A critical opportunity for identifying children experiencing domestic minor sex trafficking exists in healthcare settings. This quantitative study documented the disconnect between youth seeking help and interventions offered by healthcare providers. Ninety-one sex youth exploited through sex trafficking answered questions detailing their experiences of seeking medical treatment for injuries associated with selling or trading sex. Healthcare providers who were aware that injuries were sustained due to sex trafficking did not always alert legal or mandated reporting authorities. This analysis identified violations (...) of the four pillars of ethical healthcare. This investigation revealed lost opportunities to intervene on behalf of youth suffering trauma and abuse from sex trafficking highlighting the necessity for a formal protocol in healthcare settings to effectively intervene. (shrink)

This paper documents the growing awareness of the sexual exploitation of women who seek help from priests and ministers. Over the six years that MACSAS has been in existence, 100 women and three men have contacted the organisation concerning sexual abuse as adults by clergy and ministers. Typically leaders of Christian denominations to whom they have reported this abuse characterise it as 'an affair' and often blame women for seducing male clergy. Drawing from literature on the sexual abuse of clients (...) by professionals, this paper vigorously calls for clergy and ministers to be regarded as professionals and for women and men who seek the pastoral help of clergy to be viewed as clients. Concepts of 'vulnerability' and 'consent' are also explored in order to clarify the nature of clergy abuse. (shrink)

: Many have asked how and why feminist theory makes a distinctive contribution to bioethics. In this essay, I outline two ways in which feminist reflection can enrich bioethical studies. First, feminist theory may expose certain themes of androcentric reasoning that can affect, in sometimes crude but often subtle ways, the substantive analysis of topics in bioethics; second, it can unearth the gendered nature of certain basic philosophical concepts that form the working tools of ethical theory.

: This response to the preceding five articles highlights the stubborn persistence of the philosophical perplexities surrounding commodification in the realm of medicine and biotechnology.

: Originally presented during Ethic Rounds at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, this commentary on the case of a patient treated for life-threatening cancer explores the responsibilities of health care providers when addressing the patient's desire to adopt a child.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Procreative Liberty, Biological Connections, and MotherhoodMargaret Olivia Little (bio)Given the complex and dramatic array of issues currently facing us in reproductive ethics, bioethicists working on the topic might be forgiven feelings of trepidation when they cast their minds toward the next century. Currently, technologies such as artificial insemination by donor (AID), once the source of intense controversy, are used on a routine basis; mainstream newspapers carry advertisements offering “excellent (...) compensation” to ova “donors;” courts are arguing whether women who serve as gestational or “surrogate” mothers have any parental rights; and proposals resurface to jail pregnant women who take street drugs. Sorting out which developments are to be welcomed and which are to be resisted—and why—will require us not only to clarify some of our most basic value commitments, but also to reflect on our understanding of concepts, such as motherhood, that we previously had the luxury of thinking obvious. Let me highlight two issues I think we will be forced to confront as we try to navigate the ethics of reproduction into the twenty-first century—namely, the value of biological connection and the meaning of motherhood.Procreative Liberty and the Value of Biological ReproductionPeople who are unable to conceive a child or to carry one to term now face a variety of extraordinary means of procreative assistance: they can buy sperm and ova, undergo in vitro fertilization, or contract another woman to gestate and give birth to the baby. Those who are enthusiastic about these new technologies [End Page 392] and arrangements often explain their support in terms of many people’s deep desire or even right to bear children biologically related to them; those who are suspicious of the techniques often explain their resistance by criticizing our culture’s “pronatalist” emphasis on biological rather than social relations with children. Focusing on such clear-cut positions, though, undersells the complexity and difficulty of the issues involved. Few want to dismiss altogether the importance of biological connection; but the question remains, what measure of importance should it be granted? Or again, while most agree that procreative liberty is one of our most fundamental rights, the question remains, whose procreation, in what context, and by which means? The truly difficult questions, that is, pertain to how we are to value biological relatedness and how we are to draw the contours of procreative liberty.One perspective emerging in current debates urges an expansive answer to these questions, arguing that the new reproductive technologies and arrangements deserve constitutional protection. Procreative liberty is deeply important, it is urged, given how fundamental the decision to have or to refrain from having children is to our sense of dignity, identity, and meaning of life. But if we recognize a right to reproduce coitally, it is claimed, we should also recognize a right to reproduce noncoitally: people with infertile partners should no more be barred from exercising their right to “beget, bear, and raise” children biologically linked to them by using surrogate arrangements or AID than those who are blind should be barred from exercising their right to written information by using Braille texts. 1The fundamental question is whether the value of biological reproduction persists when pursued outside of the intimacies of marriage and family that form its traditional home. The new reproductive technologies and arrangements, after all, represent a departure not simply because they are noncoital but because they involve reproduction with strangers, under contract, and for pay. One question that demands our reflection, then, is whether the procreative liberty we value attaches to individuals atomistically, as it were, or to individuals only insofar as they are in relationships of an intimate and ongoing nature.Other developments on the horizon sound a restrictive note about procreative liberty. Many IVF clinics, for instance, have denied services to would-be single parents or to gay or lesbian couples. Some legislators have proposed making certain welfare payments for women conditional upon their use of contraceptives such as Norplant—an odd view if one regards procreative liberty as a fundamental right. After all, we do not usually make the receipt of public aid contingent on waiving a constitutional right. (Imagine the government stipulating that... (shrink)

Procurement of organs from non-heart-beating cadaver donors raises concerns. Standards for optimal patient care during withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy are evolving and continue to be debated and studied. Consensus on specific procedures and methods has not been attained, however, and protocols for the procurement of organs from patients following the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies may compromise the evolving standards and harm the patient and the attendant family. In addition, there is little evidence to suggest that such protocols will significantly increase (...) the number of organs procured. "Non-heart-beating cadaver" protocols that do not give comprehensive attention to optimal patient/family care at the time of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy ought not to be endorsed. (shrink)

This paper discusses the ways in which the use of the notion of Asian bioethics since the 1990s has become a tool for building a platform of debate among East Asian countries. In many ways, the use of “Asian bioethics” is in an effort to counter what is perceived as Western bioethics and characterized by what are regarded as Western tendencies of individualism, rationalism, and modernization. I will argue, however, that, just as any notion of “Western bioethics,” the concept of (...) “Asian bioethics” offers little potential to solve issues of bioethical governance. First, although no doubt the notion of “bioethics” has been and is used hegemonically to push certain agendas, the view that bioethical issues in Asia and... (shrink)

We wish to describe and acknowledge the exceptional contributions to medical ethics, both in the UK and internationally, made by Edward Shotter1 who died at home on 3 July 2019. He was founder of the London Medical Group2 3 and instigator of similar student-led medical ethics groups throughout the UK; founder of the Institute of Medical Ethics4 and founder of the Journal of Medical Ethics. Ted Shotter transformed the study of medical ethics in the UK in the interests of patients (...) and professionals alike. In 1963, he established the pioneering ‘Medical Group’ model, an innovative bottom-up method whereby students in the health professions could gain a grounding in ethics that had previously been denied to the profession.5 It was with these Medical Groups that many of the leading figures in contemporary UK medical ethics and law began their careers in the subject including Sir Kenneth Calman, Sir Ian Kennedy, Professor Margaret Brazier OBE, Professor John Harris and Professor Sir Jonathan Montgomery to name but …. (shrink)

A considerable amount of academic attention has been paid to John Kennedy and to his group of advisors during the Cuban missile crisis. Next to no attention has been accorded other bodies of the Kennedy White House that had daily access to a President's most private moments and possibly to his important deliberations. Drawing on Richard Reeves' account of President Kennedy: Profile of Power, I revisit the early 1960s looking for bodies of power that are culturally sexed (...) female by others and compelled into being as workaday secretaries and confidants, and para-Everythings for Kennedy. In doing so, I draw on the feminist body theorizing of Judith Butler, Rosi Braidotti and Elizabeth Grosz, as well as the evocations of bodies in important but abjected places featured in Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale. After constructing the historically broad category of the handmaid to Washington power, I reread constructions of decision-making in the Cuban missile crisis offered by Graham Allison and conclude that the feint of mancentred Washington masks bodies given the locations, skills and resources to ooze into spaces of decision and power canonically forbidden to them. (shrink)

Globalization, international policymanipulations such as the US farm bill, andnational policy responses have received a greatdeal of media coverage in recent times. Theseinternational and national events are having amajor impact on agricultural production inAustralia. There is some suggestion that theyare, in fact, responsible for a downturn in thefortunes of agriculture. Yet, it is more likelythat these issues are acting to continue andexacerbate a trend towards reduced viabilityfor farm families evident in economic andsocial trends since at least the 1950s.Nevertheless, globalization and (...) Australia's policy responses have left farm families morevulnerable in the global world. What then do weknow about their impact at farm gate level?Just who is doing the farming in Australia inthe 21st century and how are these peopleresponding to major world politics? This paperwill focus on the social aspects ofagricultural production in Australia notingsocial trends and drawing attention to thechanging social relations of agriculture. Thedominance of farm families, the role ofcorporate agriculture, ethnic diversity, theimportance of women, and the practice of farmtransfers will be canvassed in this paper. (shrink)

“Legalism” is defined as requiring that all matters of legal regulation and controversy ought so far as possible to be conducted in accordance with predetermined rules of considerable generality and clarity. Thus there may be moral limits on governments which ban them from acting on the substantive moral merits of situations with which they have to deal. This is most important in public law, but also applies in private law, e.g., in cases involving property. Hume, Kant, and Hayek are examined (...) in respect of their case for legalism; Alexy and Finnis also reviewed. Autonomy is the foundation for legalism, and justifies “ethical positivism,” in T. Campbell's phrase. Critical legal studies (Unger, Kelman, Kennedy et al.) however challenge legalism's premises. But the “critical” arguments against reification merely raise, they do not settle, the issue about the politics of legalism and the desirability of legal dogmatics. With all faults, legalism is a prerequisite of free government. (shrink)

Based on talks provided under the title "The Christian religion & its philosophy".

Different accounts of what it is for something to have a social nature have been given. Sociality does not appear to be a category worthy of philosophical focus, given some of these accounts. If sociality is construed as plural subjecthood, it emerges as a category crucial for our understanding of the human condition. Plural subjects are constituted by a joint commitment of two or more persons to do something as a body. Such commitments generate rights and obligations of a special (...) type, and underlie such phenomena as social conventions, agreements, shared action and social groups on one standard understanding of what these are. (shrink)

L'article part du fait qui apparaît de plus en plus clairement dans la psychologie américaine moderne de la personnalité, qu’un certain type de domination de la mère dans la famille exerce une influence fâcheuse sur l’évolution psychique des garçons et des filles. L’auteur étudie les diverses interprétations, qu’on peut donner de ce fait.La première interprétation discutée est celle-ci : pour des raisons biologiques, l’amour naturel serait nécessaire à une évolution saine de l’enfant ; l’égoïsme de la mère exercerait une influence (...) nocive parce qu’elle serait en opposition avec cette nécessité biologique. L’article indique que les rapports naturels de la mère et de l’enfant sont, sous bien des rapports, remplacés par des relations culturelles (en particulier pour l’alimentation), ce qui montre l’incertitude de cette interprétation.La deuxième explication discutée est celle-ci : la tendance à dominer l’enfant, à l’élever en vue de succès conformes aux désirs maternels, serait signe du caractère „névrosé“ de la mère, la nocivité de cette conduite serait imputable à la névrose de la mère. Mais, à l’aide des faits ethnologiques, l’article montre qu’une mère agressive, ambitieuse d’autorité n’exerce pas nécessairement une action nocive sur l’évolution du caractère de l’enfant, mais tout au contraire est susceptible de conduire à l’adaptation la meilleure des enfants aux exigences futures de la société.M. Mead présente une troisième explication possible ; l’influence nocive ne tiendrait pas à la structure du caractère de la mère, mais à la contradiction entre le rôle effectif de la mère dans la famille et son rôle officiel dans la société. En Amérique, la mère a pris effectivement la direction dans la famille, cependant il serait entièrement faux de parler d’un matriarcat, puisque cette domination de fait n’a pas de caractère officiel et n’est pas reconnue par la société. Rien n’a été changé à l’organisation patriarcale de la société américaine, mais les formes patriarcales ont été partiellement privées de leur contenu et sont en contradiction avec les rapports de fait à l’intérieur de la famille. On pourrait dire que la mère exerce son autorité à la manière d’un tyran et non d’un maître légitime. Cette forme de pouvoir maternel non contrôlé par les institutions sociales offre un moyen d’expliquer l’influence nocive de ce pouvoir sur les enfants.Der Aufsatz geht von der in der modernen amerikanischen Persönlichkeitsforschung immer evidenter werdenden Tatsache aus, dass ein gewisser Typ der Vorherrschaft der Mutter in der Familie eine schädliche Wirkung auf die seelische Entwicklung von Knaben und Mädchen hat. Die Verfasserin untersucht, welche verschiedenen Interpretationen für diesen Tatbestand möglich sind.Zunächst wird eine Interpretation besprochen, die davon ausgeht, dass aus biologischen Gründen für die gesunde Entwicklung eines Kindes mütterliche Liebe notwendig ist und dass aus dem Gegensatz zu dieser biologischen Notwendigkeit heraus die egoistische Mutter einen schädlichen Einfluss darstellt. Durch den Hinweis darauf, dass die „natürliche“ Beziehung zwischen Mutter und Kind in vielen anderen Hinsichten durch kulturelle ersetzt werde, speziell in der Ernährung, wird die Fragwürdigkeit dieses Gesichtspunktes begründet.Dann wird die Erklärung diskutiert, nach der die Tendenz, das Kind zu beherrschen und gewaltsam zu im Sinne der Mutter liegenden Erfolgen anzutreiben, ein Symptom des neurotischen Charakters der Mutter und die Schädlichkeit dieses Verhaltens eben in der Neurose der Mutter zu suchen sei. Es wird an ethnologischem Material gezeigt, dass eine aggressive und herrschsüchtige Charakterstruktur der Mutter nicht notwendigerweise schädliche Wirkungen auf die Charakterentwicklung der Kinder hat, sondern ganz im Gegenteil zur optimalen Anpassung der Kinder an die sie später erwartenden gesellschaftlichen Anforderungen führen kann.M. Mead legt eine dritte Erklärungsmöglichkeit vor : dass der schädliche Einfluss nicht in der Charakterstruktur der Mutter an sich zu suchen ist, sondern in dem Widerspruch zwischen der faktischen Rolle der Mutter in der Familie und ihrer „offiziellen“ Rolle in der Gesellschaft. Während die amerikanische Mutter häufig tatsächlich die Herrschaft in der Familie an sich gerissen hat, wäre es doch ganz falsch, von einem Matriarchat in Amerika zu sprechen, da die faktische Herrschaft in der Familie in keiner Weise den Charakter einer offiziellen und gesellschaftlich anerkannten Herrschaft der Frau angenommen hat. Vielmehr hat sich an der patriarchalischen Organisation der amerikanischen Gesellschaft nichts Entscheidendes geändert, aber die patriarchalischen Formen sind zum Teil ihres Inhaltes beraubt worden und stehen im Gegensatz zu den faktischen Verhältnissen in der Familie. Die Mutter übt ihre Herrschaft gleichsam nicht als ein rechtmässiger Herrscher, sondern als ein Tyrann aus. In dieser durch gesellschaftliche Institutionen nicht kontrollierten Form mütterlicher Herrschaft wird eine Erklärungsmöglichkeit für den schädlichen Einfluss dieser Herrschaft auf die Kinder gesehen. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: Am I My Parents' Keeper? An Essay on Justice Between the Young and Old. By Norman Daniels.

Retributivism Has a Past: Has It a Future? is the first volume of a series to be published by Oxford University Press: Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Clearly the series is off to a fine st...