#Moti Gorin

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Leor Sapri

Published: Dec 15, 2023

The core question in lawsuits over state-level age restrictions on “gender-affirming care” or former patients suing their providers for fraud or malpractice is whether sex-trait modification is an evidence-based and ethical medical practice. Recognizing the limits of their own knowledge on such matters, judges have turned to expert witnesses to help them understand the key issues at play. But since both sides in these legal contests appoint expert witnesses to back their claims (typically medical doctors and mental-health professionals), judges must determine which are more credible.

A recent exchange between Moti Gorin, an associate professor of philosophy and bioethicist at Colorado State University, and Alejandra Caraballo, a transgender activist and cyberlaw instructor at Harvard Law School, provides crucial insight into how these questions bear on the outcome of lawsuits over gender medicine. In a paper titled “The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry,” published earlier this year in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Caraballo argues that judges should disregard the opinions of medical professionals who testify on behalf of states seeking to restrict “gender-affirming care.” In a newly published letter to the editor in the same journal, Gorin shows the fatal flaws in Caraballo’s arguments. (The journal also gave Caraballo the chance to respond to Gorin.)

Caraballo devotes considerable space to maligning experts and organizations skeptical or critical of “gender-affirming care” as being driven by “anti-transgender” animus. As Gorin points out, these are

serious allegations, directed at named entities and individuals, and presented not on a social media platform or in the opening statement of an attorney engaged in courtroom advocacy but in the pages of a peer-reviewed, academic journal. One should therefore expect strong evidence in support of such allegations, in keeping with the usual norms of academic publishing. Those norms require, inter alia, that easily-verifiable factual claims be true, that accurate and otherwise adequate citations be provided, that the author avoid unnecessarily inflammatory language, and so on.

Caraballo provides zero evidence for these accusations. For example, Caraballo describes Stephen Levine, a professor of psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine with five decades of clinical experience treating gender dysphoric patients, as “one of the most prolific anti-transgender medical expert [sic] in the country” and claims that he “has not published peer-reviewed research in the relevant field.” As Gorin observes, however, “It is easy to confirm that this claim is plainly false.” Levine, who chaired the HBIGDA’s (now WPATH) Fifth Standards of Care and served on the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders, has many peer-reviewed publications in the field, including landmark papers like “The Myth of ‘Reliable Research’” that touch directly on the evidence base for pediatric gender medicine.

Gorin provides other examples of blatant falsehoods in Caraballo’s paper, raising the question of how the Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics could allow such defamatory statements to be made in its pages without even minimal corroboration. As Gorin later explained on X, academic publishing relies on a certain degree of trust. Editors and reviewers assume that scholars will not, for instance, blatantly mischaracterize sources they cite, as Caraballo appears to have done. Recently, a prominent physician argued that the scandal of pediatric “gender-affirming care” was made possible due to a “broken chain of trust” within the medical and scientific establishment, with activist clinicians and researchers exploiting the chains of trust built up over generations by their professional forebearers. That physician is Stephen Levine.

No less embarrassing for Caraballo than the many factual errors in the original article is Caraballo’s apparent misunderstanding of the rules of evidence in adjudication. Here, Gorin takes Caraballo to task on the author's own turf and shows a superior grasp of the issues.

First, some context. Courts are generally a bad forum in which to settle scientific debates. Among other problems, judges are not subject-area experts and have little time to master the nuances of scientific controversies; they must inevitably decide between competing claims of subject-area experts. By definition, such contests require non-experts to substitute their own judgment for that of at least one expert—a scenario that can easily undermine the judge’s credibility in the eyes of scientific critics.

In the 1923 case Frye v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals opined that it was hard to determine when a “scientific principle or discovery crosses the line between the experimental and demonstrable stages,” and that, in order to do so, judges should consider whether a scientific principle or discovery has “gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

In 1975, Congress adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 702 states, “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.” In the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Rule 702 supersedes the Frye test of “general acceptance." The Court laid out four criteria to guide judges in their assessment of the reliability of expert testimony:

1. The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; 2. The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; 3. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and 4. The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

It’s easy to see how these doctrinal issues bear directly on the current debate over “gender-affirming care.” When advocates of gender-affirming care maintain that these controversial procedures are evidence-based, they cite the consensus of professional medical associations. Critics point out that this consensus is manufactured and enforced through suppression of contrary viewpoints. They point out that consensus-based medicine is not necessarily evidence-based medicine.

Caraballo’s position is that expert testimony from the likes of Levine and the psychologist James Cantor—author of the definitive, peer-reviewed fact-check of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ policy statement on “gender-affirming care”—should be discounted on the grounds that Levine and Cantor do not directly provide “gender-affirming” medical treatments to minors and that they operate outside the consensus of U.S. medical associations.

Regarding the first claim, if clinicians do not approve minors for puberty suppression, cross-sex hormones, or surgeries, that might be because they don’t believe that these interventions are evidence-based and ethical. Moreover, as Cantor has explained in expert witness testimony, the expertise of clinicians is different from that of scientists. The clinician’s expertise “regards applying general principles to the care of an individual patient and the unique features of that case.” The scientist’s expertise “is the reverse, accumulating information about many individual cases and identifying the generalizable principles that may be applied to all cases.” Accordingly, Cantor writes, “In legal matters, the most familiar situation pertains to whether a given clinician correctly employed relevant clinical standards. Often, it is other clinicians who practice in that field who will be best equipped to speak to that question. When it is the clinical standards that are themselves in question, however, it is the experts in the assessment of scientific studies who are the relevant experts.” For good reason, Caraballo’s criterion—that a doctor must practice a type of intervention in order to qualify as an expert in the evidence base for that intervention—is neither mentioned nor implied in the Daubert standards.

Not just that, but clinicians who practice “gender-affirming care” are likely to find themselves in intellectual, professional, and financial conflicts of interest, which may produce confirmation bias and impair their ability to dispassionately assess the evidence for the care they provide.

In short, Caraballo’s characterization of who counts as an expert is a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Caraballo conveniently defines as “experts” only those who practice, and by implication agree with, “gender-affirming care” for kids. It would be as if we agreed to define only clinicians who practice lobotomy as “experts” on whether lobotomy is an evidence-based practice.

As for Caraballo’s second point, about “anti-transgender” experts being outside the consensus in the field, Gorin points out that, under Daubert, this should not disqualify the opinions of these experts. To recall, the court in Daubert explicitlyrejected the “general acceptance” standard in Frye as a prerequisite for determining the reliability of testimony. “It is easy to see why ‘general acceptance’ is too strict a requirement,” writes Gorin. “It would exclude from the start expert testimony that, despite being inconsistent with generally-held opinion or consensus, proves to be consistent with the truth.” Commitment to science means above all commitment to the scientific method. As the Court put it in Daubert, “The focus . . . must be solely on principles and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate.”

Caraballo’s typo-riddled response to Gorin’s criticism complains that he is “hyper fixat[ed] on minor errors rather than the broader argument.” (In fact, Gorin’s examples of Caraballo’s factual errors go to the heart of Caraballo’s thesis that the experts in question are driven by animus rather than good-faith disagreement with the prevailing consensus.) Caraballo then resorts to more mudslinging and name-calling, for instance characterizing Levine as a “conversion therapist” because he uses exploratory therapy for his pediatric patients rather than automatically “affirming” their self-diagnosed “gender identity” as permanent and eligible for hormonal treatments. To support the accusation, Caraballo cites a paper by a transgender bioethicist who opposes “gatekeeping” for drugs and surgeries on the grounds that teenagers should have the right to turn their bodies into “gendered art pieces.”

Caraballo then continues to impugn the motives of “anti-transgender” expert witnesses by claiming that they are paid for their work—an unremarkable observation and one that conveniently ignores the fact that experts on the other side are also paid. For example, Jack Turban is paid up to $400 per hour to testify against state age-restriction laws. (It was money well spent: Turban revealed that he does not understand the basics of evidence-based medicine.)

Speaking of ulterior motives: in a footnote, Caraballo discloses that “these witnesses provided a report that impacted my ability to access care when I visit family in Florida. I can no longer obtain refills there legally due to restrictions placed on adult care. Additionally, my care in Massachusetts has been severely affected by the large influx of trans people fleeing states such as Florida. While this may be an elective academic indulgence for Gorin, this affects my healthcare directly.”

Caraballo ends by wondering, “Why should gender affirming care be considered differently where non-practitioners of a field testify on the relevant standards, they themselves do not practice?”

The answer is simple: those who provide irreversible, sterilizing, and often disfiguring “treatments” to kids on the belief that these young people were “born in the wrong body” are ideologues who need to be reined in by their more professional colleagues. For Caraballo, apparently, only blood-letters should testify on the merits of blood-letting.

==

When activists get desperate, their lies get more egregious.

Caraballo needs to return his law degree. He's dangerously unqualified.

[shrike-dyke]

[nrip]

Healthcare, social media and a web of moral issues

Ethics asks what we owe to one another and how we should treat one another. The internet has changed the landscape in which we, as humans, relate, and ethicists need to keep pace," explains Assistant Professor of Philosophy Moti Gorin.

Gorin is a bioethicist—a specialist within the field of applied ethics. He articulates two general aims of bioethicists: "The first is better to identify and understand ethical issues in the life sciences, medical research, and clinical practice. The second is to provide ethical guidance to scientists and health professionals as they do their work. This second aim can be achieved directly, as when clinical ethicists work with physicians or participate in IRBs [Institutional Review Boards], or indirectly, as when bioethicists serve on regulatory committees that develop and enforce ethical standards and guidelines."

In a new publication in the Hastings Center Report, Gorin and his co-authors, Melanie Terrasse and Dominic Sisti, are focused on the first aim—identifying, understanding, and urging more sustained attention to what they see as a new set of issues arising from our interactions with and through the internet. The authors demonstrate how online technologies affect human health and well-being and thus are of special concern to bioethicists. In the article, they consider issues such as mental health concerns from prolonged online exposure, the spread of health misinformation on social media platforms, and the rise of telemedicine in rural areas.

The problems begin with the use of the internet itself. Gorin explains, "The internet is a tremendous resource, unparalleled in human history. But, like practically any other resource, it can be used well or badly." Gorin continues, "studies show that the heavy use of the internet, especially social media, can have negative mental health effects." These negative repercussions include anxiety and depression, especially in girls. According to a study conducted by Facebook, reductions in well-being are more likely to occur when one is engaged with the internet through passive consumption of content, rather than actively involved with others.

Bioethicist and CSU Assistant Professor Moti Gorin. Credit: Colorado State University

Gorin targets corporations in producing this effect: "One problem, at least as I see it, is the incentive structure. Facebook, for example, is not primarily or even largely concerned with promoting or even respecting human welfare. They are concerned, first and foremost, with expanding their market share and maximizing profits." Given that the internet is driven by this 'attention economy,' corporations are concerned with keeping users on their platforms and have no incentive to consider the long-term health implications of such use.

Gorin explains that social media, via the use of proprietary algorithms, also lends itself to the reproduction of all sorts of echo chambers, i.e., online spaces that broadcast a narrow range of viewpoints, including views about our health. Our online engagement in such spaces confirms and convinces us that a particular position, often the one we already hold, is the right one. Over time, this can lead some people to believe that extreme views are commonplace. "We've seen an increase in 'fake news,' the proliferation of anti-vaccine communities, and the rise of charlatans across the internet," Gorin explains. Bioethicists should ask whether or not social media companies have an obligation to promote public health by monitoring, and possibly censoring, blatantly false and possibly harmful content from their platforms.

Furthermore, Gorin and his co-authors point out that too much online health information is misleading or simply wrong. For example, two studies—one on YouTube videos on sunscreen, tanning beds, and skin cancer prevention and another on state-funded pregnancy resource centers—show a high degree of false and misleading health information that does not align with prevailing medical guidelines. Gorin responds, "Bioethicists should be aware of inaccurate health claims and, in collaboration with communications scholars and legitimate health care news platforms, develop strategies to quickly and effectively counter pseudoscience with trustworthy health information." Some companies, like Facebook, engage in some self-policing but Gorin claims that it rarely goes far enough in regulating misinformation.

Even the practice of healthcare has shifted with the rise of online communication with both benefits and disadvantages. There are many more opportunities now for "telemedicine" or "e-health" in which a healthcare provider treats a patient remotely via video chats or instant messaging. This is most commonly practiced when serving members of rural communities who lack access to doctors and necessary treatment. Gorin and his colleagues explain: "Telemedicine allows rural residents to benefit from medical consultations with specialists they could not otherwise access, thus making it an effective and cost‐efficient solution to providing care to hard‐to‐reach populations. For this reason, many have argued that telemedicine offers large benefits with regards to issues of social justice and equitable access to care."

While telemedicine may seem like an advantage in many ways, Gorin argues that it may exasperate the inequities that rural communities already face in relation to public services. Furthermore, the authors demonstrate how remote care may "depersonalize medical interactions and erode authentic therapeutic relationships with patients. For example, some doctors have expressed concerns that the lack of physical touch and smell could affect their ability to make accurate diagnoses." The widespread use of telemedicine may mask the real need of rural citizens to have increased physical access to medical practitioners.

The provider-patient relationship is also more likely to enter blurry ethical terrain with the ubiquity of social media and pervasive public sharing of personal information. Gorin explains, "this raises so many ethical questions. Can a doctor (or psychologist, or therapist) 'google' a patient? Can she snoop on her patients' social media accounts? While this may certainly shed light on problems like general health, substance use, or relationship stress, there are definitely issues of consent that need to be navigated here." Likewise, medical practitioners need to be mindful of their own social media posts. While social media may help humanize providers, there is also the chance of eroding trust in them if they post inappropriate content, such as patient interactions or their own health problems. The private/public boundary becomes very blurry, if even visible at all, in a time when so much of our lives is publicly accessible.

With the rise of the internet comes problems—for civil discourse, public health, and corporate manipulation—that we could not have imagined a generation ago. While there are many incentives for technological advancements, those incentives are often independent of any ethical considerations. Gorin thinks we should all be more mindful of what is happening "behind the scenes" and the motivations and incentives of those creating and maintaining online platforms. In the end, Gorin recommends that "we should find ways to influence the development and implementation of these technologies, such that it's not only a small number of people with narrow interests who make these incredibly impactful decisions." The more the internet becomes democraticized in its very production, the more likely it will serve the interests, health, and well-being of all its users.

[tannertoctoo-blog]

Untitled Document

March 22, 2017

Biology & Philosophy, Vol. 32, #2, 2017 British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Vol. 25, #1, 2017 Environmental Ethics, Vol. 38, #3, 2016 Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 20, #1, 2017 Ethics, Vol. 127, #3, 2017 Hastings Center Report, Vol. 47, #2, 2017 Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, #4, 2017 Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 48, #1, 2017 Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 51, #1, 2017 Law and Philosophy, Vol. 36, #2, 2017 Metaphilosophy, Vol. 48, #1-2, 2017 Philosophical Investigations, Vol. 40, #2, 2017 Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 30, #1, 2016 Philosophical Studies, Vol. 174, #4, 2017 Philosophers’ Imprint, Vol. 17, nos. 1- 6, 2017 Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 43, #2, 2017 Studia Logica, Vol. 105, #2, 2017 Synthese, Vol. 194, #3, 2017

Biology & Philosophy, Vol. 32, #2, 2017 Editorial Michael Weisberg. Editorial. Original Papers Thomas Pradeu. Thirty Years of Biology & Philosophy: Philosophy of Which Biology? Steve Donaldson, Thomas Woolley, Nick Dzugan, Jason Goebel. Prediction in Evolutionary Systems. Roberto Fumagalli. On the Neural Enrichment of Economic Models: Recasting the Challenge. Eric Funkhouser. Is Self-Deception an Effective Non-Cooperative Strategy? Alison K. McConwell, Adrian Currie. Gouldian Arguments and the Sources of Contingency. John J. Welch. What's Wrong with Evolutionary Biology? Brief Communication Pierre-Luc Germain, Lucie Laplane. Metastasis as Supra-Cellular Selection? A Reply to Lean and Plutynski. Review Essays Ellen Clarke, Cecilia Heyes. The Swashbuckling Anthropologist: Henrich on The Secret of Our Success. Carl Brusse. Making do Without Selection—Review Essay of “Cultural Evolution: Conceptual Challenges” by Tim Lewens. Back to Top

British Journal for the History of Philosophy, Vol. 25, #1, 2017 Editorial Michael Beaney. Editorial. Articles Marta Heckel. Plato on the Role of Contradiction in Education. Stephen Howard. Why did Leibniz Fail to Complete his Dynamics? Joshua Cockayne. Contemporaneity and Communion: Kierkegaard on the Personal Presence of Christ. Katrina Mitcheson. Scepticism and Self-Transformation in Nietzsche – On the Uses and Disadvantages of a Comparison to Pyrrhonian Scepticism. Katherina Kinzel. Wilhelm Windelband and the Problem of Relativism. Stefan Brandt. Sellars and Quine on Empiricism and Conceptual Truth. Symposium on Schelling and Freedom Sebastian Gardner. The Metaphysics of Human Freedom: From Kant’s Transcendental Idealism to Schelling’s Freiheitsschrift. Peter Dews. Theory Construction and Existential Description in Schelling’s Treatise on Freedom. Sebastian Gardner. Reply to Dews, and a Plea for Schelling. Review Article Johannes Zachhuber. Anima Mundi: The Rise of the World Soul Theory in Modern German Philosophy. Book Reviews Naoya Iwata. Clitophon's Challenge: Dialectic in Plato's Meno, Phaedo, and Republic. Demetrios Dedes. The Philosophy of Gemistos Plethon: Platonism in Late Byzantium, Between Hellenism and Orthodoxy. Lynda Gaudemard. Reforming the Art of Living: Nature, Virtue, and Religion in Descartes's Epistemology. Kristopher G. Phillips. Historical Dictionary of Descartes and Cartesian Philosophy. Sheldon Richmond. Spinoza’s Critique of Religion and Its Heirs: Marx, Benjamin, and Adorno. Charlotte Alderwick. Interanimations: Receiving Modern German Philosophy. Hanne Appelqvist. Representation and Reality in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. Back to Top

Environmental Ethics, Vol. 38, #3, 2016 Articles Jame Schaefer. Imprudence and Intergenerational Injustice: The Ongoing Vices of Opting for Nuclear Fueled Electricity. Debra J. Erickson. The Case for Casuistry in Environmental Ethics. Discussion Papers Kalpita Bhar Paul, Meera Baindur. Leopold’s Land Ethic in the Sundarbans: A Phenomenological Approach. Samantha Clark. Nothing Really Matters: Jean-Paul Sartre, Negation, and Nature. Mark Michael. Environmental Pragmatism, Community Values, and the Problem of Reprehensible Implications. Ovadia Ezra. Global Distributive Justice: An Environmental Perspective. Book Reviews Andrea R. Gammon. Emplotting Virtue: A Narrative Approach to Environmental Virtue Ethics. Brian Treanor. The Wisdom of Frugality: Why Less is More—More or Less. Back to Top

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 20, #1, 2017 Editorial A . W. Musschenga, F. R. Heeger. Editorial Note. Albert W. Musschenga, Gerben Meynen. Moral Progress: An Introduction. Original Papers Caroline T. Arruda. The Varieties of Moral Improvement, or Why Metaethical Constructivism Must Explain Moral Progress. Julia Hermann. Possibilities of Moral Progress in the Face of Evolution. Markus Christen, Darcia Narvaez. Comparing and Integrating Biological and Cultural Moral Progress. Jeremy Evans. A Working Definition of Moral Progress. Jesse S. Summers. Rationalizing our Way into Moral Progress. Jan Willem Wieland. Willful Ignorance. Anders Schinkel, Doret J. de Ruyter. Individual Moral Development and Moral Progress. Toni Rønnow-Rasmussen. On Locating Value in Making Moral Progress*. Michele M. Moody-Adams. Moral Progress and Human Agency. Dale Jamieson. Slavery, Carbon, and Moral Progress. Book Reviews Mark Alfano. Christoph Luetge, Hannes Rusch, & Matthias Uhl (eds.), Experimental Ethics: Toward an Empirical Moral Philosophy. Daniela Zumpf. Axel Honneth (2015), Die Idee des Sozialismus. Christoph Schmidt-Petri. Tatjana Visak & Robert Garner (Eds.): The Ethics of Killing Animals. Sebastian Köhler. Chrisman, Matthew. The Meaning of ‘Ought’. Beyond Descriptivism and Expressivism in Metaethics. Jesse Kirkpatrick. Nancy Sherman, Afterwar. Karsten Witt. Tim Lewens, The Biological Foundations of Bioethics. Annette Dufner, Bettina Schoene-Seifert. Weyma Lübbe: Nonaggregationismus. Joanne Beswick. Pabst Battin, Margaret (Editor). ‘The Ethics of Suicide’. Historical Sources. Gerald Lang. Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. Luck Egalitarianism. Back to Top

Ethics, Vol. 127, #3, 2017 Articles Paulina Sliwa. Moral Understanding as Knowing Right from Wrong. David Owens. Wrong by Convention. Symposium on Ethics and Decision Theory Seth Lazar. Introduction. Seth Lazar. Deontological Decision Theory and Agent-Centered Options. Lara Buchak. Taking Risks behind the Veil of Ignorance. J. Robert G. Williams. Indeterminate Oughts. Sergio Tenenbaum. Action, Deontology, and Risk: Against the Multiplicative Model. Discussions Eva Schmidt. New Trouble for “Reasons as Evidence”: Means That Don’t Justify the Ends. Stephen J. White. Transmission Failures. Review Essay F. M. Kamm. The Purpose of My Death: Death, Dying, and Meaning. Book Reviews Adam Swift. Danielle Allen, Tommie Shelby, Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Michael Rebell, and Quiara Alegría Hudes, Education and Equality. Mattias Iser. Neera Chandhoke, Democracy and Revolutionary Politics. Elisabeth Pacherie. John M. Doris, Talking to Our Selves: Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency. Jonathan Mitchell. Paul Katsafanas, The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency and the Unconscious. Stephen C. Angle. Sungmoon Kim, Public Reason Confucianism: Democratic Perfectionism and Constitutionalism in East Asia. Cindy Holder. Loren E. Lomasky and Fernando R. Tesón, Justice at a Distance: Extending Freedom Globally. Uri D. Leibowitz. Patricia Marino, Moral Reasoning in a Pluralistic World. Andrea C. Westlund. Martha Nussbaum, Anger and Forgiveness: Resentment, Generosity, Justice. Stephen Kearns. Carolina Sartorio, Causation and Free Will. Christopher Howard. Mark Schroeder, Expressing Our Attitudes: Explanation and Expression in Ethics. David Wiens. Leif Wenar, Blood Oil: Tyrants, Violence, and the Rules That Run the World. Back to Top

Hastings Center Report, Vol. 47, #2, 2017 Editorial Laura Haupt. Space for the Prisoner's Point of View. Articles Paul P. Christopher, Lorena G. Garcia-Sampson, Michael Stein, Jennifer Johnson, Josiah Rich and Charles Lidz. Enrolling in Clinical Research While Incarcerated: What Influences Participants’ Decisions? Keramet Reiter. Coercion and Access to Health Care. Moti Gorin, Steven Joffe, Neal Dickert and Scott Halpern. Justifying Clinical Nudges. Søren Holm. Authenticity, Best Interest, and Clinical Nudging. Jessica Mozersky, Vardit Ravitsky, Rayna Rapp, Marsha Michie, Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Megan Allyse. Toward an Ethically Sensitive Implementation of Noninvasive Prenatal Screening in the Global Context. Essays Mildred Z. Solomon and Bruce Jennings. Bioethics and Populism: How Should Our Field Respond? Spencer Phillips Hey and Aaron S. Kesselheim. Reprioritizing Research Activity for the Post-Antibiotic Era: Ethical, Legal, and Social Considerations. Case Study Connie R. Shi, Manjinder S. Kandola, Matthew Tobey and Elizabeth Singer. Managing Opioid Withdrawal for Hospital Patients in Custody. Commentary Arthur W. Frank. Bioethics and “Rightness”. Lawrence O. Gostin. Best Evidence Aside: Why Trump's Executive Order Makes America Less Healthy. Ruchika Mishra. Implementing California's Law on Assisted Dying. Tyler Tate. The Clue. Book Review Michael Hauskeller. Rethinking Reprogenetics. Departments Susan Gilbert. Facts, Values, and Journalism. Back to Top

Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140, #4, 2017 Editorial Domènec Melé, Josep M. Rosanas, Joan Fontrodona. Ethics in Finance and Accounting: Editorial Introduction. Original Papers Natàlia Cugueró-Escofet, Josep M. Rosanas. The Ethics of Metrics: Overcoming the Dysfunctional Effects of Performance Measurements Through Justice. Alina Beattrice Vladu, Oriol Amat, Dan Dacian Cuzdriorean. Truthfulness in Accounting: How to Discriminate Accounting Manipulators from Non-manipulators. Yves Fassin, Will Drover. Ethics in Entrepreneurial Finance: Exploring Problems in Venture Partner Entry and Exit. Christopher J. Cowton, Leire San-Jose. On the Ethics of Trade Credit: Understanding Good Payment Practice in the Supply Chain. Bradley Lail, Jason MacGregor, James Marcum, Martin Stuebs. Virtuous Professionalism in Accountants to Avoid Fraud and to Restore Financial Reporting. Miguel Alzola. Beware of the Watchdog: Rethinking the Normative Justification of Gatekeeper Liability. Arleta A. A. Majoch, Andreas G. F. Hoepner, Tessa Hebb. Sources of Stakeholder Salience in the Responsible Investment Movement: Why Do Investors Sign the Principles for Responsible Investment? Herwig Pilaj. The Choice Architecture of Sustainable and Responsible Investment: Nudging Investors Toward Ethical Decision-Making. Janine Maniora. Is Integrated Reporting Really the Superior Mechanism for the Integration of Ethics into the Core Business Model? An Empirical Analysis. S. Prakash Sethi, Terrence F. Martell, Mert Demir. An Evaluation of the Quality of Corporate Social Responsibility Reports by Some of the World’s Largest Financial Institutions. Back to Top

Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol. 48, #1, 2017 Editorial Abbreviations and Citations of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Works. Jessica N. Berry. Letter From the Editor. Proceedings from the North American Nietzsche Society Jessica N. Berry. Editorial Note. Guy Elgat. Judgments That Have Value “Only as Symptoms”: Nietzsche on the Denial of Life in Twilight of the Idols. Daniel I. Harris. Compassion and Affirmation in Nietzsche. Manuel Dries. Memento Mori, Memento Vivere: Early Nietzsche on History, Embodiment, and Value. Neil Sinhababu. Nietzschean Pragmatism. Brian Leiter. Nietzsche’s Naturalism and Nineteenth-Century Biology. P. J. E. Kail. Emden’s Nietzsche. Christian J. Emden. Nietzsche, Naturalism, and Normativity: A Reply to Brian Leiter and Peter Kail. Book Reviews Hugo Drochon. Nietzsche and Political Thought ed. by Keith Ansell-Pearson (review). Philip Mills. Nietzsche. L’antiphilosophie I. 1992–1993 by Alain Badiou (review). Keith Ansell-Pearson. On Nietzsche by Georges Bataille (review). Niklas Corall. Klassiker Auslegen 57: Friedrich Nietzsche—Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft ed. by Christian Benne and Jutta Georg (review). Wander Andrade de Paula. Arte e niilismo. Nietzsche e o Enigma do Mundo by João Constâncio (review). Laura Langone. Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy by Antoine Panaïoti (review). Kaitlyn Creasy. Naturalizing Heidegger: His Confrontation with Nietzsche, His Contributions to Environmental Philosophy by David E. Storey (review). Back to Top

Journal of Value Inquiry, Vol. 51, #1, 2017 Original Papers Rochelle DuFord. An Expanded Conception of Sentimental Value. Martijn Boot. The Right Balance. Violetta Igneski. The Human Right to Subsistence and the Collective Duty to Aid. Fergus Peace. Consequentialism, Goodness, and States of Affairs. Joshua Stuchlik. The Closeness Problem for Double Effect: A Reply to Nelkin and Rickless. Martin Sticker. When the Reflective Watch-Dog Barks: Conscience and Self-Deception in Kant. Wouter F. Kalf. Against Hybrid Expressivist-Error Theory. Simon Coghlan. The Essential Connection Between Human Value and Saintly Behavior. Katharina Nieswandt. Anscombe on the Sources of Normativity. Colin Hickey. Biomedical Enhancement and the Kantian Duty to Cultivate Our Talents. Book Reviews Luca Malatesti. Schramme, Thomas, ed. Being amoral. Iddo Landau. John Kleinig, Simon Keller, and Igor Primoratz, The Ethics of Patriotism: A Debate. Jessica Flanigan. Mark Navin, Values and Vaccine Refusal: Hard Questions in Ethics, Epistemology, and Health Care. Back to Top

Law and Philosophy, Vol. 36, #2, 2017 Symposium on Allen Buchanan’s The Heart of Human Rights. Editorial Matthew Lister. Guest Editor’s Introduction to Symposium on Allen Buchanan, The Heart of Human Rights. Book Reviews Brooke Ackerly. Interpreting the Political Theory in the Practice of Human Rights. Erin I. Kelly. Law and Institutional Legitimacy in the Practice of Human Rights. Mathias Risse. Approaching Human Rights Law Philosophically: Reflections on Allen Buchanan, The Heart of Human Rights. Allen Buchanan. Reply to Talbott, Ackerly, Kelly, and Risse. Dale Smith. Book Review. Back to Top

Metaphilosophy, Vol. 48, #1-2, 2017 Article Bob Plant. On the Domain of Metaphilosophy. D. Goldstick. The Salto Vitale Method in Philosophy. Niklas Forsberg. Thinking About a Word—Love, for Example. Bryan Frances. Extensive Philosophical Agreement and Progress. Frank Martela. Moral Philosophers as Ethical Engineers: Limits of Moral Philosophy and a Pragmatist Alternative. Staffan Angere. The Square Circle. Todd Jones and Michael Pravica. When Do Scientific Explanations Compete? Steps Toward a Heuristic Checklist. Hanne Appelqvist. What Kind of Normativity is the Normativity of Grammar? Tom Rockmore. Piketty, Marxian Political Economy, and the Law of the Falling Rate of Profit. Oliver Laas. Disagreements Over Analogies. James Andow. A Partial Defence of Descriptive Evidentialism About Intuitions: A Reply to Molyneux. Back to Top

Philosophical Investigations, Vol. 40, #2, 2017 Articles Tony Lynch and Nishanathe Dahanayake. Atheism and Morality, Guilt and Shame: Why the Moral Complacency of the New Atheism is a Mistake. Karsten Schoellner. Practical Philosophy. Ivan Milić and Stefan Reining. A Wittgensteinian Role-Based Account of Assertion. Øystein Daae Gjertsen. Symptoms of a Misunderstanding in Contemporary Academic Philosophy. Antonio Negro and Carlo Penco. Kenny's Wrong Formula. Critical Notice Roger A. Shiner. Meaning and Morality: Essays on the Philosophy of Julius Kovesi. Reviews Christopher Hamilton. Late Philosophical Writings. John Rist. The Great Riddle: Wittgenstein and Nonsense, Theology and Philosophy. Julie Daigle. The Religious Philosophy of Simone Weil: An Introduction. Aloisia Moser. Wittgenstein on Internal and External Relations: Tracing All the Connections. Back to Top

Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 30, #1, 2016 Special Issue: Metaphysics Original Articles Ralf M. Bader. Contingent Identity and Counterpart Theory. Sara Bernstein. Grounding Is Not Causation. Cian Dorr. To Be F Is To Be G. Peter Finocchiaro and Meghan Sullivan. Yet Another “Epicurean” Argument. Jeremy Goodman. An Argument For Necessitism. Paul Hovda. Parthood-Like Relations: Closure Principles And Connections To Some Axioms Of Classical Mereology. Mark Johnston. Personites, Maximality And Ontological Trash. Jon Erling Litland and Juhani Yli-Vakkuri. Vagueness & Modality—An Ecumenical Approach. Michaela Markham McSweeney. An Epistemic Account Of Metaphysical Equivalence. Daniel Nolan. Chance and Necessity. Jeffrey Sanford Russell. Qualitative Grounds. Aaron Segal. A Puzzle About Points. Jason Turner. Curbing Enthusiasm About Grounding. Jennifer Wang. Fundamentality And Modal Freedom. J. Robert G. Williams. Representational Scepticism: The Bubble Puzzle. Back to Top

Philosophical Studies, Vol. 174, #4, 2017 With Symposium on "Knowledge and Closure" Original Papers Dominic Gregory. Counterfactual Reasoning and Knowledge of Possibilities. Joachim Wündisch. Does Excusable Ignorance Absolve of Liability for Costs? Andreas Stokke. Metaphors and Martinis: A Response to Jessice Keiser. Alex Davies. Elaborations and Intuitions of Disagreement. Cristina Borgoni, Yannig Luthra. Epistemic Akrasia and the Fallibility of Critical Reasoning. Scott Brown. Against Instantiation as Identity. Bob Beddor. Justification as Faultlessness. Rachael Briggs, Graeme A. Forbes. The Growing-Block: Just One Thing After Another? Matt Duncan. Dualists Needn't be Anti-Criterialists (Nor Should They Be). Matt Duncan. Erratum To: Dualists Needn't be Anti-Criterialists (Nor Should They Be). Justin A. Capes, Philip Swenson. Frankfurt Cases: The Fine-Grained Response Revisited. Kyle Swan. Legal Ounishment of Immorality: One More into the Breach. Assaf Sharon, Levi Spectre. Evidence and the Openness of Knowledge. Juan Comesaña. On Sharon and Spectre’s Argument Against Closure. Stephen Yablo. Open Knowledge and Changing the Subject. Assaf Sharon, Levi Spectre. Replies to Comesaña and Yablo. Back to Top

Philosophers’ Imprint, Vol. 17, nos. 1- 3, 2017 Articles Samuel Cumming, Gabriel Greenberg, Rory Kelly. Conventions of Viewpoint Coherence in Film. Antonia LoLordo. Jonathan Edwards's Monism. Sam Baron, Mark Colyvan, David Ripley. How Mathematics Can Make a Difference. Ryan Preston-Roedder. Civic Trust. Abelard Podgorski. Rational Delay. Mark Textor. Towards a Neo-Brentanian Theory of Existence. Back to Top

Social Theory and Practice, Vol. 43, #2, 2017 Editorial Articles Alberto G. Urquidez. Jorge Garcia and the Ordinary Use of "Racist Belief". Lior Erez. Anti-Cosmopolitanism and the Motivational Preconditions for Social Justice. Matt S. Whitt. Felon Disenfranchisement and Democratic Legitimacy. Martijn Boot. Problems of Incommensurability. Franz Mang. Public Reason Can Be Reasonably Rejected. Desiree Lim. Selecting Immigrants by Skill: A Case of Wrongful Discrimination? Chrisoula Andreou. Advantage, Restraint, and the Circumstances of Justice. Jason Chen. The Core of Oppression: Why Is it Wrong? Referees Back to Top

Studia Logica, Vol. 105, #2, 2017 Original Papers Pablo F. Castro. Tableau Systems for Deontic Action Logics Based on Finite Boolean Algebras, and Their Complexity. Stefano Bonzio, José Gil-Férez, Francesco Paoli, Luisa Peruzzi. On Paraconsistent Weak Kleene Logic: Axiomatisation and Algebraic Analysis. Michael Schippers, Gerhard Schurz. Genuine Coherence as Mutual Confirmation Between Content Elements. M. Garapa, E. Fermé, M. D. L. Reis. Studies on Brutal Contraction and Severe Withdrawal. Bruno Jacinto, Stephen Read. General-Elimination Stability. Stanislav O. Speranski. Notes on the Computational Aspects of Kripke’s Theory of Truth. Book Reviews Valentin Goranko. Dov Gabbay, Reactive Kripke Semantics. Back to Top

Synthese, Vol. 194, #3, 2017 Special Issue: The future of social cognition: paradigms, concepts and experiments (first 10 papers), edited by Nivedita Gangopadhyay Articles Nivedita Gangopadhyay. The Future of Social Cognition: Paradigms, Concepts and Experiments. Peter Carruthers. Mindreading in Adults: Evaluating Two-Systems Views. Hannes Rakoczy. In Defense of a Developmental Dogma: Children Acquire Propositional Attitude Folk Psychology Around Age 4. Joel Smith. What is Empathy For? Quassim Cassam. What Asymmetry? Knowledge of Self, Knowledge of Others, and the Inferentialist Challenge. Søren Overgaard. The Unobserability Thesis. Albert Newen. Defending the Liberal-Content View of Perceptual Experience: Direct Social Perception of Emotions and Person Impressions. Somogy Varga. The Case for Mind Perception. Shaun Nichols. The Essence of Mentalistic Agents. Daniel D. Hutto. Basic Social Cognition Without Mindreading: Minding Minds Without Attributing Contents. Vassilios Karakostas, Elias Zafiris. Contextual Semantics in Quantum Mechanics from a Categorical Point of View. Martin Flament Fultot. Modulation : An Alternative to Instructions and Forces. Niels Skovgaard-Olsen. The Problem of Logical Omniscience, the Preface Paradox, and Doxastic Commitments. Eli Pitcovski. Getting the Big Picture. Minyao Huang. A Plea for Radical Contextualism. Christopher Willard-Kyle. Do Great Minds Really Think Alike? Back to Top