Reply to I Hawkins and J Sabaté

Reversibility and death: a reply to David J. Cole.

In this reply to David J. Cole it is argued that the medical concept of death as an irreversible phenomenon is correct and that it does not conflict with ordinary concepts of death.

Reply to letter from J. Finsterer and S. Zarrouk-Mahjoub

We thank Dr. Finsterer and Dr. Zarrouk-Mahjoub for their comments, in which they argue for further neurological workup of the present case [1]. We agree that neurological assessment is an integral part of the multidisciplinary approach to patients presenting with syncope. However, the authors neglect the fact that our patient was only referred after neurological investigations, which yielded no...

Reply to J M Stanley: fiddling and clarity.

The author responds to John M. Stanley's criticism ("More fiddling with the definition of death?" Journal of Medical Ethics 1987 Mar; 13(1): 21-22) and clarifies the arguments in his own previous article ("Why let people die?" Journal of Medical Ethics 1986 Jun; 12(2): 83-86). Gillett contends that we must decide what ethical stance we should adopt toward the living but nonsentient, devoid of ...

Reply to I. Petropavlovskikh’s interactive comment

A reply to ‘ ‘ Innate phonetic boundaries revisited ’ ’ [ J . Acoust .

Before launching into a response to the letter by Aslin, Werker, and Morgan ~2002!, I would like to make clear my belief that the work on infant speech perception has been well executed, and has been critical to the development of general theoretical perspectives on speech perception. I respect and appreciate the contributions of these authors, and consider my own work with children to be a nat...