The American journal of bioethics : AJOB最新文献

{"title":"Ending the Debate Whether State-Mandated Pregnancies are Matters of Bioethics Concern.","authors":"Michele Goodwin","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089487","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089487","url":null,"abstract":"This issue of the American Journal of Bioethics shines a light on abortion, recognizing that reproductive freedom as understood for the past fifty years no longer exists in the United States. Some may wonder whether the debate about abortion taking shape in the United States is a matter of concern for bioethics, after all whether abortion is criminalized in this country or any other lacks the more obvious, traditional hallmark of bioethical concern, namely obvious coercive experimentation where vital information is withheld from vulnerable subjects. However, it would be a mistake to confine our understanding of bioethics to rogue experimentations committed by unethical doctors or fasten the progress of bioethics to frameworks that emerged during the Nuremberg trials or later in the United States after the infamous United States Pubic Health Service study at Tuskegee of syphilis in untreated Black men came to light.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"31-33"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Abortion and the Intersection of Ethics, Activism, and Politics.","authors":"Elizabeth Lanphier","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089286","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089286","url":null,"abstract":"Katie Watson describes her article in this special issue as “a call to bioethicists to recognize the ways we may have undervalued the moral status of women in our analytic frameworks, and to deliberately integrate women into every analysis of abortion ethics,” (Watson 2022) and Watson raises important questions about the proper role for bioethics as a field, and bioethicists working within it, regarding abortion. Watson makes two central claims with which I broadly agree. Yet each demand further refinement and complicate any straightforward call to action. One is that arguments about the “idea of abortion” sideline attention to abortion experience in ethical debate. The other is that identifying abortion access as a health disparity is a potentially fruitful framework for bioethics scholarship and advocacy related to abortion. The second claim also tacitly implies two additional premises: that abortion is morally permissible, and that advocacy is within the scope of bioethics. I concur that centering abortion experience is crucial to abortion ethics, that abortion is not only morally permissible but access to it is an urgent matter of justice and equity, and that bioethics has an advocacy role. Watson’s paper bundling these normative, political, and advocacy objectives into a single bioethical project illustrates the potential for a more expansive bioethics, as well as risks and tradeoffs that come with it. My remarks explore three inter-related challenges Watson’s paper presents when working across ethics, activism, and politics: establishing normative premises (and not moving too quickly past their justification), the standing of experience, and balancing potentially conflicting goals and strategies. NORMATIVE GROUNDING","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"72-74"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Invisible Prenatal Human Being.","authors":"Jackson Milton","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089276","url":null,"abstract":"distributing the risks in such a way, the assumption is that pregnancies do not just happen; intercourse is chosen in most cases. So, the “risk” in being wrong on the pro-life side is making temperate sexual choices. So, the comparative moral risks are between killing innocents if wrong about Roe and making different sexual choices if wrong about overturning Roe (and States pass restrictive laws). These risks are clearly not symmetrical.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"82-84"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Have Clinical Ethicists Been Complicit With the Marginalization of Abortion and What Can We Do to Improve Patient's Rights?","authors":"Jeffrey P Spike","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089293","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089293","url":null,"abstract":"semperi.2020.151269. Vinekar, K., A. Karlapudi, L. Nathan, J. K. Turk, R. Rible, and J. Steinauer. 2022. Projected implications of overturning Roe v Wade on abortion training in U.S. Obstetrics and Gynecology Residency Programs. Obstetrics & Gynecology. doi:10.1097/aog.0000000000004832. Westhoff, C. 1994. Abortion training in residency programs. Journal of the American Medical Women’’s Association 49 (5):150–2. Watson, K. 2022. The ethics of access: Reframing the need for abortion care as a health disparity. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (8):22–30. doi:10.1080/15265161. 2022.2075976.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"54-56"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663757","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rethinking Fetal Personhood in Conceptualizing Roe.","authors":"Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Joel Michael Reynolds","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089485","url":null,"abstract":"lawsuits, licensure loss, and even prosecution, and many will leave states where those threats are too great. All pregnancy-capable individuals benefit from the tremendous advances in fetal and pregnancy care that have resulted from the past decades of research, and anyone who learns that their wanted pregnancy is affected by a treatable condition benefits from the increasing availability of surgical and other prenatal interventions. But since any medical intervention entails some risk, however small, and many currently available in utero interventions are still classed as innovative care or research, these leading-edge interventions are likely to become less accessible or inaccessible in states with blanket abortion bans— leaving parents with difficult or even insurmountable barriers to healthy outcomes for a deeply desired pregnancy. In a post-Roe world, state and local abortion bans will harm pregnant people and their future children, along with everyone else, by deterring research and innovative care in many of the places that need them most.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"64-68"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Fallacy of Relevance and Moral Risks.","authors":"Stephen Napier","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089280","url":null,"abstract":"Paltrow and colleagues (2022) focus on the deleterious consequences that could occur if Roe were overturned, including food and housing insecurity, loss of employment, bankruptcy, unjustified arrests and imprisonment, criminal surveillance, and even death. In this short response, I observe that there is no argument for the claim that Dobbs will cause such effects. I explain why the authors’ argument commits the fallacy of relevance, and I argue that the authors misunderstand the distribution of moral risk at stake in abortion.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"80-82"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trauma Upon Trauma.","authors":"Megan Antonetti","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089287","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089287","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"44-46"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663760","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"News Coverage of Abortion in Relation to Race and Class in the United States in 2021.","authors":"Lihan Miao, Hui Zhang, Li Tian, Yuming Wang","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089279","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089279","url":null,"abstract":"Mass media play a significant role in shaping public opinion. News coverage of abortion reflects narratives about reproductive health, ethics, and women, and may potentially reinforce negative social stereotypes and stigma surrounding abortion (Feltham-King and Macleod 2015). The target article (Watson 2022) argues that low-income Black and Hispanic women are overrepresented in discussions about abortion, while non-Hispanic white women are underrepresented, which may lead to the racialization of poverty in inappropriate ways. To explore the representation of abortion in news coverage, this commentary employs a qualitative, discourse analysis of news stories published by CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. Discourse analysis is an effective method to reveal macrolevel social values through analyzing microlevel texts (Richardson 2007; van Dijk 1987). This commentary adopts van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis as a research method for textual analysis and applies intersectionality theory to explain the results. These online news platforms were selected for analysis because they are leading English-language news websites in terms of readership, circulation, and advertising revenues. The aim of this commentary is to explore how news outlets represent Black and Hispanic women who have abortions versus nonHispanic white women who have abortions in terms of proportion of representation, language strategies, and social ideology. “Abortion woman” and “abortion women” were the keywords used to search the eight news platforms. Related results were divided into three categories: racial minorities as main characters, white women as main characters, and women whose race was not mentioned. Among 79 news stories collected from the designated websites and determined the percentage of the content discussing abortion related to Black and Hispanic women (31%), non-Hispanic white women (27%), and articles which did not specifically mention race (42%). After using NVivo 12 to code the content of relevant news stories, we found three themes among the representations of women who were racial minorities and had abortions. (1) A connection between race and poverty: In these news stories, “the poor” and “people of color” often appear together, showing a tendency to relate racial minorities to the poor population. For example, one article in the New York Times states, that “Suppress the fertility of the poor and people of color do nothing to bring about structural change” (Bokat-Lindell 2021). According to van Dijk’s (Richardson 2007; van Dijk 1987) method of discourse analysis, the language device “presupposition” was employed here, prompting readers to accept the assumption that poverty and racial minorities are intrinsically linked, which may lead to increased racialization of poverty and unconsciously fuel white economic advantage and minority economic disadvantage (","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"88-90"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Dignitary Harms and Abortion Law.","authors":"Eric Scarffe","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089273","url":null,"abstract":"In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the Court argued that the Fourteenth Amendment protected “choices central to personal dignity and autonomy” (Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 1992). In the decades that followed, this language proved to be increasingly significant—grounding not only the procreative liberties of pregnant persons, but serving as the basis for the greatest expansion of LGBTQþ rights in American history. This commentary argues Dobbs v. Jackson (Official Reporters, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health 2021) not only puts these advances at risk, but that the ‘dignitary harms’ found to be at issue in subsequent decisions (including, Lawrence v. Texas 2003; United States v. Windsor 2013; Obergefell v. Hodges 2015) give us reason to believe the Court should recognize greater protections for the procreative liberties of pregnant persons. In oral arguments Chief Justice Roberts noted that although the Court only granted cert on the question of whether all pre-viability restrictions were unconstitutional, the petitioners in Dobbs quickly shifted gears to argue that the core holdings of Roe (Roe v. Wade 1973) and Casey should be thrown out in their entirety (Official Reporters, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health 2021). That said, it would understate the case to say these are the only precedents at risk in this case: as overturning Roe or Casey could undermine the basis for many LGBTQþ rights. For instance, in Lawrence the Court found the language in Casey to be particularly instructive for thinking about the kinds of choices the Fourteenth Amendment protects. In many ways, Lawrence can be understood to analogize the kind of ‘choice’ at issue in one’s consensual sexual associations to be similar to the choice at issue in Casey. Indeed, quoting Casey at length, in Lawrence the Court writes “[t]hese matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a life time, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Lawrence v. Texas 2003). Thus, while one might be able to make another argument for the core-holding of Lawrence, insofar as Lawrence relied so heavily on Casey in its rationale, overturning Roe or Casey would undoubtedly call into question Lawrence’s constitutional basis as well. Nor do the lines of precedent that would be at risk end with Lawrence. Indeed, although Windsor does not draw on the language of Casey as explicitly, the term ‘dignity’ appears no less than 22 times in the Court’s decision, which found the Defense of Marriage Act to be constitutionally invalid (United States v. Windsor 2013). Similarly, in Obergefell the Court again used language almost identical to that found Casey, and seemingly wove all three of these decisions together: noting both the dignitary harms done to same-sex couples in denying them access to marriage (more on this below), as well as the special protections afforded under the Fourteenth Amendment to a","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"85-87"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Travel to Other States for Abortion after <i>Dobbs</i>.","authors":"I Glenn Cohen","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089486","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"42-44"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663761","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}