Medical Ethics and Professionalism Ethics and Professionalism ACP is devoted to policy development and implementation on issues related to medical ethics and professionalism, and is a resource for ACP members and the public. Learn More ACP Ethics Manual, Sixth Edition The ACP Ethics Manual is intended to guide physicians in making ethical decisions in clinical practice, teaching and medical research. Read the ACP Ethics Manual, Sixth Edition Physician Charter on Professionalism The Physician Charter on Professionalism was developed through a collaboration between the ABIM Foundation, the ACP Foundation and the European Federation of Internal Medicine. ACP received an ABIM Foundation “Putting the Charter into Practice” grant to develop physician education materials addressing stewardship of health care resources. Read the Physician Charter Ethics Issues and Position Papers Read more about the Position Papers. Stewardship of Health Care Resources CME credit is available for completion of ACP's Case Studies on stewardship. Contact Us
The Story Of Positive Thinking We have all heard the slogans. “Think Positive!”, “Expect only the best outcomes!”, “Strive to be happy”, “Avoid negativity!” Positive thinking has become quite popular amongst spiritual communities and even in the business world. But let’s tune into the underlined key words that are often paired with this concept. Notice how agitated and demanding these thoughts and concepts feel in the body. Sure, we can try to avoid or shape this moment all we want and believe that this is how you create your ‘ideal’ reality. The truth is, there can be a belief system or a suppressed emotional baggage behind our thoughts and desires. Why should we put so much effort in creating happiness? Notice how our minds have been programmed to avoid uncomfortable feelings. “An uncomfortable feeling is like a compassionate alarm clock that says, “You’re in the dream.” Self-policing our way to “happiness” is no different than walking on eggshells. And guess what happens when we try to avoid what challenges us?
Game Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) - StumbleUpon First published Sat Jan 25, 1997; substantive revision Wed May 5, 2010 Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among economic agents produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those agents, where the outcomes in question might have been intended by none of the agents. The meaning of this statement will not be clear to the non-expert until each of the italicized words and phrases has been explained and featured in some examples. Doing this will be the main business of this article. First, however, we provide some historical and philosophical context in order to motivate the reader for the technical work ahead. 1. The mathematical theory of games was invented by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944). Despite the fact that game theory has been rendered mathematically and logically systematic only since 1944, game-theoretic insights can be found among commentators going back to ancient times. 2. 2.1 Utility
The Hastings Center - Bioethics and Public Policy » the best goal is no goal “With the past, I have nothing to do; nor with the future. I live now.” ~Ralph Waldo Emerson Post written by Leo Babauta. The idea of having concrete, achievable goals seem to be deeply ingrained in our culture. These days, however, I live without goals, for the most part. It means you stop letting yourself be limited by goals. Consider this common belief: “You’ll never get anywhere unless you know where you’re going.” And there’s the rub: you have to open your mind to going places you never expected to go. Today, I live mostly without goals. The problem with goals In the past, I’d set a goal or three for the year, and then sub-goals for each month. Unfortunately, it never, ever works out this neatly. And so your weekly goals and monthly goals get pushed back or side-tracked, and you get discouraged because you have no discipline. Of course, you don’t actually end up getting there. Here’s the secret: the problem isn’t you, it’s the system! How it works What do you do, then? Quick questions
How to Disagree March 2008 The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. Many who respond to something disagree with it. The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. DH0. This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. u r a fag!!!!!!!!!! But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. The author is a self-important dilettante. is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag." DH1. An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. Of course he would say that. This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. DH2. DH3. DH4. DH5.
Bioethics Forum - The Blog of the Hastings Center Report Journal editor defends retraction of GMO-rats study while authors reveal some of paper's history Retraction Watch "...claiming COPE guidelines somehow supports the decision [to retract] doesn't seem valid." Big Data + Big Pharma = Big Money Charles Ornstein, ProPublica "Need another reminder of how much drugmakers spend to discover what doctors are prescribing? U Faculty Calls for Review of Controversial Drug Study Jeremy Olson, Star Tribune "Nearly a decade after Dan Markingson died by suicide while participating in a U of M drug trial for schizophrenics, the U’s Faculty Senate raised his death as a reason to re-examine their institution’s handling of vulnerable research subjects." Make Your Wishes Known Ashwaq Masoodi, The Atlantic"The story of a 36-year-old man on life support whose family pulled the plug, and what happened next."
axioms Contents Contents | rgb Home | Philosophy Home | Axioms | Other Books by rgb: | The Book of Lilith | Axioms is a work that explores the true nature of human knowledge, in particular the fundamental nature of deductive and inductive reasoning. It begins by embracing Hume's Skepticism and Descartes' one ``certain'' thing, and then looking for a way out of the solipsistic hell this leaves one in in terms of ``certain'' knowledge. Indeed, to the extent that philosophy in the past has sought to provide certain answers to virtually any question at all, philosophy itself proves to be bullshit - all philosophical arguments ultimately come back to at least one unprovable premise, usually unstated, and can be refuted by simply asserting ``I don't agree with your premises.'' The way out is to give up the idea of certain knowledge. Axioms by Robert G. Dedication No book is written in a vacuum. Notice Copyright Notice Copyright Robert G. Lulu Press www.lulu.com
Principle of double effect The principle of double effect — also known as the rule of double effect; the doctrine of double effect, often abbreviated as DDE or PDE, double-effect reasoning; or simply double effect — is a set of ethical criteria which Christian philosophers, and some others, have advocated for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one's otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient's pain) may also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (sedation and a slightly shortened life). Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas's treatment of homicidal self-defense, in his work Summa Theologiae. This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if the following are true: Intentional harm versus side effects In their use of the distinction between intent and foresight without intent, advocates of double effect make three arguments. The nature-of-the-act condition.
Quantum Mechanics and Determinism? - Page 2 He could just as well adjust the SIS itself, since it is the function of the SIS to filter possible courses of action in the first place. No; different parameters in the SIS will make a difference. (Random mutation does not drive ther direction of evolution). The RIG does not make decisions, only suggestions. Yes, the RIG is where the freedom comes from. Yes I can. Then the outcome is no more significant than the "flicker". Of course if you now wish to change that requirement to “could have wished otherwise” or “could have willed otherwise” or “could have thought otherwise” then that’s fine – but shifting the goalposts doesn’t change the basic argument (as shown above). Standard libertariansim needs refinement in order to work. Wishes that can never be acted on are nto a kind of FW worth wanting. How do you know that the antecedent to an intention is not another intention ? 2a doesn't answer counterxamples about addictions and other compulsions. Puh-leaze And steel isn't steel...
Australia's health system 2.0 Introduction Australia's health system is complex. It can perhaps be best described as a 'web': a web of services, providers, recipients and organisational structures. This chapter looks at the many components of the Australian health system, how they are organised and funded, and how they are delivered to, and used by, Australians. While for many Australians most of their contact with the health system involves a visit to a GP or pharmacist, these services are part of a much broader and complex network. Complexity is unavoidable in providing a multi-faceted and inclusive approach to meeting the health system needs of Australia's many and varied residents, when those needs are shaped by many and varied factors, including gender, age, health history and behaviours, location, and socioeconomic and cultural background. As one might expect, a system of this scale and complexity costs. Our health as a nation depends on our health as individuals-and vice versa. 2.1 Australia's health system
Guidelines for Telling the Truth to Cancer Patients + Author Affiliations For reprints and all correspondence: Hitoshi Okamura, Psychiatry Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 1-1, Tsukiji 5-chome, Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104, Japan Received September 4, 1997. Accepted September 9, 1997. Key words Recently, the importance of informed consent has been recognized especially in the context of a controlled trial in cancer care. Introduction There is now little doubt that patients should be told when cancer is diagnosed and the focus of debate has turned to improving the quality of communication with the patient, i.e. how best to present the facts and support patients thereafter. General Matters to Consider Basic Principles The diagnosis must first be discussed with the patients themselves whenever possible. Approaches to the Family In principle, family members should not be told the diagnosis of cancer before patients are told. Discussing the Diagnosis of Cancer in Different Situations A. When a definitive diagnosis has been made A. B. C.
Here are all the ways we died in the 20th Century Recommended by Robbie Gonzalez Medicine, As You Know It, Is Younger Than You Probably Realize Can You Guess What This Is An Image Of? FakeScience.org – and its affiliated tumblr – is a spoof science si... Should You Really Be Blowing Your Nose Like That? A Movie About Science Fraud Is Killing At The Korean Box Office This Terrifying Photo Of Super Typhoon Vongfong Looks Fake. The Manhattan Apartment Farthest From Any Subway Costs $18.9-Million Sexting May Be A 'Normal' Part Of Adolescent Sexual Development Read Carl Sagan's Compelling Pitch For An American TV Show About Drugs How to Make Mathematically Precise Pancakes How Much Would It Cost To Raise A Kid Like Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes 8th Grader Pens Creative Algebra Problem About Star Wars, J.J. The Colbert Report Honors Sally Ride, America's First Woman In Space This Chair Casts A Rather Eldritch Shadow Names are hard Can You Solve 'The Hardest Logic Puzzle In The World'? A Medical First: Woman Successfully Gives Birth With A Donated Womb