Linacre Quarterly最新文献

The uses of cervical mucus and basal body temperature as indicators of return to fertility postpartum have resulted in high unintended pregnancy rates. In 2013, a study found that when women used urine hormone signs in a postpartum/breastfeeding protocol this resulted in fewer pregnancies. To improve the original protocol's effectiveness, three revisions were made: (1) women were to increase the number of days tested with the Clearblue Fertility Monitor, (2) an optional second luteinizing hormone test could be done in the evening, and (3) instructions were given to manage the beginning of the fertile window for the first six cycles postpartum. The purpose of this study was to determine the correct and typical use effectiveness rates to avoid pregnancy in women who used a revised postpartum/breastfeeding protocol. A cohort review of an established data set from 207 postpartum breastfeeding women who used the protocol to avoid pregnancy was completed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Total pregnancy rates that included correct and incorrect use pregnancies were eighteen per one hundred women over twelve cycles of use. For the pregnancies that met a priori criteria, the correct use pregnancy rates were two per one hundred over twelve months and twelve cycles of use and typical use rates were four per one hundred women at twelve cycles of use. The protocol had fewer unplanned pregnancies than the original, however, the cost of the method increased.

Social science is commonly used in debates about controversial issues, especially for those concerning human sexuality. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting such social science literature, because of a variety of methodological and theoretical weaknesses that are not uncommon. Families are complex structurally and over time; such data are not easily analyzed. Merely determining the number of, for example, sexual minority families has been a difficult task. While some new theories are popular with social scientists, for example, sexual minority theory, they are often used to the exclusion of other, equally valid theories and often are not well tested empirically. Some types of families remain relatively unexamined. Social scientists can be biased by their own values, which are reflected in weak use of theory and in a variety of methodological problems. Eight studies are presented as examples of probable confirmation bias, in which methods and theory were modified in unusual ways that may have affected the outcomes and conclusions. Suggestions for improving social science include greater attention to effect sizes rather than statistical significance per se, deliberately minimizing the politicization of science, developing a culture of humility with respect to social science, deliberately reducing common biases, and maintaining a deeper curiosity about social science than is often seen. Scientists must be open to seeing their best "sacred cow" ideas or theories disproven or modified with increases in research on such issues.

Summary: In controversial areas of social science, there can be numerous threats to the validity of science. Here, some of the more common risks for social science research and theory are examined, with several specific illustrations of how bias appears to have crept into social science, often as confirmation bias. Recommendations are made for reducing bias in future research.

Is it possible to donate unpaired vital organs, foreseeing but not intending one's own death? We argue that this is indeed psychologically possible, and thus far agree with Charles Camosy and Joseph Vukov in their recent paper on "double effect donation." Where we disagree with these authors is that we see double-effect donation not as a morally praiseworthy act akin to martyrdom but as a morally impermissible act that necessarily disrespects human bodily integrity. Respect for bodily integrity goes beyond avoiding the aim to kill: not all side effects of deliberate bodily interventions can be outweighed by intended benefits for another even if the subject fully consents. It is not any necessary intention to kill or harm another or oneself that makes lethal donation/harvesting illicit but the more immediate intention to accept or perform surgery on an (innocent) person combined with the foresight of lethal harm and no health-related good for him or her. Double-effect donation falls foul of the first condition of double-effect reasoning in that the immediate act is wrong in itself. We argue further that the wider effects of such donation would be socially disastrous and corrupting of the medical profession: doctors should retain a sense of nonnegotiable respect for bodily integrity even when they intervene on willing subjects for the benefit of others. Summary: Lethal organ donation (for example, donating one's heart) is not a praiseworthy but a morally impermissible act. This is not because such donation necessarily involves any aim to kill oneself (if one is the donor) or to kill the donor (if one is the surgeon). Respect for bodily integrity goes beyond avoiding any hypothetical aim to kill or harm oneself or another innocent person. 'Double effect donation' of unpaired vital organs, defended by Camosy and Vukov, is in our view a form of lethal bodily abuse and would also harm the transplant team, the medical profession and society at large.

Introduction/Objective: Medication abortion is a common experience for women in the United States, now totaling over 50% of all abortions. The purpose of this exploratory analysis is to understand women's medication abortion and abortion pill reversal decision-making experiences, with a particular focus on their communication with their medical providers. Methods: We surveyed women who contacted Heartbeat International to inquire about abortion pill reversal. Eligible women had to complete a minimum of the 2-week progesterone protocol in order to answer the questions on the electronic survey about their medication abortion and abortion pill reversal decisions. We assessed decision difficulty using a Likert scale and provider communication using the Questionnaire on the Quality of Physician-Patient (QQPPI) and analyzed women's narratives about their experiences using thematic analysis. Results: Thirty-three respondents met the eligibility criteria and filled out the QQPPI and decision-difficulty scales. Using the QQPPI scale, women scored their communication with their APR providers as significantly better than their communication with their abortion providers (p < 0.0001). Women reported that choosing medication abortion was significantly more difficult than choosing abortion pill reversal (p < 0.0001). White women, women with college degrees, and women who were not in a relationship with the father of the child reported more difficulty in choosing APR. Conclusion: As the number of women who contact the national hotline to inquire about abortion pill reversal increases, the need to understand the experiences of this growing population of women becomes more salient. This need is particularly important for health care providers who prescribe medication abortion and abortion pill reversal. The quality of the physician-patient interaction is essential to providing effective medical care to pregnant women.