The American journal of bioethics : AJOB最新文献

{"title":"The Role of Epistemic Injustice in Abortion Access Disparities.","authors":"Margaret M Matthews, Aashna Lal, Danielle Pacia","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089288","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089288","url":null,"abstract":"Furedi, A. 2016. The moral case for abortion. London, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. Mancini, S., and K. Stoeckl. 2018. Transatlantic conversations: The emergence of society-protective antiabortion arguments in the United States, Europe, and Russia. In The Conscience Wars. Rethinking the Balance between Religion, Identity, and Equality, ed. S. Mancini and M. Rosenfeld, 220–257. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Paltrow, L. M., L. H. Harris, and M. F. Marshall. 2022. Beyond abortion: The consequences of overturning Roe. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (8):3–15. doi:10. 1080/15265161.2022.2075965. Watson, K. 2018. Scarlet A : The ethics, law, and politics of ordinary abortion. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. 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. Ziegler, M. 2022. The end of Roe v. Wade. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (8):16–21. doi:10.1080/15265161. 2022.2075962.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"49-51"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663762","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":"Beware the Jackalopes.","authors":"Thomas V Cunningham","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089283","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089283","url":null,"abstract":"Philosophers of science deploy mathematical models to describe epistemic communities, or groups of people creating and sharing knowledge for individual and collective purposes. These models capture in simplified terms experiences that are familiar to us all. For example, that there are times when one holds a belief but cannot determine how to convince someone else to hold it too, despite the conviction that the belief is justified from good evidence and analysis. One key finding from this research is how it describes states of polarity and conformity that emerge when people put forward claims that are candidates for belief (O’Conner and Weatherall 2019). As a social activity, the pursuit of knowledge can result in the formation of polarized groups, as it has in reproductive health care. People share information as they socialize, seeking to accrue knowledge, to display membership in social groups, or both. Camps form in the process, such as the “pro-choice” and “antiabortion” camps, also known as “pro-abortion” and “pro-life,” to use differently loaded terms. Network models of epistemic communities suggest that this polarization can be described in terms of “clumpy” communication networks (O’Conner and Weatherall 2019, 56ff). That is, there are factions, cliques, or “clumps” of believers and few connections between the cliques. When this happens, false beliefs take root in one or more camp because there are so few connections between them for the transmission of justified beliefs from one group to another. A telling example comes from the infamous story of Ignaz Semmelweis, the Hungarian physician who believed that handwashing reduced the incidence of puerperal fever during childbirth. His colleagues rejected these beliefs and childbearing women and children died from infections due to poor hand hygiene. We now know Semmelweis was right. His colleagues were not. But they formed a clique of believers that would not be swayed for decades, until eventually enough evidence was gained to persuade future physicians that handwashing improves mortality (O’Conner and Weatherall 2019, 73–79). As an occasional expert witness for plaintiffs responding to state legislation involving restrictions on reproductive healthcare, I have experience trying to connect clumpy communication networks. My role is to provide an analysis for the court, and to explain to judges the ethical implications of proposed restrictions on individual liberties in reproductive health care. My approach is to use methods of reasoning that are canonical in academic and clinical bioethics, where we provide an ethical analysis that refers to a common morality, in a proceduralist sense, and then justifies mid-level or low-level ethical conclusions by reasoning about how the principles rightly apply to the circumstances. Consequently, I have always testified that specific legislation restricting reproductive health care I have analyzed is unethical because, based on these principles, the restr","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"75-77"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663768","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":"Yes, All Bioethicists Should Engage Abortion Ethics, but Who Would Be Interested in What They Have to Say?","authors":"Nathan Nobis","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089274","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089274","url":null,"abstract":"CBS News. 2018. U.S. ‘Most Dangerous’. Place to Give Birth in Developed World, USA Today Investigation Finds. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 2017. 2016 Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance. https://www. cdc.gov/std/stats16/CDC_2016_STDS_Reportfor508WebSep21_2017_1644.pdf Mississippi State Department of Health. 2019. Mississippi MATAERNAL MORTALITY REPORT 2013–2016. https://msdh. ms.gov/msdhsite/_static/resources/8127.pdf. News Release. 2021. National Institutes of Health. NIHfunded study highlights stark racial disparities in maternal deaths. Accessed August 12, 2021. https://www.nih.gov/ news-events/news-releases/nih-funded-study-highlightsstark-racial-disparities-maternal-deaths. Paltrow, L. M., L. H. Harris, and M. F. Marshall. 2022. Beyond abortion: The consequences of overturning Roe. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (8):3–15. doi:10. 1080/15265161.2022.2075965. Raymond, E. G., and D. A. Grimes. 2012. The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119:215. Sexually Transmitted Diseases. 2020. HEALTHYPEOPLE.GOV. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/ topic/sexually-transmitted-diseases. 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. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. 2016. 136 S. Ct. 2292. Ziegler, M. 2022. The end of Roe v. Wade. The American Journal of Bioethics 22 (8):16–21. doi:10.1080/15265161. 2022.2075962.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"33-36"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663774","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":"Executive, Legislative, Judiciary, & Clinic: How the Fall of Roe Will Entrench Clinicians as Agents of the State and Create Ethical Conflicts throughout Medical Practice.","authors":"Erica Andrist","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089275","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089275","url":null,"abstract":"debating-abortion-ethics/. Nobis, N., and K. Grob. 2019a. Thinking critically about abortion: Why most abortions aren’t wrong and why all abortions should be legal. Seattle: Open Philosophy Press. Nobis, N., and K. Grob. 2019b. Abortion and Soundbites: Why Pro-Choice Arguments Are Harder to Make. Areo Magazine, July 23. https://areomagazine.com/2019/07/23/ abortion-and-soundbites-why-pro-choice-arguments-areharder-to-make/. Nobis, N., and J. Dudley. 2021. Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking. Salon, April 11. https:// www.salon.com/2021/04/11/why-the-case-against-abortion-is-weak-ethically-speaking/. Nobis, N. 2021. I’m a philosophy professor. The argument for making abortion illegal is illogical. Salon, December 4. https://www.salon.com/2021/12/04/logic-argumentsabortion-rights/. Nobis, N. 2022. When does ‘life’ begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by ‘life.’ Salon, April 2. https://www.salon.com/2022/04/02/when-doeslife-begin-when-it-comes-to-abortion-it-depends-on-whatyou-mean-by-life/. PhilPapers. 2020. Survey results: Abortion. PhilPapers Survey. https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4974 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. Ziegler, M. How Raphael Warnock came to be an abortionrights outlier. The Atlantic, December 31, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/liberalreligion-abortion/617491/.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"36-38"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663775","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":"Why I'm Not Backing down from Fighting for Our Right to Abortion.","authors":"Judy Chu","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2101830","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2101830","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663755","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":"De-Medicalizing Abortion.","authors":"B Jessie Hill","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089289","url":null,"abstract":"As we stand on the precipice of a world without Roe v. Wade and its constitutional protection for the right to terminate a pregnancy, new arguments, approaches, and conceptual frames for understanding and vindicating reproductive autonomy are desperately needed. Professor Katie Watson’s article brings one such novel and useful perspective to the debate around access to abortion care. The health disparities framework, which is compatible with the reproductive justice framework, focuses on the uneven impact of abortion bans and restrictions on poor women, Black and Hispanic women, and other marginalized groups. Perhaps most importantly, when combined with the reproductive justice model, the disparities framework pushes reproductive health policy to take account of the historical and systemic racism that may lead Black and Hispanic people to approach reproductive health care differently from white people (Watson 2022, 15). Yet, Professor Watson’s health-disparities framework for access to abortion care remains firmly grounded in the medical model of abortion rights. It highlights the role of medical professionals in addressing and alleviating disparities in access to care. It thus stands in contrast with a de-medicalized approach— exemplified by the current movement to expand access to self-managed abortion—that places abortion within a deeply rooted tradition of self-care, bodily autonomy, and emancipation. The tension between medical and non-medical understandings of abortion and pregnancy date back to at least the 1800s. For example, the nineteenth-century campaign to criminalize abortion in the U.S. was born, in part, of physicians’ desire to claim jurisdiction over pregnancy as a medical matter, wresting control from midwives and others who were mostly women and not professionally trained (Mohr 1978). This tension was reflected in the twentieth-century dichotomy between the abortion law “reform” and “repeal” movements—the former retaining the role of hospitals and physicians as gatekeepers to abortion and the later emphasizing the woman’s right to make her own decisions about her body (Garrow 1994). The medical model surely has much to recommend it. In fact, I have argued elsewhere that “pro-choice advocates should ... emphasize the notion of abortion as a form of health care, as a means of protecting and advancing the abortion right” (Hill 2010). Framing abortion primarily as health care arguably makes it more universal, as access to health care is widely supported, and nearly everyone needs health care at some point in their life (Hill 2009). Viewing abortion as health care centers the patient, rather than the fetus, and places the procedure squarely within the realm of private decisions that individuals expect to make without undue interference from the state. And given that the medical profession as a whole carries tremendous political and social clout, physicians and other medical professionals have been, and will continue to be, valuable ","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"57-58"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663764","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":"<i>Roe v. Wade</i> Was a Profound Disservice to the Country.","authors":"Wesley J Smith","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089292","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089292","url":null,"abstract":"The adamant and uniform pro-choice viewpoints expressed in each of the target articles demonstrates how mainstream bioethics has become a homogeneous and insular advocacy movement that seeks to institutionalize progressive ideology as the reigning paradigm of healthcare public policy. That’s fine. In a democratic society people certainly have a right to organize and advocate for their opinions. But bioethics holds itself out as something more. The field presumes to serve the entire society, liberal and conservative, pro-choice and pro-life, rich and poor, people of all races and ethnicities. Yet, none of the target articles authors even make a bow toward those with whom they disagree on abortion rights, or indeed, attempt to grapple substantively with the beliefs of those who oppose the existing abortion regime. Space does not permit a full delineation but let me focus on two examples. In “Beyond Abortion: The Consequences of Overturning Roe,” Paltrow, Harris, and Marshall (2022) accuse pro-lifers of racism because African American women have a large percentage of abortions and would be disproportionately impacted by access restrictions. To say the least, it seems an odd form of racism when a movement wants more babies of color to be born, not fewer. Prolife advocacy may be many things, but racist isn’t one of them. The authors also describe fetuses as “potential life.” This assertion is both unscientific and a deflection. In the biological sense of the term, fetuses and embryos are fully “human life.” They are living organisms—i.e., human beings—as embryology textbooks make clear (Moore et al. 2013). Indeed, when the authors of the featured articles were zygotes, they were the same organisms that they are today. Even the Supreme Court ruled in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v Casey that, “the State ... may express profound respect for the life of the unborn” (my emphasis). The scientific fact that unborn humans are living members of our species is the moral cornerstone of the pro-life movement. One can disagree with that formulation, but it is ethically consistent and morally cogent. Merely assuming the pro-choice perspective is a self-evident truth, as the feature articles authors do, does not make it so.","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"39-41"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663772","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":"A Health Disparity Framework for Abortion Eliminates Critical Discourse and Debate.","authors":"Laura Madigan-McCown","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089281","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089281","url":null,"abstract":"Bioethicists enter into conflict routinely, artfully applying knowledge of ethics, law, medicine and psychology to high stakes human interactions in health care settings, as facilitators and collaborators. Bioethicists understand that there are legitimate concerns and truths on both sides of a conflict. In her paper, “The Ethics of Access: Reframing the Need for Abortion Care as a Health Disparity,” Watson’s assertion that bioethicists should consider endorsing such a reframing of the abortion access issue may seem viable when considering the changing landscape of abortion access in a post-Roe context. However, this is based on the erroneous assumption that all bioethicists either are, or should be, aligned with one ethical framework with regard to reproductive rights. Mainstream bioethics tends toward hegemony on abortion; a hegemony that has resulted in an oversimplification of the issue and inadequate moral space for healthy, critical discourse and debate on the ethical complexities associated with abortion and in this case, abortion access. In the current social context, the term, “health disparity” is inexorably linked to the overlap of inequalities related to race, healthcare access, and health outcomes. Thus, the term ‘health disparity’ enshrines associated issues within a normative ethical value that few mainstream bioethicists would consider appropriate fodder for criticism. But is this helpful or even accurate? The suggestion to reframe access to abortion as a health disparity is somewhat misleading since the data show that 75% of women who access abortion care are poor (Jones et al. 2019) and 40% of all black pregnancies end in abortion (Abortion Surveillance United States 2019). Access to abortion does not appear to be the disparate variable, particularly among those in the most vulnerable populations. Seeking ways to reframe abortion in order to fit current normative categories facilitates the dynamic of reducing the abortion discussion to the binary notions of “reproductive rights” versus “pro-life”. In bioethical discourse, neither of these representative terms fully captures the ethical complexities of abortion or access to abortion. Watson (2022) mentions the “intermediate space of pluralism” as a place where women are neither forced into abortion or prevented from obtaining one. This concept can be a first step in deconstructing the traditional binary approach to abortion. A binary dynamic, fueled by ideological rhetoric promotes moral hegemony among group members. When binary stances are deconstructed, moral space is created with the attendant opportunities for mutual understanding (Beaty et al. 2021). One example of this approach is the professional responsibility model of perinatal ethics introduced by Chervenak and McCullough (2015). In this model, rights-based reductionism is criticized for giving the fetus an unconditional right to life and for giving a pregnant person unconditional rights over her body. The professional r","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"70-71"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663766","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":"Private Conversations, Public Debate.","authors":"Siripanth Nippita,&nbsp;Christina Jung,&nbsp;Johana D Oviedo,&nbsp;Gwendolyn P Quinn","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089285","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089285","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"47-49"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663769","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":"See None, Do None, Teach None: How Dismantling <i>Roe</i> Impacts Medical Education and Physician Training.","authors":"Melissa Montoya,&nbsp;Beverly A Gray","doi":"10.1080/15265161.2022.2089282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2022.2089282","url":null,"abstract":"The impending U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has appropriately engendered critical thought and speculation as to what a post-Roe America would look like. Unfortunately, given the political and legislative hostility toward abortion since Roe was decided in 1973, this exercise does not require significant imagination. Many patients and providers already live in states where abortion services are extremely restricted with negative consequences on both maternal and neonatal health outcomes (Verma and Shainker 2020). As highlighted by Paltrow et al. (2022), even with Roe in place, the rights of pregnant people are constantly under attack. If Roe falls, the ramifications will be farreaching in scope with the potential to radically change not only prenatal care in this country but medical training and education as well. Around the time of Roe, only about 12% of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) residency programs required abortion training (Westhoff 1994). It was not until 1996 that the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) mandated OB/GYN residency programs to provide experience with induced abortion. A few years later, the privately-funded Kenneth J. Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning (Ryan Program) was implemented with the purpose of supporting formal integration of abortion training into OB/GYN residencies across the nation. In 2020, 92% of OB/GYN residents reported having access to some amount of abortion training (Horvath et al. 2021). Despite this increase in the number of physicians trained to provide abortions, millions of reproductiveaged people live in counties that do not have an abortion provider with some states such as Kentucky and Mississippi having only one abortion clinic (Jones, Witwer, and Jerman 2019). Clearly, a patient’s zip code, insurance status, financial resources, and distance from an abortion provider already influence their ability to receive care. As Watson (2022) discusses in her article, there are various structural, historical, and systemic barriers to accessing abortion that will only be exacerbated postRoe. The burden of these barriers will not fall equally on all communities. Poor people, particularly poor people of color who already suffer higher rates of maternal mortality, will be disproportionally impacted by anti-abortion legislation after Roe falls. Forced childbearing is already a reality for vulnerable patients through policies such as the Hyde amendment; however, with more extreme abortion restrictions anticipated in the wake of Roe’s reversal, an even greater number of patients will have their fundamental rights threatened. Paltrow et al. effectively outline the ways in which Roe protects the bodily autonomy and integrity of all pregnant people, regardless of their intentions to carry a pregnancy to term. Abortion bans and limits grounded in fetal “personhood” assert that the potential life of a pregnancy is m","PeriodicalId":145777,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of bioethics : AJOB","volume":" ","pages":"52-54"},"PeriodicalIF":13.4,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"40663767","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}