Customer Reviews

Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, With Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

As the professor of a Health Care Ethics class, I must admit to being very disappointed in this book. The first chapter's definitions of classical ethical theories is dense and not helpful at all. I didn't even have the students read it. But, as a lawyer and someone finishing his PhD in philosophy, it is the abortion chapter that I found to be quite troubling. He selectively uses quotations and selectively lays out arguments in order to refute the position he doesn't agree with. Here it is the anti-abortion position. I tell my students that the true philosopher is he or she who can see the other side's complete argument and can restate it even better than they. It is only such a person who can make an informed ethical decision. This text does not adhere to that intellectually honest principle.

Here are a few examples of where either the facts are wrong or the text is slanted. The introduction to the abortion chapter lays out a "history" of the debate and basically says that abortion was legal until men sought to show women their place and until the Catholic Church engaged in a war against science. He really says this--see p. 125. "As the church retreated from science during the period from about 1869 to 1900, it encouraged attention to Mary (who had been neglected), supported 'creationism' against geological explanations of the origins of the universe, emphasized miracles (the miracle of Fatima was recognized shortly after the First Vatican Council), and vigorously attacked Darwinism." Not only is most of this historically inaccurate or incomplete, it certainly has no place in a textbook, let alone one on Health Care Ethics. (By the way, Fatima was in 1917 and the First Vatican Council ended in 1870. When does something 47 years later become "shortly after"? Numberwise, 47 years ago was 1959. Would we say that events in 2006 occurred "shortly after" something that happened in 1959? That's my point. You have to go way out of your way to be this biased--and it has no place in a textbook!) Further, he says on p.137 that the fetus does not have brain waves until the 25th week of gestation. He states this without a footnote. In fact, the fetus has detectable brain waves between the 40th and 43rd day post-conception. That is the end of the sixth week. (See Eric Olson's _The Human Animal: Personal Identity without Psychology_ and John Kavanaugh's _Who Count as Persons_.) Nor does he address questions about a beating heart, fingerprints, or the ability to feel pain. These are all marks of a person and should be part of any intellectually honest discussion of abortion. His discussion of the potentiality question relies very heavily on the legal definition of a "person," but never says why that matters. A 1-day old baby is a "person" under the law, but has no sense of self and is not rational. Why then is it protected but the 2-week old fetus is not? He says the difference is that one is a "person" and one is not. The problem is that that is a legal definition, under a 14th Amendment analysis. It, however, does nothing to dispute Noonan, as he suggests that it does on p. 137. Listen to how bad his reasoning is: "However, having the potential to become a person is not being a person, as we realize when we consider the thousands of frozen embryos...[Also, this argument] collapses the distinction between being human and being a person." The problem is, however, that he has never told us why the fetus is not a person. He just assumes it--basically saying, "Well the law says it's not a person, so it's not a person." What kind of reasoning is that? Reader, I suggest you pore over Chapter 5 closely and tell me if you find anywhere where he offers an ARGUMENT of why a fetus is not a person and a 1-day old child is. He doesn't because it's not part of his agenda.

I could go on an on, about what he chose to talk about and what he chose to ignore, about what he chose to characterize fully and what he chose to caricature. I think that the book has some strong points, but just don't go into it expecting a full and philosophical, let alone historical, discussion of an ethical issue.

As a professor, I could easily present slanted arguments and try to sway students. One of the reasons I chose this textbook, however, was because I wanted something decidedly neutral. I wanted the students to *think* and see clearly the issues on both sides. Toward that end, I have been very disappointed.

I am researching bioethics and especially eugenics in the United States as far as it concerns the Deaf and Hard-of-hearing. Because I work in the university bookstore, I went to see what the classes which teach bioethics are using for textbooks. Dr. Pence's books were being used, and as I looked through them, I could see he dealt with many of the topics I am concerned with...allocations of scarce resources, infant non-treatment on the basis of disability, and the worth that our society puts on the life of someone with a disability. (Nice story about a Deaf-mute who wasn't informed he was going to be the experiment for piggybacking a chimp heart).

Dr. Pence is an excellent writer. This book was an easy and interesting read. It told details concerning prominent cases that I didn't know, and he gives the references to everything, so that makes my research much easier.

Again, this is one of those books that is a must-read for medical students, anyone in public health, educators, and the disabled. Knowledge is power. We can only protect ourselves in the medical community when we know about the conflicts of interests that doctors and researchers face, and how ethicists and politicians perceive not only the disabled, but everyone. In this new world where the Human Genome Project is almost finished, and doctors are already clamoring for testing of all newborns (and fetuses), and there are no protective laws on the books against discrimination...it is very apparent we may possibly have another eugenic movement on our hands. It is up to all of us as informed readers to read someone like Pence and get involved with legislation to stop this from occurring again. Karen Sadler, Science Education, University of Pittsburgh

We used this book in my medical school class and I enjoyed it very much. Pence came to Illinois this year to debate human cloning and I was impressed with him. I especially liked this book because you get all the details and context of the cases (we also used another book on principles and theories, which was pretty boring). If you only read two chapters, read the one on Karen Quinlan and the one on the Tuskegee syphilis study. Both blew my mind.

I used this text first as a student in a Bioethics course, and later as a Teaching Assistant for the same course. The book is interesting, well-written and very comprehensive in its approach to medical ethics. Though some of the material is becoming outdated (ie: Pence asserts in the book that there isn't a need to include a discussion of cloning, as it is impossible/improbable,) the text is still extremely useful. I highly recommend this book, both for enjoyment reading and for academic purposes.

This is a very informative book that is written in a way which is easy to understand. I found myself diving into it as if i was reading a novel. Excellent!

I'm finishing up my undergraduate degree and am taking a biomedics ethic class. This book by Pence is your text for the classroom. I'm no expert by any means. This book has been a way for me to get my feet wet so to speak. I've learned a ton of information. It has opened my eyes to so much and sadly it has disheartened me on what seems to be hopeless topics such as abortion/antiabortionist, health care and lack thereof, etc. But that's the way things are.

I'm glad we're reading this book as a classroom text. I'm enjoying the chapters and am learning quite a bit.

Thanks, Pence! :)

I have not read many medical/clinical ethics materials.

I am currently reading this as part of an undergraduate and post-bac philosophy class, however, and enjoy the material greatly.

I would recommend this read to anyone who sees doctors, is a doctor, or wants to be a doctor - which should be quite a large population

I am finishing up my Master's in Bioethics, and am proud to say that while I cannot claim to be an expert, I have worked hard to become informed about ALL SIDES and perspectives of bioethics issues. I will be the first to admit that I certainly have a certain perspective, belief system and even "agenda" when discussing what I know of these topics with others. Yet one of the first things we learn in Academia is the importance of intellectual honesty and integrity. As the previous reviewer noted, Pence sadly displayed little - especially in the section regarding Abortion.

I had two main complaints with this book relating to Pence's lack of intellectual integrity. The first is that he misrepresents the side he clearly is advocating (pro-abortion) AND the side he clearly is not advocating (antiabortion) by citing quotations taken out of context and misconstrues them, stating blatantly incorrect medical facts [see previous reviewer for more detail, and there were more examples than he gave], etc.] and other issues. The second is that he clearly is advocating for the pro-abortion argument while posing objectivity. I am in opposition to abortion, but I have read pro-abortion arguments that have made sense logically/philosophically and also given credibility to the antiabortion view by correctly representing the viewpoints (albeit while refuting them). Pence's abortion advocacy is lacking in both - sadly lacking in logical and philosophical credibility and also horribly lacking and misrepresenting the "antiabortion" claims.

I have much less to complain about in his other sections. On the whole I would be very wary of letting anyone take this as an objective, "factual" account. If you choose this as a class curriculum, use it as a representative of an abortion advocate and not someone trying to objectively state sides of issues to allow your students to think critically about on their own time. The other sections are less controversial and thus have less chanced of being "slanted".

I was required to read this book in an ethics class I took for a graduate degree. Despite what some say, one cannot honestly state that this book presents an objective review of medical ethical considerations. Pence's viewpoint is so decidedly left leaning in so many areas that it's impossible for the reader to come away feeling that he/she was provided with honest and objective information. I'm going to school to learn, and from a student's perspective, I don't particularly appreciate someone pushing his or her political and personal agenda at me. But, in being required to read this text for my class, that's exactly how I felt. Contrary to what some have stated, Pence's agenda remains consistent throughout the text (not just in the abortion chapter). Additionally, some of the information he provides is extremely inaccurate (beyond biased). Finally, I'm not sure who is editing this book, but the typographical, punctuation and spelling errors are countless. Don't these people have spell check??? Please, don't waste your time.

In this edition of the Classic Cases in Medical Ethics, the notes to the chapters 6 to 8 are lost. Better buy another edition