Some philosophers have argued for what I call the reason-giving requirement for conscientious refusal in reproductive healthcare. According to this requirement, healthcare practitioners who conscientiously object to administering standard forms of treatment must have arguments to back up their conscience, arguments that are purely public in character. I argue that such a requirement, though attractive in some ways, faces an overlooked epistemic problem: it is either too easy or too difficult to satisfy in standard cases. I close by briefly considering whether a version of the reason-giving requirement can be salvaged despite this important difficulty.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12012 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Morality, normativity and measuring moral distress.
Nurs Philos
January 2021
School of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Sciences, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, UK.
It is known that people have been getting distressed for a long-time and healthcare workers, like the military, seem to fit criteria for being at particular risk. Fairly recently a term of art, moral distress, has been added to types of distress at work, though not restricted to work, they can suffer. There are recognized scales that measure psychological distress such as the General Health Questionnaire and the Kessler scales but moral distress it is claimed is different warranting its own scale.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPreschoolers refer to direct and indirect evidence in their collaborative reasoning.
J Exp Child Psychol
May 2020
Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA; Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany.
Collaborative reasoning requires partners to evaluate options and the evidence for or against each option. We investigated whether preschoolers can explain why one option is best (direct reasons) and why the other option is not (indirect reasons), looking at both problems that have a correct answer and those that require choosing the better option. In Study 1, both age groups produced direct reasons equally frequently in both problems.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNonverbal rhetoric: 2- to 4-year-old children select relevant evidence when trying to influence others.
Dev Psychol
October 2019
Jean Nicod Institute, Department of Cognitive Studies, ENS, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS.
This article investigates the early emergence of reason-giving. Toddlers are sensitive to disagreements, and they can track several kinds of informational access, such as visual perception. We investigated whether young children use these skills (a) when assessing whether providing reasons is needed and (b) when selecting appropriate behaviors to support their claims.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe Inevitability of Assessing Reasons in Debates about Conscientious Objection in Medicine.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics
January 2017
This article first critically reviews the major philosophical positions in the literature on conscientious objection and finds that they possess significant flaws. A substantial number of these problems stem from the fact that these views fail to assess the reasons offered by medical professionals in support of their objections. This observation is used to motivate the reasonability view, one part of which states: A practitioner who lodges a conscientious refusal must publicly state his or her objection as well as the reasoned basis for the objection and have these subjected to critical evaluation before a conscientious exemption can be granted (the reason-giving requirement).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAntinatalist commentators recommend that humanity bring itself to a close, on the theory that pain and suffering override the value of any possible life. Other commentators do not require the voluntary extinction of human beings, but they defend that outcome if people were to choose against having children. Against such views, Richard Kraut has defended a general moral obligation to people the future with human beings until the workings of the universe render such efforts impossible.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWant AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!