User:Ndamargi/sandbox

Relevant Information

 * Everything in the article seems to be relevant to the topic of philosophy of medicine, however I would like to understand where the ethics of all of this comes to play. It seems that this page only talks about the differences in philosophies in medicine but what is the discussion behind these differences or the specific interest regarding the ontologies of medicine. It is heavy on facts, as it should be, but I think I would like to understand the dilemma between the different philosophies of medicine.
 * I like this idea "understanding the dilemma between the different philosophies of medicine" I will be adding a section of this once I find reliable sources and more information related to this.

Position of Page

 * The article seems to be neutral for the most part as it mainly discusses the different philosophies, but what are the impacts of these philosophies in understanding medicine? After reading this page, I have an understanding of what the philosophies of medicine are.

Main/Under-represented viewpoints

 * There seems to be a lot more information on the Ontology of medicine and minimal on metaphysics. It would be nice to see an expansion of this and an expansion on all of this from an ethical perspective. As in the how these philosophies might affect practicing medicine.
 * Definitely will be expanding more on metaphysics

Reliable sources

 * Looking at the references and going through them, I would say that the references are reliable due to the fact that most are from journals. It doesn't seem biased at all, but like I said before, maybe it might be good to get an understanding of why certain philosophy of medicine is understood the way they are and how ethics nowadays play a role in this.

Out-of-Date/Missing information

 * Most of the references used are from the past 10 years so I would say nothing is really out of date. The only thing I would add is the Ethics section and how it plays in to medicine nowadays.

= Article Evaluation: Euthanasia and the slippery slope =

Evaluating Content

 * What I found most distracting was that the material jumped to different timelines then different people that were not previously introduced
 * The most recent study that was spoken about was from 2010. Some more recent events should be brought up
 * The introduction could have done a better job of introducing the material and topic, perhaps even what the sections to follow would be about.
 * The paragraphs itself jumped around a lot topic to topic with not a lot of introduction to any of it.
 * A lot of "history" that did not really relate back to current situation of the concerns of the slippery slope
 * The scenarios with "A" and "B" could have been better explained because I lost track.
 * Many of the things were put quotations which also distracted my reading.

Evaluating tone

 * It is very fact based and neutral from my reading
 * Most of the articles were about topics against Euthanasia

Evaluating sources

 * The few sources I clicked on worked.
 * Most of the sources are related to the topic but somewhat unimportant to the point of the article.
 * The sources that I clicked on were neutral in tone.

Checking the talk page

 * There are no talks happening about this article.
 * Someone linked a few useful sources that could be used for the article
 * This article was up for discussion that it should be deleted but it was voted against that.
 * It has received a grade of C. Both low and mid importance have been given.
 * It is within scope of WikiProject's Death and Philosophy
 * We have not really spoken about this topic in depth yet in class, but I believe when we do it will be less history fact based and more about recent events and cases.

= Article Selection: Philosophy of medicine =

Evaluating Content

 * The introduction could use some more information or background
 * Maybe some slight history for the philosophy of medicine how it came to be?
 * Important people of could also be mentioned here rather than all the way at the bottom
 * Good job of organizing I believe they spoke about the different branches and went into more depth speaking about that in the different headings
 * Mentioned medical ethics and bioethics in introduction but nothing more for that. Additional information I believe should be written about that.
 * Analytic philosophy of medicine is mentioned as a new school yet again only mentioned in the introduction
 * The sub heading information is good but in some areas it lacks flow and seems more bullet pointed then a sentence

Evaluation Tone

 * Fact based and neutral

Evaluating Sources

 * A lot of sources are for the definitions of topics mentioned
 * All that were clicking on worked

Checking the Talk Page

 * Rated start class with mid and low importance
 * Talk page was not active would need to go into sub groups talk pages

Placebo [edit]
Placebos and the effects of placebo's has generated years of conceptual confusion about what benefits it has. Placebo does not have a definite definition. Some example definitions of a placebo may refer to their inertness or pharmacological inactivity in relation to the condition they are given for. Similarly, placebo effects may refer to the subjectivity or the non-specificity of those effects. These definitions in general suggest the view that when given a placebo treatment, one may merely feel better while not actually being medically treated or "cured".

The distinctions at work in these types of definition: between active and inactive/inert, specific and non-specific, and subjective and objective, have been problematized. For instance, if placebos are inactive or inert, then how do they cause placebo effects? More generally, there is scientific evidence from research investigating placebo phenomena which demonstrates that, for certain conditions (such as pain), placebo effects can be both specific and objective in the conventional sense.

Other attempts to define placebos and placebo effects therefore shift focus away from these distinctions and onto therapeutic effects that are caused or modulated by the context in which a treatment is delivered and the meaning that different aspects of treatments have for patients.

The question that usually arise with placebos is when is it ethical to give a placebo treatment rather than a standard proven treatment. It is not uncommon for physicians to offer placebos. Its effectiveness has been seen in fields such as surgery, cardiology, psychiatry, primary care, and many more. Despite this common use, some wonder if the effects are justifiably or just the natural process of the illness. Another ethical problem frequently raised is if the doctor is deceiving the patient with administering a placebo. Practical guidelines are given to physicians about the use of placebos:


 * 1) Only concern should be the well being of the patient
 * 2) Should be given to help patient suffering, not to silence
 * 3) When placebo no effective, another treatment should be given
 * 4) Placebo should not be given in place of a more effective treatment
 * 5) Physicians should not hesitate to respond honestly about the "effects" of the placebo
 * 6) If placebo has helped, discontinuing it without the presence of a more effective drug is unethical

Introduction Edit
The philosophy of medicine is a branch of philosophy that explores issues in theory, research, and practice within the field of health sciences. More specifically in metaphysical and epistemological topics. Both philosophy and medicine began with the ancient Greeks often times many of these ideas overlapping. It was not until the nineteenth century that the professionalization of the philosophy of medicine came to be. Still there have been debates of whether or not the philosophy of medicine is considered a field of its own but in recent years there have been a variety of university courses, journals, books, textbooks and conferences dedicated to the philosophy of medicine making it really establish itself as a field.

= Introduction = The philosophy of medicine is a branch of philosophy that explores issues in theory, research, and practice within the field of health sciences. More specifically in topics of metaphysics, epistemology, and medical ethics, which overlaps with bioethics. Philosophy and medicine, both beginning with the ancient Greeks, have had a long history of overlapping ideas. It was not until the nineteenth century that the professionalization of the philosophy of medicine came to be. In the late twentieth century debates among philosophers and physicians ensued of whether or not the philosophy of medicine is considered a field of its own from either philosophy or medicine. A consensus has since been reached that it is in fact a distinct discipline with its set of separate problems and questions. In recent years there have been a variety of university courses, journals   , books    , textbooks , and conferences dedicated to the philosophy of medicine further establishing itself as a field.

Epistemology
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy of medicine concerned with knowledge. The common questions asked are "What is knowing or knowledge?", "How do we know what we know?", "What is it we know when we claim we know". Philosophers differentiate theories of knowledge into three groups: knowledge of acquaintance, competence knowledge, and propositional knowledge. The knowledge of acquaintance is to be familiar with an object or event. To best explain this would be, a surgeon would know the human anatomy before operating on the body. Competence of knowledge is to use known knowledge to perform a task skillfully. The surgeon must know how to perform the surgical procedure before executing it. Propositional knowledge is explanatory, it pertains to certain truths or facts. If the surgeon is performing on the heart it must know the physiological function of the heart before the surgery is performed.[15]

Metaphysics
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, and possibility and actuality. The questions asked within this branch are "What causes health?" and "What causes disease?". There is a growing interest in the metaphysics of medicine, particularly the idea of causality. Philosophers of medicine might not only be interested in how medical knowledge is generated, but also in the nature of such phenomena. Causation is of interest because the purpose of much medical research is to establish causal relationships, e.g. what causes disease, or what causes people to get better. The scientific processes used to generate causal knowledge give clues to the metaphysics of causation. For example, the defining feature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is that they are thought to establish causal relationships, whereas observational studies do not. In this instance, causation can be considered as something which is counterfactually dependent, i.e. the way RCTs differ from observational studies is that they have a comparison group in which the intervention of interest is not given. At least two different causal paradigms in biomedicine have been identified – the Humean, linear, mono-factorial paradigm championed mainly in clinical medicine; and the non-linear, reciprocal, multi-factorial paradigm invoked in epidemiology.