![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Notes
1. Daniels and Sabin (Citation1997) also argue that AFR is compatible with democratic deliberation.
2. Alternatively, if we cannot both discontinue use of chlorpyrifos and meet other requirements of justice at the same time, then the problem is one of prioritization. AFR is designed for just such dilemmas. It may ultimately decide in favor of other concerns and so allow continued use of chlorpyrifos—but in this case, the problem is not with the AFR procedure, but rather with the fact that resources are limited to the extent that we cannot pursue all the requirements of justice simultaneously. This may be a tragedy, but it is not a problem with AFR.
3. For a recent example, consider the pressure used by patient advocates with multiple sclerosis to obtain research and treatment funding for the “liberation procedure.” Patient advocates were ultimately successful in obtaining significant funding for research from the governments of Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador, despite the fact that the Canadian Institutes for Health Research claimed that no reliable data suggested the efficacy or even safety of the procedure (Vincenzi Citation2010). This effort is apparently similar in kind to other instances in the history of MS (Branswell Citation2017). Incidentally, the inventor of the liberation procedure recently published the results of a double-blind randomized controlled trial designed to test its effectiveness (Zamboni et al. Citation2018). The study concludes that the procedure is “safe” but is also a “largely ineffective technique,” and “treatment cannot be recommended in patients with MS.”