Bodily Integrity (bodily + integrity)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences80%

Selected Abstracts

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]

Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: Tackling the Difficult Issues

THE JOURNAL OF SEXUAL MEDICINE, Issue 8 2009
Caryn L. Perera BA (Lib & Info Mgt), Grad Cert EBP
ABSTRACT Introduction., Male circumcision is the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the world. Circumcision may be performed to treat an underlying pathological process ("therapeutic circumcision"). However there may be religious, cultural, and social indications. Aim., This article addresses the religious, cultural, social, and ethical issues surrounding nontherapeutic male circumcision (NTMC). Main Outcome Measures., Any religious, social, cultural, or ethical issues relating to NTMC. Methods., Because of the absence of high level evidence, a concise literature review was undertaken to identify articles published between January 1990 and February 2009 summarizing current knowledge on NTMC. Results., There are complex religious, cultural, social, and prophylactic incentives for NTMC. The procedure may have associated clinical and psychosocial adverse events and raises such ethical issues as bodily integrity and consent. Because of the strength of the incentives for NTMC, there may be important implications in denying patients the procedure. Several important issues must be considered when introducing mass circumcision as a preventative strategy for HIV/AIDS. Conclusion., When assessing whether NTMC will benefit or harm a patient, clinicians must take his religious, cultural, and social circumstances into account. Males requiring mandatory religious or cultural NTMC are likely to suffer significant harm if they do not receive circumcision and should be considered separately to males in general. Perera CL, Bridgewater FHG, Thavaneswaran P, and Maddern GJ. Nontherapeutic male circumcision: Tackling the difficult issues. J Sex Med 2009;6:2237,2243. [source]

GENETIC ENGINEERING TO AVOID GENETIC NEGLECT: FROM CHANCE TO RESPONSIBILITY

BIOETHICS, Issue 4 2010
JESSICA HAMMOND
ABSTRACT Currently our assessment of whether someone is a good parent depends on the environmental inputs (or lack of such inputs) they give their children. But new genetic intervention technologies, to which we may soon have access, mean that how good a parent is will depend also on the genetic inputs they give their children. Each new piece of available technology threatens to open up another way that we can neglect our children. Our obligations to our children and our susceptibilities to corresponding legal and moral sanctions may be about to explosively increase. In this paper I argue that we should treat conventional neglect and ,genetic neglect', failing to use genetic intervention technologies to prevent serious diseases and disabilities , morally consistently. I conclude that in a range of cases parents will have a moral obligation to use genetic treatments to prevent serious disabilities in their children. My particular focus is on prenatal interventions and their impact of the bodily integrity of expectant mothers. I conclude that although bodily integrity constrains moral obligations, it is outweighed in a range of cases. [source]

CULTURAL CIRCUMCISION IN EU PUBLIC HOSPITALS , AN ETHICAL DISCUSSION

BIOETHICS, Issue 8 2009
MARGHERITA BRUSA
ABSTRACT The paper explores the ethical aspects of introducing cultural circumcision of children into the EU public health system. We reject commonplace arguments against circumcision: considerations of good medical practice, justice, bodily integrity, autonomy and the analogy from female genital mutilation. From the unique structure of patient-medicine interaction, we argue that the incorporation of cultural circumcision into EU public health services is a kind of medicalization, which does not fit the ethos of universal healthcare. However, we support a utilitarian argument that finds hospital-based circumcision safer than non-medicalized alternatives. The argument concerning medicalization and the utilitarian argument both rely on preliminary empirical data, which depend on future validation. [source]

SHOULD WE PREVENT NON-THERAPEUTIC MUTILATION AND EXTREME BODY MODIFICATION?

BIOETHICS, Issue 1 2008
THOMAS SCHRAMME
ABSTRACT In this paper, I discuss several arguments against non-therapeutic mutilation. Interventions into bodily integrity, which do not serve a therapeutic purpose and are not regarded as aesthetically acceptable by the majority, e.g. tongue splitting, branding and flesh stapling, are now practised, but, however, are still seen as a kind of ,aberration' that ought not to be allowed. I reject several arguments for a possible ban on these body modifications. I find the common pathologisation of body modifications, Kant's argument of duties to oneself and the objection from irrationality all wanting. In conclusion, I see no convincing support for prohibition of voluntary mutilations. [source]