Reply
Wed 30 Oct, 2013 10:04 am
Context:
J Med Ethics. 1985 Dec;11(4):196-7.
Physicians' strikes--a
rejoinder.
Glick SM .
Abstract
The author, a physician,
rejects a previous defence of a doctors' strike. There is little justification for strikes in general, still less for doctors' strikes, he claims. Should not doctors rather 'stand above the common herd' and set an example, he asks. Furthermore the whole idea of strikes in which a third and innocent party is deliberately punished in order to apply pressure on someone else is a 'a bizarre ethic indeed' and not to his knowledge justified under any ethical theory.
More:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078858
@oristarA,
Yes Ori; how could it not
"The author" in your quote rejects "the previous defence". Your headline would seem to indicate that "the author" actually made "the previous defence" too, and hence must have changed his mind. Is that what you're trying to convey, or were there two separate authors, one of the defence and one of the rejection of the defence (as a Yank, I'd be talking about a "defense")?. In other words, your headline and your cite are at loggerheads with each other. Please clarify your intent.
@MontereyJack,
Of course Jack has nailed it. Disregard my input above
That reminds me, I must go and paint my fense.
The author is rejecting a previous argument made in defence of the right of doctors to strike (to withdraw their labour* in support of a claim).
It is highly likely therefore, that the previous defence was made by others.
(* God save our gracious Queen)
@McTag,
Quote:It is highly likely therefore, that the previous defence was made by others.
Yea Mac, well put, my impression also
re McTag:
I foresee a grudge match between Noah Webster and your Gracious Queen.
The way the sentence reads, it seems that it can be taken to mean that the author is recanting a former position, but it is far from certain that that is what is being expressed.
Selected Answer
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace