters in the appendix on organizations to contact and study questions as well as excertps from original documents in the field.

The author, Terry O'Neill, is a magazine editor, has edited other volumes of this series and others for the Greenhaven Press, and taught in high school English and social studies classes.

While I understand the desire to make the concepts simpler when the target audience is young adults, I found this book to be low in quality as compared to other ethics texts, including others in the Opposing Viewpoints series. I do believe that it is essential to teach youngsters about ethics. However, they cannot be taught critical thinking via using clearly biased and therefore misleading arguments (the "for" animal experimentation section was actually "against", with the strongest "for" arguments I have seen from other sources being left out completely). Nor is it appropriate to use urban legends as 'evidence' in the debate (kidnapped for organs! Oh my! Check snopes2.com next time). Nor should one use confusing, value laden language to support one side and denigrate the other (clones "WILL" be considered lower caste; clones "MAY" be affected by their environment). And if examples are used, they should illustrate the point, not confuse it further (Genetic Testing is Harmful, p. 57). Anyone using this book to teach would be well advised to seek some pro-science backup to balance out this text and be well-informed from other reputable sources such as the Kennedy Institute or Hastings Center.