Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are 'dead'?

4Citations
Citations of this article
64Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The article recently published in this journal by Dr B A Rix, a member of the Danish Council of Ethics (DCE), was heavily criticised by Dr David Lamb and Mr Christopher Pallis in subsequent commentaries. The editorial column by Professor Raanan Gillon also criticised the position put forward by Rix. In this article I contend that the definition of death put forward by Pallis and Lamb suffers certain philosophical shortcomings, that the position put forward by Rix deserves fuller consideration, and that Rix is not to be dismissed easily.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Catherwood, J. F. (1992). Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are “dead”? Journal of Medical Ethics, 18(1), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.18.1.34

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free