{"title":"Preimplantation genetic diagnosis: disease control or child objectification?","authors":"Rebecca Knox","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"22 2","pages":"435-53"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24579283","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Oregon Death with Dignity Act: reversal of the Department of Justice's position on physician assisted suicide and the ensuing court battle.","authors":"Richard J Brumbaugh","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"21 2","pages":"377-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24579282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Many people are surprised at the level of distrust of the health care system held by African Americans. However, fear and distrust of the health care system is a natural and logical response to the history of experimentation and abuse. The fear and distrust shape our lives and, consequently, our perspectives. 2 That perspective keeps African Americans from getting health care treatment, from participating in medical research, from signing living wills, and from donating organs. That perspective affects the health care that African Americans receive. This fear and distrust is rarely acknowledged in traditional bioethical discourse. Some bioethicists question the existence of a "uniquely" African American bioethical perspective. 3 They maintain that since the values and beliefs held by African Americans are also held by other oppressed groups, such as Native Americans, there is no African American perspective. However, these traditional bioethicists miss (or ignore) an important point: perspective is merely a subjective evaluation of the relative significance of something -- a point-of-view. 4 Thus, to acknowledge an African American perspective, it is not necessary that African American values and belief systems be entirely different from others. It is faulty to assume that any group shares exactly the same value system with other groups. For example, Americans do not have one ethical perspective. Rather, race, class, and gender modify the commonality of the American experience. Different groups have had different experiences that, at a minimum, modify the dominant American perspective, if not replace it with an ...
{"title":"Slavery, segregation and racism: trusting the health care system ain't always easy! An African American perspective on bioethics.","authors":"V. Randall","doi":"10.13016/3BVX-KLEU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.13016/3BVX-KLEU","url":null,"abstract":"Many people are surprised at the level of distrust of the health care system held by African Americans. However, fear and distrust of the health care system is a natural and logical response to the history of experimentation and abuse. The fear and distrust shape our lives and, consequently, our perspectives. 2 That perspective keeps African Americans from getting health care treatment, from participating in medical research, from signing living wills, and from donating organs. That perspective affects the health care that African Americans receive. This fear and distrust is rarely acknowledged in traditional bioethical discourse. Some bioethicists question the existence of a \"uniquely\" African American bioethical perspective. 3 They maintain that since the values and beliefs held by African Americans are also held by other oppressed groups, such as Native Americans, there is no African American perspective. However, these traditional bioethicists miss (or ignore) an important point: perspective is merely a subjective evaluation of the relative significance of something -- a point-of-view. 4 Thus, to acknowledge an African American perspective, it is not necessary that African American values and belief systems be entirely different from others. It is faulty to assume that any group shares exactly the same value system with other groups. For example, Americans do not have one ethical perspective. Rather, race, class, and gender modify the commonality of the American experience. Different groups have had different experiences that, at a minimum, modify the dominant American perspective, if not replace it with an ...","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"15 2 1","pages":"191-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66541462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Gender and culture in the globalization of bioethics.","authors":"C. Gudorf","doi":"10.4324/9781003073789-1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003073789-1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"15 2 1","pages":"331-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1996-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70619640","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-
{"title":"Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the flight from reason in the Supreme Court.","authors":"Paul Benjamin Linton","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3201636","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3201636","url":null,"abstract":"In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a bare majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade. Although Roe was not directly implicated by any of the statutes challenged in Casey, all of which could have been upheld without overruling Roe, the Justices agreed to reexamine Roe because of the uncertainty regarding its continued viability and the need to provide guidance to state and federal courts and state legislatures. The result of this reexamination, however, was a badly divided Court that could not muster a majority in support of any standard of re-","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"13 1 1","pages":"15-137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68573816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Financial penalties for failing to honor patient wishes to refuse treatment.","authors":"M R Gasner","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"11 ","pages":"499-520"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1992-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"25214303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Two ships passing in the night: an interpretavist review of the White-Stevens colloquy on Roe v. Wade.","authors":"D J Horan, C D Forsythe, E R Grant","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82633,"journal":{"name":"Saint Louis University public law review","volume":"6 2","pages":"229-311"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1987-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"24945486","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：