Search

The article focuses on the differing roles of counterexamples in philosophical theory development and health policy. Topics include how counterexamples can falsify philosophical theories but inform and improve health policies, the primary goals of scholarly work versus policymaking, and the tools available to address counterexamples in these practices.

Practicing for 5 to 10 years, currently in academic practice (dermatopathology-only or multispecialty practice), trained in D12 (4.2) ht 1 Abbreviations: AP, anatomic pathology; CP, clinical pathology; D, dermatology. Practicing for 20 years, currently in academic practice (dermatopathology-only or multispecialty practice), trained in D31 (10.9)Reporting unprofessional behaviorUnethical acts or behaviors that were or needed to be reported"...Regularly, we receive cases of melanoma that are readily diagnosed using H&E alone but for which many immunostains are performed (up to 9 in some cases). The practice of dermatopathology faces unique quandaries regarding ethics and professionalism. Practicing for 5 years, currently in Academic practice (dermatopathology-only or multispecialty practice), trained in D11 (3.9)Inappropriate use of molecular testingInappropriate use or overutilization of molecular testing"Repeated suggestions that GEP (gene expression profiling) should be applied to new melanoma diagnoses without guidelines and outside of a clinical trial."Practicing for 5 to 10 years, currently in academic practice (dermatopathology-only or multispecialty practice), trained in D10 (3.5)Cost cuttingLaboratory or organizational changes geared toward keeping operating costs low"Changing the melanoma sentinel lymph node protocol to do less per node. [Extracted from the article]

When it is most fair for a claimant to receive a particular chance of benefiting (e.g. 50%) but they instead receive a different chance of benefiting (e.g. 40%), this lower chance is not ideally fair. I specify the often-overlooked type of individual unfairness evident in differences of this kind and argue for four intuitively supported criteria that a measure of this unfairness must meet. I defend the Asymmetrical Proportional View, which meets these criteria and is a measure of how individually unfair any particular difference of this kind is. Finally I conclude with the View's implications for theories of distributive fairness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article offers a new theory about how using lotteries to distribute scarce benefits satisfies beneficiaries' claims. In the first section of the article I criticize John Broome's view and on the basis of these criticisms set out four desiderata for a philosophically adequate account of claim satisfaction by lottery. In section II I propose and defend a new view called the dual structure view, so called because it posits that claimants have two types of claims in the relevant scarce benefit distribution cases under discussion. This view meets all the desiderata set out in section I. Section III draws out the practical implications of my view for a variety of temporally extended cases, including the distribution of corneas to patients who have suffered corneal degeneration. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]