Goodreads helps you follow your favorite authors. Be the first to learn about new releases!
Start by following James W. Kalat.
Showing 1-5 of 5
“Does psychiatrists’ ability to prescribe drugs give them an advantage over psychologists in places where psychologists cannot prescribe them? Not always. Drugs can be useful, but relying entirely on them can be a mistake. Whereas a typical visit to a clinical psychologist includes an extensive discussion of the issues troubling the client, many visits to a psychiatrist are briefer sessions that focus on checking the effectiveness of a drug and evaluating its side effects.”
― Introduction to Psychology
― Introduction to Psychology
“Często pierwszy antydepresant nie przynosi żadnej poprawy. Po mniej więcej sześciu tygodniach lekarz przepisuje inny lek, a jeśli to konieczne, to później następny i tak dalej. Nie sposób przewidzieć, który lek okaże się najskuteczniejszy u danego pacjenta, więc odbywa się to dosłownie na zasadzie prób i błędów.”
―
―
“Leki drugiej generacji nie różnią się zbytnio pod względem skuteczności (Samara i in., 2016). Niemniej jednak badania porównawcze pary leków dostarczają ciekawej obserwacji: w 90% badań sponsorowanych przez firmy farmaceutyczne wyniki były korzystne dla leku sprzedawanego przez firmę sponsorującą (Heres i in., 2006). Ciekawa koincydencja, prawda? Nie musi to wynikać z jawnej nieuczciwości. Tendencyjność w badaniach klinicznych może się przejawiać w subtelny sposób, na przykład w manipulowania dawkami dwóch leków, wybieraniu pacjentów, którzy zdają się rokować lepszą odpowiedź na lek sponsora, lub w selektywnym wybieraniu pomiarów do raportu.”
―
―
“Opposition to animal research ranges considerably in degree. “Minimalists” tolerate animal research under certain conditions. They accept some kinds of research but wish to prohibit others depending on the probable value of the research, the amount of distress to the animal, and the type of animal. (Few people have serious qualms about hurting an insect, for example.) They favor firm regulations on research.
The “abolitionists” take a more extreme position and see no room for compromise. Abolitionists maintain that all animals have the same rights as humans. They regard killing an animal as murder, whether the intention is to eat it, use its fur, or gain scientific knowledge. Keeping an animal (presumably even a pet) in a cage is, in their view, slavery. Because animals cannot give informed consent to research, abolitionists insist it is wrong to use them in any way, regardless of the circumstances. According to one opponent of animal research, “We have no moral option but to bring this research to a halt. Completely. . . . We will not be satisfied until every cage is empty” (Regan, 1986, pp. 39–40). Advocates of this position sometimes claim that most animal research is painful and that it never leads to important results. However, for a true abolitionist, neither of those points really matters. Their moral imperative is that people have no right to use animals, even if the research is useful and even if it is painless.
The disagreement between abolitionists and animal researchers is a dispute between two ethical positions: “Never knowingly harm an innocent” and “Sometimes a little harm leads to a greater good.” On the one hand, permitting research has the undeniable consequence of inflicting pain or distress. On the other hand, banning the use of animals for human purposes means a great setback in medical research as well as the end of animal-to-human transplants (e.g., using pig heart valves to help people with heart diseases) (Figure 1.12).”
―
The “abolitionists” take a more extreme position and see no room for compromise. Abolitionists maintain that all animals have the same rights as humans. They regard killing an animal as murder, whether the intention is to eat it, use its fur, or gain scientific knowledge. Keeping an animal (presumably even a pet) in a cage is, in their view, slavery. Because animals cannot give informed consent to research, abolitionists insist it is wrong to use them in any way, regardless of the circumstances. According to one opponent of animal research, “We have no moral option but to bring this research to a halt. Completely. . . . We will not be satisfied until every cage is empty” (Regan, 1986, pp. 39–40). Advocates of this position sometimes claim that most animal research is painful and that it never leads to important results. However, for a true abolitionist, neither of those points really matters. Their moral imperative is that people have no right to use animals, even if the research is useful and even if it is painless.
The disagreement between abolitionists and animal researchers is a dispute between two ethical positions: “Never knowingly harm an innocent” and “Sometimes a little harm leads to a greater good.” On the one hand, permitting research has the undeniable consequence of inflicting pain or distress. On the other hand, banning the use of animals for human purposes means a great setback in medical research as well as the end of animal-to-human transplants (e.g., using pig heart valves to help people with heart diseases) (Figure 1.12).”
―
“choć przeżywane emocje korelują silnie z pobudzeniem autonomicznego ukłądu nerwowego, żadna poszczególna emocja nie jest w konsekwentny sposób powiązana z jakimś swoistym wzorcem pobudzenia autonomicznego (Lang, 2014). Na przykład tętno i częstość oddechu wzrastają wraz z intensywnością emocji, ale nie różnicują strachu od gniewu.”
―
―
