Bioethics最新文献_第9页

Navigating conflicts of reproductive rights: Unbundling parenthood and balancing competing interests 在生殖权利的冲突中航行：解除为人父母的束缚，平衡相互竞争的利益。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13282

Dorian Accoe, Guido Pennings

{"title":"Navigating conflicts of reproductive rights: Unbundling parenthood and balancing competing interests","authors":"Dorian Accoe, Guido Pennings","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13282","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13282","url":null,"abstract":"Advances in assisted reproductive technologies can give rise to several ethical challenges. One of these challenges occurs when the reproductive desires of two individuals become incompatible and conflict. To address such conflicts, it is important to unbundle different aspects of (non)parenthood and to recognize the corresponding reproductive rights. This article starts on the premise that the six reproductive rights—the right (not) to be a gestational, genetic, and social parent—are negative rights that do not entail a right to assistance. Since terminating or continuing a pregnancy is a form of assistance, the right (not) to be a gestational parent should enjoy primacy in conflicts. However, while refusing assistance may hinder the reproductive project of another person, “prior assistance” does not entitle someone to violate a reproductive right. Therefore, our analysis provides reasons to argue that someone has a right to unilaterally use cryopreserved embryos or continue the development of an entity in an extracorporeal gestative environment (i.e., ectogestation). Although this could lead to a violation of the right not to be a genetic parent, it does not necessarily entail a violation of the right not to be a social parent.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140190442","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: We can't have both 出于良心拒绝还是出于良心提供？两者不可兼得。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13285

Ryan Kulesa, Alberto Giubilini

{"title":"Conscientious refusal or conscientious provision: We can't have both","authors":"Ryan Kulesa, Alberto Giubilini","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13285","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13285","url":null,"abstract":"Some authors argue that it is permissible for clinicians to conscientiously provide abortion services because clinicians are already allowed to conscientiously refuse to provide certain services. Call this the symmetry thesis. We argue that on either of the two main understandings of the aim of the medical profession—what we will call “pathocentric” and “interest-centric” views—conscientious refusal and conscientious provision are mutually exclusive. On pathocentric views, refusing to provide a service that takes away from a patient's health is professionally justified because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to refuse to provide that service (e.g., it does not heal, and it is contrary to the goals of medicine). However, providing that same service is not professionally justified when providing that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. Likewise, the thesis turns out false on interest-centric views. Refusing to provide a service is not professionally justified when that service helps the patient fulfill her autonomous preferences because there are compelling reasons, based on professional standards, to provide that service (e.g., it helps her achieve her autonomous preferences, and it would be contrary to the goals of medicine to deny her that service). However, refusing to provide that same service is not professionally justified when refusing to provide that service would be contrary to the goals of medicine. As a result, on either of the two most plausible views on the goals of medicine, the symmetry thesis turns out false.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13285","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140190441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Arguments for a ban on pediatric intersex surgery: A dis/analogy with Jehovah witness blood transfusion 禁止小儿阴阳人手术的论据：与耶和华见证人输血的异同。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13280

Catherine Clune-Taylor

{"title":"Arguments for a ban on pediatric intersex surgery: A dis/analogy with Jehovah witness blood transfusion","authors":"Catherine Clune-Taylor","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13280","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13280","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues for a ban on the performance of medically unnecessary genital normalizing surgeries as part of assigning a binary sex/gender to infants with intersex conditions on the basis of autonomy, regardless of etiology. It does this via a dis/analogy with the classic case in bioethics of Jehovah Witness (JW) parents' inability to refuse life-saving blood transfusions for their minor children. Both cases address ethical medical practice in situations where parents are making irreversible medical decisions on the basis of values strongly held, identity, and relationship-shaping values—such as religious beliefs or beliefs regarding the inherent value of binary sex/gender—amidst ethical pluralism. Furthermore, it takes seriously—as we must in the intersex case—that the restriction of parents' right to choose will likely result in serious harms to potentially large percentage of patients, their families, and their larger communities. I address the objection that parents' capacity to choose is restricted in the JW case on the basis of the harm principle or a duty to nonmaleficence, given that the result of parent choice would be death. I provide evidence that this is mistaken from how we treat epistemic uncertainty in the JW case and from cases in which clinicians are ethically obligated to restrict the autonomy of nonminor patients. I conclude that we restrict the parents' right to choose in the JW case—and should in the case of pediatric intersex surgery—to secure patient's future autonomy.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13280","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140102912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Why restrict medical effective altruism? 为什么要限制医学上的有效利他主义？

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-11 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13279

Travis Quigley

引用次数: 0

Corrigendum to: Attitudes, intentions and procreative responsibility in current and future assisted reproduction 更正：当前和未来辅助生殖的态度、意图和生育责任。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-08 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13278

{"title":"Corrigendum to: Attitudes, intentions and procreative responsibility in current and future assisted reproduction","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13278","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13278","url":null,"abstract":"Battisti, D. (2023). Attitudes, intentions and procreative responsibility in current and future assisted reproduction. Bioethics, 37(5), 449–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13150.The name ‘McDougall’ is incorrectly spelled as ‘McDougal’ on pages 453 and 454.The phrase ‘focus-agent focus’ on page 454 is incorrect and should read ‘future-agent focus’.The part of the sentence \"implies the prospective parents\" should be replaced with \"commits\", and the word \"have\" in the same sentence should be replaced with \"having\". This sentence should read: \"Considering this, we can recognize that the parent-child relationship argument commits procreators to having attitudes and intentions that are not in contrast with the desires and hopes that their children's lives go well and that they are safe from suffering\" paragraph 4, page 456.The word ‘having’ should be replaced with ‘parenting’ in the final paragraph of page 455. This sentence should read: ‘On the one hand, the distinction between creating and parenting a child enables us to justify the fact that the beginning of a parent–child relationship is also morally relevant in the procreative context’.The word ‘having’ should be replaced with ‘creating’ on the first line of page 456. This sentence should read: ‘To explain the moral relevance of the distinction between creating and parenting a child let us consider again the example of the couple that, through PGD plus IVF, deliberately select a child with a disability D’.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13278","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140066278","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Nature-versus-nurture considered harmful: Actionability as an alternative tool for understanding the exposome from an ethical perspective 自然对自然有害：可操作性作为从伦理角度理解暴露体的另一种工具。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-03-05 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13276

Caspar W. Safarlou, Annelien L. Bredenoord, Roel Vermeulen, Karin R. Jongsma

{"title":"Nature-versus-nurture considered harmful: Actionability as an alternative tool for understanding the exposome from an ethical perspective","authors":"Caspar W. Safarlou, Annelien L. Bredenoord, Roel Vermeulen, Karin R. Jongsma","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13276","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bioe.13276","url":null,"abstract":"Exposome research is put forward as a major tool for solving the nature-versus-nurture debate because the exposome is said to represent “the nature of nurture.” Against this influential idea, we argue that the adoption of the nature-versus-nurture debate into the exposome research program is a mistake that needs to be undone to allow for a proper bioethical assessment of exposome research. We first argue that this adoption is originally based on an equivocation between the traditional nature-versus-nurture debate and a debate about disease prediction/etiology. Second, due to this mistake, exposome research is pushed to adopt a limited conception of agential control that is harmful to one's thinking about the good that exposome research can do for human health and wellbeing. To fully excise the nature-versus-nurture debate from exposome research, we argue that exposome researchers and bioethicists need to think about the exposome afresh from the perspective of actionability. We define the concept of actionability and related concepts and show how these can be used to analyze the ethical aspects of the exposome. In particular, we focus on refuting the popular “gun analogy” in exposome research, returning results to study participants and risk-taking in the context of a well-lived life.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bioe.13276","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140029633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Cryonics: Traps and transformations 冷冻技术：陷阱与转变。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13277

Daniel Story

引用次数: 0

Treating the innocent victims of trolleys and war. 治疗手推车和战争的无辜受害者。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-22 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13273

Michael L Gross

{"title":"Treating the innocent victims of trolleys and war.","authors":"Michael L Gross","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13273","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13273","url":null,"abstract":"Both trolleys and war leave innocent victims to suffer death and injury. Trolley problems accounting for the injured, and not only the dead, tease out intuitions about liability that enhance our understanding of the obligation to provide compensation and medical care to civilian victims of war. Like many trolley victims, civilians in war may suffer justifiable, excusable, or negligent harms that demand compensation. Chief among these is collateral harm befalling civilians. Collateral harm is endemic to war and comprises permissible but unavoidable death or injury following necessary and proportionate military operations. Although state armies sometimes offer condolence payments for civilian death, injury, and property loss, they deny liability. Instead, they use compensation to enhance counterinsurgency efforts and assuage feelings of agent regret. As part of the medical rules of eligibility, Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan also provided medical care to victims of collateral harm. However, they denied care to similarly sick or injured civilians. While compensation is often justified to cure the harm civilians suffer, the differential use of medical resources is not. Rather, medical care remains subject to the principle of beneficence and medical need. The duty to provide civilian healthcare in war, particularly in wars of humanitarian intervention, is far-reaching and imposes significant costs that military and medical ethics are yet to recognize.","PeriodicalId":55379,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139934385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

A critical take on procreative justice 对生育正义的批判。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-21 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13274

Joona Räsänen, Andreas Bengtson, Hugo Cossette-Lefebvre, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen

引用次数: 0

The role of the concept of solidarity for just distribution of bioethical goods in the international area 团结互助的概念对在国际领域公正分配生物伦理物品的作用。

IF 2.2 2区哲学

Bioethics Pub Date : 2024-02-17 DOI: 10.1111/bioe.13271

Nadja Wolf

引用次数: 0