Using Anecdotes: Having It Both Ways?/The Author Responds

According to van Amerongen, I have argued that we should "accept as meaningful and representative the unsubstantiated and often medically inaccurate anecdotes that everyone . . . repeats as gospel." [...]as I explained in my essay, the difference between the two situations for me is contex...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHealth affairs (Millwood, Va.) Vol. 18; no. 4; pp. 202 - 203
Main Authors van Amerongen, Derek, Rochefort, David A
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chevy Chase The People to People Health Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE 01.07.1999
Subjects
Accuracy
Health care policy
Political correctness
Political power
Politics
Science
Welfare reform
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:According to van Amerongen, I have argued that we should "accept as meaningful and representative the unsubstantiated and often medically inaccurate anecdotes that everyone . . . repeats as gospel." [...]as I explained in my essay, the difference between the two situations for me is contextual and has to do again with factual accuracy. Because of disparities of political power and other resources in the welfare debate, as compared with the managed care debate, one can be much less certain that "the truth will out" regarding the claims made in these tales. [...]to be consistent in his critique of anecdotes, van Amerongen would need to broaden his focus.
ISSN:0278-2715
1544-5208