"So What? A Reply to Roger Cooter's 'After Death/After-"Life
The Social History of Medicine in Post-Postmodernity
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12210752 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonathan Toms (corresponding author) |
| Year | 2009 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 609-615 |
| Publication date | 2009-10-23 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social History of Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0951-631X • E-ISSN: 1477-4666 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/shm/hkp102 |
| OpenAlex | W1984138917 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 2 |
One fundament. One firework. Plant it and retreat. Sadly, the result seems to have been barely a fizzle. Roger Cooter tried to provoke a debate in these pages about how ‘medico-centric historians’ should engage with what he sees as the fundamentally ‘bio-centric’ contemporary world.1 Well, I for one feel like I've had a firework stuck up the centre of my bio-existence, and I intend to return the favour. In truth, I have a lot of respect for Roger Cooter and his work. But there are fundamental issues in his article that I think need bringing into relief. They are important and need arguing about
Political science · Postmodernity · Sociology · Empathy and Medical Education · Foucault, Power, and Ethics · Historical Psychiatry and Medical Practices · Law
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,13 |
| Citation span | 2010 - 2020 (11) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |