Future people, involuntary medical treatment in pregnancy and the duty of easy rescue

Utilitas 19 (1):1-20 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

I argue that pregnant women have a duty to refrain from behaviours or to allow certain acts to be done to them for the sake of their foetus if the foetus has a reasonable chance of living and being in a harmed state if the woman does not refrain from those behaviours or allow those things to be done to her. There is a proviso: that her refraining from acting or allowing acts to be performed upon her does not significantly harm her. This duty does not presuppose that the foetus is a person. It is grounded on principles of respect for the interests of sentient beings and prevention of harm to future individuals. I give an argument for a general duty of easy rescue

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 103,343

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
156 (#151,185)

6 months
20 (#136,238)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Julian Savulescu
Oxford University

References found in this work

Reasons and Persons.Joseph Margolis - 1984 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47 (2):311-327.
A defense of abortion.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1971 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1):47-66.
Animal Liberation.Bill Puka & Peter Singer - 1977 - Philosophical Review 86 (4):557.
Practical Ethics.John Martin Fischer - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (2):264.
The Possibility of Altruism.John Benson - 1972 - Philosophical Quarterly 22 (86):82-83.

View all 17 references / Add more references