Surrogacy and Adoption: An Empirical Investigation of Public Moral Attitudes.

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Bioethical Inquiry Pub Date : 2024-03-29 DOI:10.1007/s11673-024-10343-1
T Baron, E Svingen, R Leyva
{"title":"Surrogacy and Adoption: An Empirical Investigation of Public Moral Attitudes.","authors":"T Baron, E Svingen, R Leyva","doi":"10.1007/s11673-024-10343-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Surrogacy and adoption are both family-making measures subject to extensive domestic and international regulation. In this nationally representative survey study (N = 1552), we explore public attitudes to various forms of surrogacy and adoption in the United Kingdom, in response to an early proposal to allow \"double donor\" surrogacy as part of the ongoing legal reform project. We sought to both gauge public moral support for adoption and surrogacy generally, the effect that prospective parents' fertility had on this support, and the extent to which the public would find equivalencies between \"double donor\" surrogacy (DDS) and planned private adoption (PPA) to be morally significant. Our findings indicate that whilst there is broad baseline support for all forms of adoption and surrogacy, this support increases significantly when one or both prospective parents are infertile. These findings also suggest that the language in which a family-making arrangement is characterized has a greater influence on moral support for the arrangement than practical features such as the biological relationship (or absence thereof) between one/both parents and the child.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-024-10343-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Surrogacy and adoption are both family-making measures subject to extensive domestic and international regulation. In this nationally representative survey study (N = 1552), we explore public attitudes to various forms of surrogacy and adoption in the United Kingdom, in response to an early proposal to allow "double donor" surrogacy as part of the ongoing legal reform project. We sought to both gauge public moral support for adoption and surrogacy generally, the effect that prospective parents' fertility had on this support, and the extent to which the public would find equivalencies between "double donor" surrogacy (DDS) and planned private adoption (PPA) to be morally significant. Our findings indicate that whilst there is broad baseline support for all forms of adoption and surrogacy, this support increases significantly when one or both prospective parents are infertile. These findings also suggest that the language in which a family-making arrangement is characterized has a greater influence on moral support for the arrangement than practical features such as the biological relationship (or absence thereof) between one/both parents and the child.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
代孕和收养:公众道德态度的实证调查》。
代孕和收养都是建立家庭的措施,受到广泛的国内和国际监管。在这项具有全国代表性的调查研究(N = 1552)中,我们探讨了英国公众对各种形式的代孕和收养的态度,以回应作为正在进行的法律改革项目一部分的允许 "双捐 "代孕的早期建议。我们试图从总体上衡量公众对收养和代孕的道德支持,未来父母的生育能力对这种支持的影响,以及公众认为 "双捐者 "代孕(DDS)和有计划的私人收养(PPA)之间的等同性在多大程度上具有道德意义。我们的研究结果表明,虽然所有形式的收养和代孕都得到了广泛的基本支持,但当父母一方或双方不育时,这种支持就会显著增加。这些研究结果还表明,与父母一方或双方与孩子之间的血缘关系(或无血缘关系)等实际特征相比,描述建立家庭安排的语言对这种安排的道德支持有更大的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry
Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
8.30%
发文量
67
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following: -philosophy- bioethics- economics- social theory- law- public health and epidemiology- anthropology- psychology- feminism- gay and lesbian studies- linguistics and discourse analysis- cultural studies- disability studies- history- literature and literary studies- environmental sciences- theology and religious studies
期刊最新文献
Obesity, Metabolic Syndrome, and Sugar-Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) in America: A Novel Bioethical Argument for a Radical Public Health Proposal Practising Less is More: An Exploration of What it Means to See "This Patient" Not a "Patient Like This". Donation After Circulatory Death following Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatments. Are We Ready to Break the Dead Donor Rule? Humanitarian Action and the Value of Relationships: A Book Review of Chin Ruamps’ The Humanitarian Exit Dilemma Bioinformation and Identity Interests: A Book Review of Emily Postan's Embodied Narratives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1