Stacey Swimme a political advocate for sex workers in the US has written a rather nice response piece to a paper recently published in the JME: Is prostitution harmful? You can read her response here: ethicist-reports-prostitution-is-not-harmful Hat Tip to Christian Munthe for picking up on this. […]
Category: JME
Religious Preferences and the Best Interests of the Child
So the JME has – finally – published the paper by Brierley et al concerning withholding and withdrawal of futile treatment from children in the face of doctrinally-informed objections by the parents. It’s taken a while, but it’s there now. The essence of the paper’s claim is pretty simply put: if parental preferences run contrary to […]
Matters of Principlism
There’s a short paper in the latest JME about which I’ve been meaning to write something for a while – ever since I noticed it as a pre-pub: William Muirhead’s “When Four Principles are Too Many”. (Raa Gillon provides a commentary here.) Anyone who’s ever heard me talk professionally for longer than about 35 seconds […]
Some Responses to Giubilini and Minerva
I did mention last week that I’d post links to sites that mentioned Giubilini and Minerva’s paper as they crossed my radar; but it turned out very quickly that there’d be no way to keep up. And, to be frank, a lot of the blogosphere’s response has been fairly scattergun outrage rather than dispassionate engagement […]
An open letter from Giubilini and Minerva
When we decided to write this article about after-birth abortion we had no idea that our paper would raise such a heated debate. “Why not? You should have known!” people keep on repeating everywhere on the web. The answer is very simple: the article was supposed to be read by other fellow bioethicists who were […]
Why Is Infanticide Worse Than Abortion?
Guest Post by James Wilson The controversy over the Giubilini and Minerva article has highlighted an important disconnect between the way that academic bioethicists think about their role, and what ordinary people think should be the role of bioethics. The style of this dispute – its acrimony and apparent incomprehension on both sides – are […]
John Harris Clarifies his Position on Infanticide
John Harris writes in response to Julian’s post: I wish to clarify my position on infanticide to correct the impression that infanticide is something I defend or advocate. There is a big difference between an analysis of the moral symmetry of some abortions and some cases of infanticide on the one hand, and the defence […]
After-Birth Abortion: Editorial Comment
Rev Prof Ken Boyd, Associate Editor, Journal of Medical Ethics, writes: Coming up to me at a meeting the other day, an ethics colleague waved a paper at me. “Have you seen this ?”she asked, “It’s unbelievable!” The paper was ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” by two philosophers writing from Australia, Alberto Giubilini […]
“Liberals Are Disgusting”: In Defence of the Publication of “After-Birth Abortion”
The Journal of Medical Ethics prepublished electronically an article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva entitled “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” This article has elicited personally abusive correspondence to the authors, threatening their lives and personal safety. The Journal has received a string abusive emails for its decision to publish this article. This […]
Obligatory Ventilation: Why “Elective Ventilation” should not be Elective
Guest post by Dominic Wilkinson (Cross-posted from Practical Ethics) On the BBC’s Moral Maze this evening, the question of elective ventilation was discussed at some length. (For those who missed it, the programme is still available here). There were several striking features of that discussion, but one argument that stood out was the argument against […]