The rhetoric surrounding late abortions and so-called “fourth trimester abortions” (in which the fetus is alive after an attempted abortion) touches perilously on the ethical issues surrounding care for very premature infants. The author of this blog entry at a … Continue reading
Numerous strategies by anti-abortion groups to curb women’s constitutional right to an abortion are frequently reported in the news, and come as no surprise. However, a recent development illustrates novel circumstances in which legal maneuvers conspire to restrict medical decisions … Continue reading
“According to the report card, the results for reproductive health in the USA are neither encouraging nor consistent across the country. It offers effective cure for sexual weakness pills viagra canada and debilities caused due to excessive hand practice. You … Continue reading
Marlise Munoz collapsed last November as a result of a blood clot in her lungs, which left her on life support. Her husband and parents were told that, despite the fact that she had not hope of recovery, and had … Continue reading
This is a guest post by Nathan Emmerich. Nathan Emmerich is a Visiting Research Fellow at Queen’s University Belfast where he has been working on Bioethical Expertise. He took his PhD from Queen’s and this was recently published as a book entitled ‘Medical Ethics Education.’
On Thursday the 21st of November the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (NI) gave its judgement in a case between the Attorney General for NI, John Larkin, and the Senior Coroner for Northern Ireland. The case concerned whether the Attourney General could compel the coroner to convene an inquest into a still-birth. The coroner had declined to do so, arguing that it did not fall within the remit of his office. Briefly, as the role of the coroner is to investigate deaths there had to be an individual who was, legally speaking, alive and had subsequently died. Thus coroners in NI and, for that matter, the UK have not historically held inquests into still-births. A lower court had previously upheld the position of the coroner and that judgement alluded to some of the concerns I raise here.
The question of when life and, in particular, human life begins and ends has been persistent and contentious in biology, philosophy, theology and law. In bioethical thought there are a number of different accounts where it is common to distinguish between the start of life and the point at which a human organism attracts moral importance. Furthermore we might think that the human organism has different moral weights depending on the state of its development or, for that matter, demise. Such consdierations lead in a variety of directions, not least to the provocative argument that neonates might not meet the requirements for ‘personhood’ and therefore should not be considered (full) members of the moral community. It is not easy to resolve these ethical conundra and they will continue to trouble bioethical scholarship for the foreseeable future. However, the law cannot afford the luxury of uncertainty. Whilst we might recognise some degree of complexity and attempt to mediate between competing demands, ultimately the law has to adopt a position on when the ‘human organism’ becomes an individual, recognised by law and, therefore, a (legal) person.
Continue readingReaders may be interested to learn that the initiative to include pregnant women in biomedical research is gaining steam. To follow this progress, please check the following website: http://secondwaveinitiative.org/ And–just as the movement to lift severe restrictions on abortion is … Continue reading
Originally posted on the The Doctor’s Tablet The use of gestational surrogates in India is a booming business, but is it ethical? This growing practice involves individuals and couples from countries in Western Europe, North America, Israel, Japan and elsewhere … Continue reading
Last week, late night talk show host Jimmy Fallon announced the birth of his daughter, Winnie, via a surrogate. Fallon reports struggling with infertility as a couple for 5 years, and is (understandably) over the moon for his daughter: “…if … Continue reading
This commentary was initially posted on August 13, 2013 on the Impact Ethics blog and is reposted here with permission of the author. Visit impactethics.ca
Alana Cattapan argues the harm done to women through sex selection is sufficient reason to continue the prohibition.
In a recent report on “Eugenics and the Ethics of Selective Reproduction,” published in July 2013, Stephen Wilkinson and Eve Garrard step into much-contested terrain, challenging orthodoxies of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In their essay on sex selection—which caught the attention of media outlets throughout the United Kingdom (here, here & here) —the authors argue that there is no ethical justification for the UK prohibition on sex selection using PGD.
Continue readingIn his July 11, 2014 Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristoff quotes The Lancet’s most recent nutritional survey as indicating that 804,000 children die annually from “suboptimal breast-feeding,” more than the WHO’s estimate of deaths from malaria. … Continue reading
While dozens of states in the US continue to make efforts to undermine reproductive rights, less attention has been given to the high cost and relatively poor outcomes for childbirth in the US. This New York Times article details the … Continue reading
Tuesday night, Senator Wendy Davis, a very vocal supporting crowd at the Texas capitol, and very engaged online communities fought for women’s reproductive rights in Texas.
And won.
The issue, if you haven’t heard — and you may not have, as mainstream media ignored this yesterday (most hilariously on CNN, where the caloric value of blueberry muffins were discussed during the climax in the TX Senate) — the issue was Texas Senate Bill 5. This bill would make illegal any abortions “at or later than 20 weeks post-fertilization” on the basis that “substantial medical evidence recognizes that an unborn child is capable of experiencing pain by not later than 20 weeks after fertilization” (SB5). This, along with other restrictions about meeting ambulatory care facility standards, would restrict the number of abortion providers in the state of Texas by 80-90%, leaving just five. FIVE PROVIDERS. For the entire state of Texas.
Continue reading