为什么必须拒绝全身妊娠期捐赠:对Smajdor的回应。

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-07 DOI:10.1007/s11017-023-09633-3
Aníbal M Astobiza, Íñigo de Miguel Beriain
{"title":"为什么必须拒绝全身妊娠期捐赠:对Smajdor的回应。","authors":"Aníbal M Astobiza,&nbsp;Íñigo de Miguel Beriain","doi":"10.1007/s11017-023-09633-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Anna Smajdor's proposal of whole body gestational donation (WBGD) states that female patients diagnosed as brain-dead should be considered for use as gestational donors. In this response, Smajdor's proposal is rejected on four different accounts: (a) the debated acceptability of surrogacy despite women's autonomy, (b) the harm to dead women ́s interests, (c) the interests of the descendants, and (d) the symbolic value of the body and interests of relatives. The first part argues that WBGD rests on a particular conception of the instrumentalization of bodies that cannot be circumvented simply by the patient's consent and relinquished autonomy. The second part argues the importance of avoiding any harm to dead women's interests. The third part identifies the importance of the interest of the foetus in the light of Procreative-Beneficence principle that Smajdor overlooks. And finally, the fourth part considers the symbolic value of the human body and the interest of relatives. The main goal of this commentary is not to show that WBGD cannot be implemented; rather, it is to show that there are not any good arguments in favour of doing so.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":"44 4","pages":"327-340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10491543/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why whole body gestational donation must be rejected: a response to Smajdor.\",\"authors\":\"Aníbal M Astobiza,&nbsp;Íñigo de Miguel Beriain\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11017-023-09633-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Anna Smajdor's proposal of whole body gestational donation (WBGD) states that female patients diagnosed as brain-dead should be considered for use as gestational donors. In this response, Smajdor's proposal is rejected on four different accounts: (a) the debated acceptability of surrogacy despite women's autonomy, (b) the harm to dead women ́s interests, (c) the interests of the descendants, and (d) the symbolic value of the body and interests of relatives. The first part argues that WBGD rests on a particular conception of the instrumentalization of bodies that cannot be circumvented simply by the patient's consent and relinquished autonomy. The second part argues the importance of avoiding any harm to dead women's interests. The third part identifies the importance of the interest of the foetus in the light of Procreative-Beneficence principle that Smajdor overlooks. And finally, the fourth part considers the symbolic value of the human body and the interest of relatives. The main goal of this commentary is not to show that WBGD cannot be implemented; rather, it is to show that there are not any good arguments in favour of doing so.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"327-340\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10491543/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09633-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09633-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

Anna Smajdor提出的全身妊娠期捐献(WBGD)建议指出,应考虑将被诊断为脑死亡的女性患者用作妊娠期捐献者。在这一回应中,Smajdor的提议因四个不同的原因而被拒绝:(a)尽管女性拥有自主权,但代孕的可接受性仍存在争议;(b)对已故女性利益的伤害;(c)后代的利益;以及(d)身体的象征价值和亲属的利益。第一部分认为,WBGD建立在身体工具化的特定概念之上,而这一概念不能简单地通过患者的同意和放弃自主权来规避。第二部分论述了避免对已故妇女利益造成任何损害的重要性。第三部分从斯玛多尔忽视的生育利益原则出发,明确了胎儿利益的重要性。最后,第四部分论述了人体的象征价值和亲属利益。本评论的主要目的不是表明WBGD无法实施;相反,这表明没有任何好的论据支持这样做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why whole body gestational donation must be rejected: a response to Smajdor.

Anna Smajdor's proposal of whole body gestational donation (WBGD) states that female patients diagnosed as brain-dead should be considered for use as gestational donors. In this response, Smajdor's proposal is rejected on four different accounts: (a) the debated acceptability of surrogacy despite women's autonomy, (b) the harm to dead women ́s interests, (c) the interests of the descendants, and (d) the symbolic value of the body and interests of relatives. The first part argues that WBGD rests on a particular conception of the instrumentalization of bodies that cannot be circumvented simply by the patient's consent and relinquished autonomy. The second part argues the importance of avoiding any harm to dead women's interests. The third part identifies the importance of the interest of the foetus in the light of Procreative-Beneficence principle that Smajdor overlooks. And finally, the fourth part considers the symbolic value of the human body and the interest of relatives. The main goal of this commentary is not to show that WBGD cannot be implemented; rather, it is to show that there are not any good arguments in favour of doing so.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信