Category Ranking
98%
Total Visits
921
Avg Visit Duration
2 minutes
Citations
20
Article Abstract
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.15694 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Reply to: "Seize the day, …s(e)ize the device: The emerging imaging modality to improve left atrial appendage device sizing".
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
November 2022
Division of Cardiology, Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Reply to: "Seize the day….s(e)ize the device: The emerging imaging modality to improve left atrial appendage device sizing".
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol
November 2022
Centro Cardiologico Monzino Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico - Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dentistry Sciences, Centro Cardiologico Monzino, University of Milan, Milano, Italy.
Multiple Factors and Multiple Mechanisms Determine the Quality of Conscious Experiences: A Reply to Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń.
Cogn Sci
July 2018
Cognitive Neuroscience Research Unit, CFIN, Aarhus University.
In this Letter to the Editor, we seize the opportunity to respond to the recent comments by Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, and further clarify and extend the scope of our original paper. We re-emphasize that conscious experiences come in degrees, and that there are several factors that determine this degree. Endorsing the suggestions of Anzulewicz and Wierzchoń, we discuss that besides low-level attentional mechanisms, high-level attentional and non-attentional mechanisms might also modulate the quality of conscious experiences.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSubstance in bureaucratic procedures for healthcare resource allocation: a reply to Smith.
J Med Ethics
January 2019
CRASSH, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
William Smith's recent article criticises the so-called orthodox approaches to the normative analysis of healthcare resource allocation, associated to the requirement that decision-makers should abide by strictly procedural principles of legitimacy defining a deliberative democratic process. Much of the appeal of Smith's argument goes down to his awareness of real-world processes and, in particular, to the large gap he identifies between well-led democratic deliberation and the messiness of the process through which the intuitively legitimate Affordable Care Act (ACA) was created. This reply aims to demonstrate that the ACA provides no counterexample to orthodox views, seizing this opportunity to explore the specific space that the procedural principles populating orthodox accounts are meant to regulate.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF