Home  About us  Contact
 

Family Power (family + power)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

Women's family power and gender preference in Minya, Egypt

JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY, Issue 2 2005
Kathryn M. Yount
Structural and ideational theories are adapted to explore the influence of women's resources and ideational exposures on their family power and gender preferences in Minya, Egypt. Data from a household survey of 2,226 married women aged 15,54 years show that residence with marital kin decreases women's family power. Women in endogamous marriages have greater family power than women in nonendogamous marriages but still tend to prefer sons. Educated women report weaker son preference and greater influence in decisions but still tend to prefer sons. The positive association of women's education, paid work, and urban residence with a variable measuring girl or equal preference and family power suggests that selected resources and ideational exposures may improve girls' well-being in Minya. [source]

Individual and Family Decisions About Organ Donation

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHILOSOPHY, Issue 1 2007
T. M. WILKINSON
abstract This paper examines, from a philosophical point of view, the ethics of the role of the family and the deceased in decisions about organ retrieval. The paper asks: Who, out of the individual and the family, should have the ultimate power to donate or withhold organs? On the side of respecting the wishes of the deceased individual, the paper considers and rejects arguments by analogy with bequest and from posthumous bodily integrity. It develops an argument for posthumous autonomy based on the liberal idea of self-development and argues that this establishes a right of veto over donation. It claims, however, that whether the family's power to veto would conflict with posthumous autonomy rights depends on how it comes about. On the side of respecting the family's wishes, the paper first considers an argument from family distress. This supports a contingent, non-rights-based reason for the family's power that is trumped by the deceased's rights. It then outlines and criticises an argument based on family autonomy. The conclusion is that the individual has the right to veto the family's wish to donate and that, while the family has no right to veto the individual's wishes to donate, it can legitimately acquire this power and has done so in practice. [source]