Carl Elliott (1) (1961–)
Autor/a de White Coat, Black Hat: Adventures on the Dark Side of Medicine
Per altres autors anomenats Carl Elliott, vegeu la pàgina de desambiguació.
Sobre l'autor
Carl Elliott is a professor at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Minnesota. His work has appeared, in the New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, Believer, and Slate. He is the author or editor of six previous books, including Better Than Well and Prozac as a Way of Life.
Obres de Carl Elliott
A Philosophical Disease: Bioethics, Culture, and Identity (Reflective Bioethics) (1998) 28 exemplars
Slow Cures and Bad Philosophers: Essays on Wittgenstein, Medicine, and Bioethics (2001) — Editor — 28 exemplars
Etiquetat
Coneixement comú
- Data de naixement
- 1961
- Gènere
- male
- Nacionalitat
- USA
- Educació
- Medical University of South Carolina (MD)
University of Glasgow (PhD)
Davidson College (AB) - Professions
- physician
bioethicist
philosopher - Organitzacions
- University of Minnesota
Membres
Ressenyes
Better Than Well: American Medicine Meets the… de Carl Elliott
Interesting premise, but Dr. Elliot has difficulty sticking to the thesis -- the book feels like it is wandering, and overstuffed. I ended up feeling like only the first two chapters actually discussed enhancement technologies at all.
This started out well, but got kind of boring. What interested me most was hearing about all the human "guinea pigs" that serve as test subjects for medicines. How any drug can be truly deemed safe during these trials is beyond me.
When it comes to the literature of moral responsibility, I much prefer philosophers to psychologists and psychiatrists. The latter two professions tend to take a hard deterministic view of human behavior, according to which a person's decisions are wholly determined by heredity and environment with no room for free will. That leaves no room for nuance--no one could be morally responsible for anything.
Philosophers can be hard determinists, although most are either soft determinists (compatibalists) or libertarians on the will. All would agree that someone who is severely mentally ill to the point of not recognizing reality or not understanding right and wrong is not morally responsible for his actions. Where Eliot goes against the current psychological and psychiatric zeitgeist is in his view that a person with a personality disorder is morally responsible for his acts despite having a somewhat distorted view of reality due to his disorder. His one exception is the psychopath; when this book was written it was thought that a true psychopath has no conscience. Later research has suggested that psychopaths have a conscience but are able to turn it off or on at will.
The current trend is to deny moral responsibility or at least hold that it is greatly mitigated in people with personality disorders. Elliot is willing to admit this in extreme situations such as a person with borderline personality disorder who acts while in a fugue state. In general, however, Elliott considers personality disorders to be character flaws. This is, I think, correct, and is obscured by the social sciences' attempt to remain "non-judgmental." Yet people with personality disorders are not causally determined by their disorder to do act A instead of acts B or C. Rather, they are able to choose which action to perform, though their disorder makes it difficult at times to do the right thing. They remain morally responsible for the bad actions they perform.
Elliot does a service not only to the public at large, but also to sufferers of personality disorders. Many times the refusal of people with personality disorders (especially the Cluster B disorders--narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorders) is due to their failure to take responsibility for their bad actions. Instead, they blame others. If they realize they do have moral responsibility for their actions, that is wrong to say, "I can't help who I am," then effective treatment is possible. Elliott's approach offers a better way of appraising personality disorders and a way out of the suffering by holding people with personality disorders accountable for their actions.… (més)
Philosophers can be hard determinists, although most are either soft determinists (compatibalists) or libertarians on the will. All would agree that someone who is severely mentally ill to the point of not recognizing reality or not understanding right and wrong is not morally responsible for his actions. Where Eliot goes against the current psychological and psychiatric zeitgeist is in his view that a person with a personality disorder is morally responsible for his acts despite having a somewhat distorted view of reality due to his disorder. His one exception is the psychopath; when this book was written it was thought that a true psychopath has no conscience. Later research has suggested that psychopaths have a conscience but are able to turn it off or on at will.
The current trend is to deny moral responsibility or at least hold that it is greatly mitigated in people with personality disorders. Elliot is willing to admit this in extreme situations such as a person with borderline personality disorder who acts while in a fugue state. In general, however, Elliott considers personality disorders to be character flaws. This is, I think, correct, and is obscured by the social sciences' attempt to remain "non-judgmental." Yet people with personality disorders are not causally determined by their disorder to do act A instead of acts B or C. Rather, they are able to choose which action to perform, though their disorder makes it difficult at times to do the right thing. They remain morally responsible for the bad actions they perform.
Elliot does a service not only to the public at large, but also to sufferers of personality disorders. Many times the refusal of people with personality disorders (especially the Cluster B disorders--narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, and antisocial personality disorders) is due to their failure to take responsibility for their bad actions. Instead, they blame others. If they realize they do have moral responsibility for their actions, that is wrong to say, "I can't help who I am," then effective treatment is possible. Elliott's approach offers a better way of appraising personality disorders and a way out of the suffering by holding people with personality disorders accountable for their actions.… (més)
We have gotten so accustomed to the notion of prescription drugs as a commodity, an item to be priced, sold, and advertised, that it is hard to imagine that things could be another way. It all seems perfectly ordinary. Yet somehow, marketing the drugs at a luxury resort at the margins of the developing world feels slightly unsettling, like passing a homeless person on the way into an expensive restaurant. Prescription drugs may be a market commodity, but were they really meant to be a consumer good? Prescription drugs fill genuine human needs, or at least they are supposed to. It is only when you are faced with genuinely needy people that the prescription-drug marketplace begins to seem perverse.
Although I often enjoy non-fiction for its content, it is rare that I can also say I’ve enjoyed a non-fiction book for the read. Carl Elliott’s White Coat, Black Hat is definitely in this minority. All of Elliott’s writing is tinged with a fantastic dark humor and sarcasm that makes the read itself as valuable as the information gleaned from it. I can honestly say I enjoyed this book from cover to cover.
White Coat, Black Hat is, I guess, intended as a sort of exposé about the medical industry and the various players involved in it. I would assume that much of the general thrust of this book involves practices that most people are probably already aware of, such as pharma gifts to physicians and ethicists who receive honoraria from the very companies they lambaste in their treatises. There is a great deal here, though, that I imagine is not such general knowledge. Elliott takes the reader on a tour through the various “professions” associated with the medical industry, and some of the darker corners of each of those professions’ hallways. The two chapters I found most interesting and disturbing, perhaps because of my own unfamiliarity with some of the activities he discusses, were his chapter on the ghost-writing of medical journal articles (a practice which I admit I never dreamed was so widespread), and that on pharma’s use of “key opinion leaders” – well-respected consultants who can be paid to travel the country, lending their credence to pharmaceutical products.
Obviously Elliott has an agenda in this book. He expresses clear discomfort with the level of influence industry has come to exert over the medical profession(s). And so I am certain that someone could put together a book just as long filled with the saints of the profession(s) and adequately show that not all industry is bad, that pharma isn’t the bad guy. Counter-examples, however, are not enough to undermine the disturbing extent to which self-serving motives have infiltrated what was once considered the most honorable profession. And besides, a book like that wouldn’t be nearly so controversial and fun to read! (I’m only half-joking). Anyway, this was a thoroughly enjoyable read. I go farther than to recommend it: I’ve actually bought two friends copies as gifts, so sure was I that it’s appeal would be wider than those actually interested in medical ethics.… (més)
Although I often enjoy non-fiction for its content, it is rare that I can also say I’ve enjoyed a non-fiction book for the read. Carl Elliott’s White Coat, Black Hat is definitely in this minority. All of Elliott’s writing is tinged with a fantastic dark humor and sarcasm that makes the read itself as valuable as the information gleaned from it. I can honestly say I enjoyed this book from cover to cover.
White Coat, Black Hat is, I guess, intended as a sort of exposé about the medical industry and the various players involved in it. I would assume that much of the general thrust of this book involves practices that most people are probably already aware of, such as pharma gifts to physicians and ethicists who receive honoraria from the very companies they lambaste in their treatises. There is a great deal here, though, that I imagine is not such general knowledge. Elliott takes the reader on a tour through the various “professions” associated with the medical industry, and some of the darker corners of each of those professions’ hallways. The two chapters I found most interesting and disturbing, perhaps because of my own unfamiliarity with some of the activities he discusses, were his chapter on the ghost-writing of medical journal articles (a practice which I admit I never dreamed was so widespread), and that on pharma’s use of “key opinion leaders” – well-respected consultants who can be paid to travel the country, lending their credence to pharmaceutical products.
Obviously Elliott has an agenda in this book. He expresses clear discomfort with the level of influence industry has come to exert over the medical profession(s). And so I am certain that someone could put together a book just as long filled with the saints of the profession(s) and adequately show that not all industry is bad, that pharma isn’t the bad guy. Counter-examples, however, are not enough to undermine the disturbing extent to which self-serving motives have infiltrated what was once considered the most honorable profession. And besides, a book like that wouldn’t be nearly so controversial and fun to read! (I’m only half-joking). Anyway, this was a thoroughly enjoyable read. I go farther than to recommend it: I’ve actually bought two friends copies as gifts, so sure was I that it’s appeal would be wider than those actually interested in medical ethics.… (més)
1 
philosojerk | Hi ha 6 ressenyes més | Nov 10, 2011 |
philosojerk | Hi ha 6 ressenyes més | Nov 10, 2011 | Potser també t'agrada
Autors associats
Estadístiques
- Obres
- 7
- Membres
- 361
- Popularitat
- #66,480
- Valoració
- 3.7
- Ressenyes
- 10
- ISBN
- 33
- Preferit
- 1