User:Alexander Quellhorst/Choose an Article

Option 1

 * Philosophy of Healthcare
 * While the article acknowledges its Americentric perspective, it fails to make any significant mentioning of religiosity. I want to provide information from a religious/theological perspective that have played and continue to play roles in our conversations regarding the philosophy of health care, such as "prayer healing", the sanctity of life, and a divine calling to take up medicine. It is important to note that a lack of religiosity does not indicate a lack of following principles found in religion, which I hope to highlight.
 * Sevensky, R L. “The Religious Foundations of Health Care:a Conceptual Approach.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 9, no. 3, Jan. 1983, pp. 165–169., doi:10.1136/jme.9.3.165:
 * Sansom, Dennis L. “Healthcare, Religious Obligations, and Caring for the Poor.” Ethics and Medicine: An International Journal of Bioethics, vol. 34, no. 2, 2019, pp. 117–126.



Option 2

 * Will (philosophy)
 * This article fails to properly acknowledge the view of determinism, and doesn't elaborate on the roles played by Heraclitus or Descartes. Although these may seem like trivial exclusions, determinism is a notion that is at the forefront of contemporary conversations regarding will and free will ("free will" generates a much larger amount of content), as it has serious implications on morality.
 * Embry, Brian. “Descartes on Free Will and Moral Possibility.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 96, no. 2, Apr. 2016, pp. 380–398., doi:10.1111/phpr.12313.

Option 3

 * Philosophy of Psychology
 * This article does a fair job at discussing the interdisciplinary idea of the philosophy of psychology. However, it does not bring Relational Frame Theory up at all, which is a tad shocking. Although the theory is psychological in nature, its development certainly emits the reflective essence of philosophy, and would be worth mentioning in detail. While the author of my source is critical of RFT, he provides insight as to how it can be understood and why it hasn't held much weight in recent years.
 * Burgos, Jose E. “Laudable Goals, Interesting Experiments, Unintelligible Theorizing: A Critical Review of Relational Frame Theory.” Behavior and Philosophy, vol. 31, 2003, pp. 19–45.
 * Burgos, Jose E. “Laudable Goals, Interesting Experiments, Unintelligible Theorizing: A Critical Review of Relational Frame Theory.” Behavior and Philosophy, vol. 31, 2003, pp. 19–45.