In the past few months, a number of posts and Tweets from the Biopolitical Philosophy blog have stated that the International Journal of Feminist Bioethics (IJFAB) has ‘promoted’ medical assistance in dying (MAiD) along with the legislation currently being considered by the Canadian Senate that proposes changes in the existing Canadian law on MAiD. The claims have been that IJFAB, as a journal, is in favour of medically assisted dying and is dismissive of the argument that MAiD is a threat to people with disability. The editors of IJFAB have asked the editor of Biopolitical Philosophy to retract these statements but this request has been declined. So, we’re taking this opportunity to make explicit the journal’s position on publications that address this and other controversial issues in feminist bioethics.
As an academic journal of feminist bioethics, IJFAB does not support, promote or reject individual pieces of legislation or policy. That isn’t to say that IJFAB takes no position on any issue whatsoever. As feminists, the editors and authors alike share the goal of achieving equality and justice for women, and by extension for other socially marginalized groups. That means we have a primary orientation in favour of measures that help reach that goal.
But life isn’t simple, and beyond this common aim there is considerable diversity of opinion. One of the main functions of the academy is to provide a space of encounter and dialogue for this diversity, within the boundaries of what’s legal and of commonly accepted standards of courtesy, in the conviction that morally sound positions can only be strengthened by respectful debate while morally deplorable ones will be shown up for what they are.
Of course, this is an ideal, and as feminists we are not naïve to the fact that social and political forces push more privileged voices to the centre. We take seriously our responsibility as editors to ensure as best we can that these structural exclusions don’t affect the work of IJFAB. Like the majority of academic journals we encourage submissions in a variety of formats, use double anonymous peer review, and have an Editorial Board to whom the editorial team can turn for guidance. IJFAB currently has an editorial team of three, and between us we’re quite likely to hold differing positions when we discuss publishing on contentious issues. We are aware that no process is perfect, and we are constantly looking for ways to be more open and inclusive without compromising the standards of the journal.
What is more, a review of what has been published in IJFAB shows that it does not promote MAiD. First, the article in question[1] appears in a special issue primarily devoted to honouring the diverse work of one of the founders of feminist bioethics, not to the topic of MAiD. The article is in favour of legal reform but explicitly draws attention to the need to examine the impact of that reform on “women, the elderly, persons with disabilities, racialized minorities, and people with low income.” Second, and more importantly, IJFAB has published at least one paper that argues against medically assisted dying[2], and over the years has presented a body of work that is relevant to opposing sides on this debate, including work on relationality, vulnerability, and care. Since, to reiterate, IJFAB does not promote any specific position beyond a broadly feminist one, we are confident that our track record on other topics will show a similar lack of bias.
Although I’m writing this on behalf of the whole editorial team, I want to end by speaking personally. As a disabled bioethicist with a life-limiting health condition, I have my own serious concerns about the impact of medically assisted dying on people with disability. But I don’t believe that papers or articles discussing MAiD shouldn’t be published, and as an academic and activist I value the opportunity to learn more about positions with which I disagree.
This is an important issue for all journals, and we welcome this opportunity to invite continued discussion. As the editorial team at IJFAB our main concern is always to explore how we can best serve the entire community of feminist bioethicists.
Jackie Leach Scully
On behalf of the Editorial Team of IJFAB
[1] Jocelyn Downie, “Why Feminist Philosophy (Especially Sue Sherwin’s) Matters: Reflections through the Lens of Medical Assistance in Dying”. IJFAB 2020 13; 21-27 doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.13.2.05
[2] Margaret P. Wardlaw, “The Right-to-die Exception: How the Discourse of Individual Rights Impoverishes Bioethical Discussions of Disability and What We Can Do About It”. IJFAB 2010;2: 43-63 doi.10.3138/ijfab.3.2.43
