Correction: Conceptual scaffolding for the philosophy of medicine
Yael Friedman
Abstract
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMental Health and Psychiatry · Neuroethics, Human Enhancement, Biomedical Innovations
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
10.1007/s11019-024-10231-w
In this article, the following paragraphs have been modified for comprehensibility post publication.
Under section ‘Conceptual scaffolding of malady: two ancestor models’, the last line of 4th paragraph should read as “… specific discipline (I will develop this idea in the section titled “The binocular model of plural medicine”).” Instead of “… specific discipline (I will develop this idea in Sect. 5).”
In the last paragraph of section ‘Conceptual scaffolding of malady: two ancestor models’, the last sentence should read as “The binocular model, presented below, is therefore not …” instead of “The binocular model, presented in Sect. 5, is therefore not …”
In the Introduction section of Part 2, the second paragraph should read as “In the next sections I will introduce the concept of diagnosis and health wearable technologies. The section titled “Wearables and the concept of diagnosis” is dedicated to the conceptual scaffolding. The last section concludes by showing how the division of labor between the different actors in the medical realm is changing due to the implementation of wearables, and what are the possible epistemic implications of such a change.” instead of “In the next sections I will introduce the concept of diagnosis (Sect. 2) and health wearable technologies (Sect. 3). Section 4 is dedicated to the conceptual scaffolding. Section 5 concludes by showing how the division of labor between the different actors in the medical realm is changing due to the implementation of wearables, and what are the possible epistemic implications of such a change.”
The original article has been corrected.