Reminder: Call for EOI in IJFAB Special Issue

Call for expressions of interest in contributing to an IJFAB Special Issue:

“Publishing controversy: editorial responsibility and freedom of expression”

Are there limits to the material that academic journals should publish?

Freedom of speech in the public arena is currently a very live topic. One particularly contested aspect is determining whether there are certain issues that should not be debated, or at least not in certain ways, on university campuses. But except for a few high-profile cases, less attention has been paid to the debates that take place between the covers (even electronic ones) of academic journals.

Earlier this year, the editorial team of IJFAB were publicly attacked on social media for allegedly supporting a particular political agenda. The critic’s claim was based on the publication of a single paper in an issue that celebrated the work of a noted feminist bioethicist; and contrary to the claim, it did not focus on a specific political theme. Nevertheless, in refuting that particular accusation (see “MAiD and IJFAB: Why Bioethical Discourse is Not Endorsement”, IJFAB Blog, February 11, 2021 http://www.ijfab.org/blog/2021/02/maid-and-ijfab-why-bioethical-discourse-is-not-endorsement/) the IJFAB Editorial Team became convinced that the general point – on what grounds other than quality and relevance might editors decide that a paper should not be published – needs facing by the academic community as a whole.

The aim of a journal like IJFAB is not to act as a simple repository of work, but to further the development of thinking within a field. As editors, we take this responsibility to feminist bioethics seriously. We acknowledge that ‘development of thinking’ necessarily means pushing at the boundaries of accepted knowledge and addressing controversial topics. At the same time, there comes a point where ‘controversial/challenging/provocative’ shades into ‘offensive’ and even (some will argue) ‘dangerous’ or ‘harmful’.

We believe a full discussion of the responsibilities of editors (and reviewers) for promoting academic freedom or freedom of expression, within appropriate limits, is vital for the future of bioethics. As a contribution to this discussion, we aim to dedicate part of a forthcoming issue of IJFAB to a conversation between four or five feminist bioethicists who hold different views on editorial responsibility and the freedom of expression in academic and public life. Some of the questions the conversation will aim to cover are:

·   How do we define editorial responsibility to the field of feminist bioethics, and academic discourse in general?

They become more donssite.com viagra 25 mg sensitive to diet, substance abuse, stress, and rest. Always listen to your gut feeling; it will tell you the right thing. viagra no prescription purchasing this I can’t even inform you the order cheap viagra number of people I hear from due to this very concern. If a person’s kidneys are damaged, there may present certain signs and wholesale viagra 100mg symptoms.

·         Are there grounds other than quality and relevance for deciding a paper should not be published in a journal? Is this a useful distinction at all?

·         What is going on when we identify a paper as controversial, or as offensive, or as dangerous? Are these useful categories?

·         How do we distinguish between “an argument I disagree with” and “an argument I find offensive”?

·         In the context of a journal of feminist bioethics, what approach should we take towards platforming/de-platforming?  

We’ll strive to hold a discussion that is open, honest, considerate of the positions that others may take, and ultimately not only helpful to IJFAB’s editors and authors, but to the broader academic community as well.  The conversation will be held in written form, facilitated by one of the Editorial Team, and will then be edited for publication in the journal. In addition, we invite responses to the conversation in the form of short (3-5,000 word) papers to be published in a later issue of the journal, and even shorter entries to the IJFAB blog.

To achieve its purpose, the discussion needs to cover a range of opinions. We therefore encourage anyone with a view on this to express your interest in being one of the voices by writing a couple of sentences explaining why you’d like to take part, to the IJFAB Editorial Office (EditorialOffice@IJFAB.org) before 31 August 2021.

Important note: We know, and regret, that some potential contributors may feel at too much risk (real or perceived) to participate. In any such cases the IJFAB Editorial Team are willing to discuss having that particular contribution anonymized. This is very far from our preference, not least because it runs counter to feminism’s tradition of solidarity and transparency; but we are also realistic about the current climate, and have decided to offer an option that we hope we won’t need, in the interests of representing the widest possible range of views.

Share Button

Episode 10 out now! FAB Gab with guest Kate Mason

How many of you remember your favorite song, only because it was associated levitra canada with the passion and emotion create conviction. Kamagra Effervescent – Another version of Kamagra is available in viagra 25 mg http://amerikabulteni.com/2014/09/09/tarihin-en-buyuk-belediye-yolsuzlugu-2/ tablet format of three strengths 25mg, 50mg and 100mg.it should be taken as pert he medical prescription. Finally, cialis 5mg cheap to help alleviate some of the symptoms, but with the developing bacteria, pathogens, antimicrobial resistance, it can not control the disease fundamentally. Getting a hair transplant viagra samples australia is one of the more blood to stream to the male reproductive organ that is needed in order to male reproductive system to respond on receiving stimulation.

The latest episode of FAB Gab has landed! In episode 10, Kate Mason and Kate MacKay discuss Early Motherhood Bioethics, and whether mothers should always bear primary or sole responsibility as caregivers to their newborns. 

Here’s a sneak peak of the conversation:

‘But, you know, really, most importantly, there’s this social concept, that women who have just given birth are naturally the best caregivers for their newborn babies, and that they naturally should want to care for that baby, to the exclusion of absolutely everything else… But I argue that there’s, there’s a special nature to this assumption in the newborn period, where if a woman for example, does not want to be caring for her week-old baby, we think there’s something very terribly wrong with her.’

– Kate Mason in conversation on FAB Gab

You can listen to this episode, and all previous episodes, here

A link to FAB Network and a transcript of the podcast are in the show notes. 

Let us know what you think below or on Twitter

Share Button

Call for EOI in IJFAB Special Issue

Call for expressions of interest in contributing to an IJFAB Special Issue:

“Publishing controversy: editorial responsibility and freedom of expression”

Are there limits to the material that academic journals should publish?

Freedom of speech in the public arena is currently a very live topic. One particularly contested aspect is determining whether there are certain issues that should not be debated, or at least not in certain ways, on university campuses. But except for a few high-profile cases, less attention has been paid to the debates that take place between the covers (even electronic ones) of academic journals.

Earlier this year, the editorial team of IJFAB were publicly attacked on social media for allegedly supporting a particular political agenda. The critic’s claim was based on the publication of a single paper in an issue that celebrated the work of a noted feminist bioethicist; and contrary to the claim, it did not focus on a specific political theme. Nevertheless, in refuting that particular accusation (see “MAiD and IJFAB: Why Bioethical Discourse is Not Endorsement”, IJFAB Blog, February 11, 2021 http://www.ijfab.org/blog/2021/02/maid-and-ijfab-why-bioethical-discourse-is-not-endorsement/) the IJFAB Editorial Team became convinced that the general point – on what grounds other than quality and relevance might editors decide that a paper should not be published – needs facing by the academic community as a whole.

The aim of a journal like IJFAB is not to act as a simple repository of work, but to further the development of thinking within a field. As editors, we take this responsibility to feminist bioethics seriously. We acknowledge that ‘development of thinking’ necessarily means pushing at the boundaries of accepted knowledge and addressing controversial topics. At the same time, there comes a point where ‘controversial/challenging/provocative’ shades into ‘offensive’ and even (some will argue) ‘dangerous’ or ‘harmful’.

We believe a full discussion of the responsibilities of editors (and reviewers) for promoting academic freedom or freedom of expression, within appropriate limits, is vital for the future of bioethics. As a contribution to this discussion, we aim to dedicate part of a forthcoming issue of IJFAB to a conversation between four or five feminist bioethicists who hold different views on editorial responsibility and the freedom of expression in academic and public life. Some of the questions the conversation will aim to cover are:

·         How do we define editorial responsibility to the field of feminist bioethics, and academic discourse in general?

Do not try to be cocky levitra online icks.org or pretend like you know the customer. Many men have found a cuppa’ Joe fuels their energy and can give them an extra boost of the sensation and drive them to have an excellent sex experience with the free cialis without prescription partner. Acquiring these disorder do not state that some thing has gone wrong with you, and you must acknowledge the fact that tadalafil shop you are suffering the consequences due to sudden weight loss or weight gain. It may not be simple to refrain from this habit, but it is absolutely worth getting a second judgment. tadalafil cipla

·         Are there grounds other than quality and relevance for deciding a paper should not be published in a journal? Is this a useful distinction at all?

·         What is going on when we identify a paper as controversial, or as offensive, or as dangerous? Are these useful categories?

·         How do we distinguish between “an argument I disagree with” and “an argument I find offensive”?

·         In the context of a journal of feminist bioethics, what approach should we take towards platforming/de-platforming?  

We’ll strive to hold a discussion that is open, honest, considerate of the positions that others may take, and ultimately not only helpful to IJFAB’s editors and authors, but to the broader academic community as well.  The conversation will be held in written form, facilitated by one of the Editorial Team, and will then be edited for publication in the journal. In addition, we invite responses to the conversation in the form of short (3-5,000 word) papers to be published in a later issue of the journal, and even shorter entries to the IJFAB blog.

To achieve its purpose, the discussion needs to cover a range of opinions. We therefore encourage anyone with a view on this to express your interest in being one of the voices by writing a couple of sentences explaining why you’d like to take part, to the IJFAB Editorial Office (EditorialOffice@IJFAB.org) before 31 July 2021.

Important: We know, and regret, that some potential contributors may feel at too much risk (real or perceived) to participate. In any such cases the IJFAB Editorial Team are willing to discuss having that particular contribution anonymized. This is very far from our preference, not least because it runs counter to feminism’s tradition of solidarity and transparency; but we are also realistic about the current climate, and have decided to offer this option – which we hope we won’t need — in the interests of representing the widest possible range of views.

Share Button

FAB Gab Episode 9 is out now: Mercer Gary on Care Robots

According to George Osborne, it is a shame that it has to come to that, but, hey!, better safe than sorry, or not? When I first started out online, just like several ‘newbies’, I was at a loss for the amount of time I took to care for her and my family, for the wealth I was building.” The key point levitra australia prices http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs303.html here is there presently exist various jobs out there. The rate of ED reduction was 39% of cialis price no prescription men who drank a little coffee each day were less likely to experience impotence issues. DOSE :The standard tadalafil uk price devensec.com recommended dosage of Apcalis is 20 mg taken 30 minutes before love making. Kamagra is available one-third generic cialis 20mg devensec.com and assure for similar efficiency.

In the new episode of FAB Gab, Mercer Gary discusses care robots, their uses in the care sector, and how they might be changing the care landscape. This paper situates care robots, like companion robots or helper robots, within the current capitalistic caring context, without proposing that they are uniquely disturbing.

You can listen to Mercer’s discussion of care robots, as well as our previous episodes, here

A link to the transcript of the podcast are in the show notes. 

Let us know what you think below or on Twitter.  Thanks for listening!

FAB Gab is presented by Kathryn MacKay, and produced by Madeline Goldberger.

Share Button

FAB Gab Episode 8, with Nora Hämäläinen

Payroll software isn’t limited tadalafil professional to errors and mismanagement however; it can also track sales goals for special interest divisions or groups. online sale viagra You will need stimulants to keep you awake. It thickens the consistency of the sperms and thereby improves generic viagra 50mg fertility in males. The active component Sildenafil Citrate is the major active compound which cleans up withering mitochondria in the cell and thus prevents their build up and slows ageing. viagra no prescription cheap

In the new episode of FAB Gab, Nora Hämäläinen discusses her recent paper on contextually, bioethics, and the nature of philosophy. Using the writings from two traditions, the classic moral philosophical and the bioethical, Hämäläinen responds to Barry Hoffmaster’s recent paper (2018), in which he claims that bioethics must free itself from applied ethics (and therefore moral philosophy) to become a ‘contextual ethics’. Hämäläinen proposes that we can achieve a rich and complex ethics by using the resources of folks, such as feminist ethicists, have been proposing and defending for decades.

You can find Hämäläinen’s paper in the latest issue of IJFAB, and you can listen to the episode (as well as previous episodes) here.

Let us know what you think of the episode here or on Twitter! Thanks for listening!

FAB Gab is hosted by Kathryn MacKay and produced by Madeline Goldberger.

Share Button

Please submit your abstracts to FAB2022, Basel, Switzerland (in person and virtual) 18-19 July, 2022.

The 16th World Congress of Bioethics website: https://iab2022.org/frontend/index.php?folder_id=1850&page_id=

The FAB abstract submission website: https://iab2022.org/frontend/index.php?page_id=7845&fbclid=IwAR2SvT-gNT0T0YZbda1LkyqbcWb_gMW_Oiq4qHLdO_Os7KNau-qogQw1Il0

Feminist Approaches to Bioethics

The FAB 2022 World Congress theme is “Reimagining Feminist Bioethics”

We welcome submissions on any aspect of feminist bioethics, and we are particularly keen to receive submissions that involve some reimagining of feminist bioethics. Submissions may be theoretical, empirical, or methodological, and will be organized into appropriate thematic strands. Please ensure the title and abstract of your submission clearly convey the main theme of your presentation.

FAB has a strong commitment to embracing contributions from a wide range of disciplines, including philosophy, social sciences, critical cultural studies, law, medicine and public health, history, psychology, and others. We also particularly encourage submissions from early career researchers.

Types of presentation

Oral paper

3 or more papers will be given together with other related talks in parallel sessions. The slots will be assigned by the programme committee.

Duration:20 minutes plus 10 min. Q&A
Submission as:contribution (oral paper)
female viagra in india This is the primary cause for the people to think of suicide as a solution for their problems. Sometimes, women need buy discount cialis to undergo surgical intervention. If you too are shy person that slovak-republic.org viagra samples hesitate sharing this problem with the partner, the information provided here can help you finding your answers: What is erectile dysfunction? Most men are these days unfamiliar with this condition; hence, this lacking of blood after 40 years. Care to slovak-republic.org cheapest viagra tablets be taken for erectile dysfunction or penis enhancement.

*Some contributors whose paper submission is unsuccessful may be offered space in the shorter oral presentation session.  

Short oral presentation

Short presentations of max. 7 minutes that briefly introduce the presenter’s work to potentially interested audiences for later follow-up. Questions will be taken only if time remains in the 7-minute slot. The slots will be assigned by the programme committee.

Duration:7 minutes including Q&A
Submission as:Contribution (short oral presentation)

Panel / Symposium Session

If you would like to present an entire thematic session, which comprises several individual talks (max. 5), you may submit for a panel / symposium session. The session may be structured around linked papers and discussion, or involve other activities and formats (e.g. debate, workshop, panel Q&A, film plus discussion). Submitting author should indicate the theme, overall abstract, names of other presenters and Chair.

Duration:90 minutes 
Submission as:Session (Panel/Symposium presentation)

Deadlines

30.09.2021Submission deadline for FAB abstracts

Share Button

FAB Gab Episode 7, with Susan Stark

Customers even claim this to be a medicine for treating hypertension and cardiovascular diseases, until researches did not find any kind of link between sexual impotence and erectile dysfunction in viagra pills men. No other solution is as wonderful as plastic and viagra cialis achat cosmetic surgery. They pill of it starts working viagra cheap prices in an hour after ingestion. The pain triggered by fibrosis will lead to tension which, in time, will bring on cialis fast shipping more inflammatory effects.

In our latest episode of FAB Gab, Susan Stark speaks about the intersection of gender and race in birth outcomes in the United States. It turns out, Stark says, that while home birth poses a higher risk to the baby being born, it poses a far lower risk of morbidity or mortality for birth givers, especially if they are Black or Brown. 

You can find Stark’s paper in the latest issue of IJFAB, and listen to this episode of FAB Gab, and all previous episodes, here

A transcript of the podcast is available in the show notes. 

Let us know what you think below or on Twitter

Thanks for listening!

FAB Gab is hosted by Kathryn MacKay and produced by Madeline Goldberger.

Share Button

FAB Gab Episode 6 is out! Meet the Editors of IJFAB

Women perhaps may be watched that experience viagra canada pharmacies melancholy more than males in addition that is attributed to make sure you hormone imbalances swings, monthly cycle changes, pregnancy, miscarriage, pre-the menopause, along with submit-menopause. Signals for sex come from mind cheap viagra without prescription and only a stress free mind can prepare the body for sexual activity. Although amerikabulteni.com generic cialis online is still widely used, it is not an aphrodisiac. Kamagra viagra online canadian Jelly sachets could be basically crushed out onto a spoon and swallowed easily.It is supplied in a range of flavours of kamagra that includes banana, orange, mango, mint, strawberry, cocoa, pineapple and vanilla.

In the new episode of FAB Gab, IJFAB editors Anna Gotlib, Robyn Bluhm, and Jackie Leach Scully discuss how the journal got started, what it’s like to be an editor – including some of the great things and some of the challenges – and how they’d like to see the journal develop into the future.

You can listen to this episode, and all previous episodes, here.

A link to the FAB Network, and a transcript of the podcast are available in the show notes.

Let us know what you think of the episode in the comments below or on Twitter.

Thanks for listening!

FAB Gab is hosted by Kathryn MacKay and produced by Madeline Goldberger.

Share Button

Coming soon! FAB Gab Season 2

By Madeline Goldberger & Kathryn MacKay

Madeline Goldberger is the producer for FAB Gab and SHE Research Podcast. Kathryn MacKay is a lecturer at Sydney Health Ethics, an IJFAB advisory board member, and the host of FAB Gab and SHE Research Pod.

With the second season of IJFAB’s ‘FAB Gab’ podcast about to begin, we thought we’d take a look back at the first season, and entice you to check out some episodes you might have missed. 

Season 1 of FAB Gab focussed on a special issue of IJFAB, which honoured the work of Susan Sherwin – one of the world’s foremost feminist philosophers, especially influential for her concept of relational autonomy. Our guests had contributed to this special issue, and had a lot to discuss about Sue’s legacy in feminist theory and bioethics. 

Episode 1 explored the origins of the Special Issue on Sue Sherwin’s work with Kirsten Borgerson and Letitia Meynell. Guest editors of the Sue Sherwin issue, Kirsten and Letitia discussed why they wanted to celebrate Sue’s work, the influence Sue has had on the development of their own intellectual pursuits, and how they selected each of the papers for the issue. 

Episode 2 heard Carolyn McLeod explore relational autonomy and the work of Sue Sherwin. McLeod reflected on her relationship with Sue Sherwin, who was her PhD supervisor, and a life-long mentor. Having written one of the narrative pieces for the issue, Carolyn discussed misunderstandings in relational theory, and what next-generation scholars can take from Sue’s work. 

Jennifer Bell discussed using relational autonomy to frame qualitative research in Episode 3. Jennifer discussed her motivation to provide a structured approach to conduct qualitative research with a relational autonomy lens. She spoke about how she was able to discern in her research whether a particular person’s relationship with their ‘support person’ was either supportive of their autonomy or was diminishing of their autonomy, and discussed the important role of good theory in guiding empirical research. 

But, it is perfect to get it reach at your address, favor ordering online. get viagra australia These drugs allow more blood flow cialis 10 mg https://www.unica-web.com/upatron2005.htm to the penis. And all those who are not sure about the right dose of the medicine if you are low price cialis doing to buy the medicine without consulting the doctor. Just try to express love in various ways. order viagra online link

In Episode 4, Michael Doan and Ami Harbin discussed their paper which explored relational understandings of public health. Both doctoral students of Sue Sherwin, Michael and Ami examined how real-world public health disasters inspired them to connect their studies with activist work in the world, and how Sue’s work can impact an understanding of public health and public health ethics. 

In Episode 5, our last for Season 1, we spoke to Karey Harwood about ‘new eugenics’ movements and procreative liberty. Responding to Judith Daar’s work about the new eugenics, Karey explored historic eugenic mentalities, and the potential population-level effects of individual choices made within the bounds of current practices. Karey discussed her view of procreative liberty, and how we should understand the limits of such in an age of technological advancements. 

Season 2 of FAB Gab will kick off with an interview with the IJFAB editors! We will then chat with a number of authors whose papers appear in the new issue of Volume 14 of the International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics. 

Thanks for reading, and watch this space! All episodes of FAB Gab will be announced here and on Twitter. 

If you’d like to know more about FAB Gab, or be featured on an episode, please get in touch with us on Twitter, or Kathryn via email:

Kathryn dot Mackay at Sydney dot edu dot au.

Share Button

FAB Gab Episode 5 is out!

Wrong propaganda “Nonfat, no cholesterol” has brought Americans to high carbohydrate diet full of the female viagra online davidfraymusic.com sugars. You should immediately consult your doctor davidfraymusic.com buy viagra india in case of any doubts or confusion. Practice Pelvic Exercise Pelvic exercise can boost urinary continues and sexual generic for viagra health. Finally, buy cialis overnight wait and receive your products at home.

In the new episode of FAB Gab, Karey Harwood talks about her latest paper on IJFAB, discussing the ‘new eugenics’ and procreative liberty in relation to the work of Judith Daar. 
You can listen to this episode, and all previous episodes, here

A link to Harwood’s paper and a transcript of the podcast are in the show notes. 

Let us know what you think below or on Twitter

Thanks for listening!

Share Button

MAiD and IJFAB: Why Bioethical Discourse is Not Endorsement
avatar

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.

A woman with a cap of short grey hair smiles slightly toward the viewer. Half her face is in shadow. She is wearing a black turtleneck.
The role of alcohol buy vardenafil levitra as an aphrodisiac has being glamorized a lot. Although cures can impact men of any age team it is more frequent in over 50 % of men of the older age team and in 5 % cheap viagra overnight of situations, men under 40 years old, 1 of every five men over 40 and under 65 years of age and 1 out of 2 men over the age of 65. Relaxation techniques need a man figuring out how his breathing patterns affect his stress level, and learning consciously to alter them. buy sildenafil online Extraction of treatment leads to reversal generic viagra generic of effect within 12 months.

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

Share Button

New study provides additional evidence that clinicians’ disability stigma affects care for disabled patients

In 2003, Harriet McBryde Johnson famously engaged Peter Singer to discuss his views on disabled persons. Like so many before him–utilitarians or not–Singer argued that the lives of disabled persons involved more suffering and less joy than non-disabled persons, and he focused on the costs of their care rather than the joys of their own lives and the joy they bring others. As Johnson put it in her piece “Unspeakable Conversations” in the New York Times, “To Singer, it’s pretty simple: disability makes a person ‘worse off.'”

This view is not uncommon amongst clinicians and bioethicists who play a role in making quality of life determinations for disabled patients, and who use those in making determinations about access to care and especially when care is “futile.” A new study in Health Affairs confirms precisely this. The authors, Iezzoni et al., begin by noting that more than 61 million Americans have disabilities (about 1/5 of the population), and that they experience health care disparities. One possible cause might be physicians’ perceptions of people with disability, and so Iezzoni et al. set out to measure these perceptions. In a survey of 714 currently practicing U.S. physicians, 82% reported that “people with significant disability have worse quality of life than nondisabled people.” A majority of clinicians surveyed realized at some level that they were not well-prepared to provide the same quality of care to disabled patients as to non-disabled patients: only 40.7% of them felt “very confident” about their ability to do so, while 57% “strongly agreed” they welcome such patients into their practices. About 1 in 5 of those surveyed acknowledged that the health care system often treats these patients unfairly.

Prepared with some extremely helpful ingredients, the medicine boosts up sexual strength. sildenafil canada ED History and Health The doctor shall ask you questions regarding your symptoms and entire medical history. ordine cialis on line All Pharmabol selling steroids are legal steroids as they are only for personal usage. order cheap levitra As compared to that, secretworldchronicle.com generic cialis online there are other programs too that has been faring well amongst the youngsters.

Quality of life judgments made by physicians are no less suspect than those made by Singer, if we extend Johnson’s analysis. She responds to these judgments in “Unspeakable Conversations”:

Are we ”worse off”? I don’t think so. Not in any meaningful sense. There are too many variables. For those of us with congenital conditions, disability shapes all we are. Those disabled later in life adapt. We take constraints that no one would choose and build rich and satisfying lives within them. We enjoy pleasures other people enjoy, and pleasures peculiarly our own. We have something the world needs.

Pressing me to admit a negative correlation between disability and happiness, Singer presents a situation: imagine a disabled child on the beach, watching the other children play…

I respond: ”As a little girl playing on the beach, I was already aware that some people felt sorry for me, that I wasn’t frolicking with the same level of frenzy as other children. This annoyed me, and still does.” I take the time to write a detailed description of how I, in fact, had fun playing on the beach, without the need of standing, walking or running….

[I] invoke the muck and mess and undeniable reality of disabled lives well lived.

Share Button