“实验性怀孕”重现。

IF 1.1 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Pub Date : 2022-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-20 DOI:10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z
Anne Drapkin Lyerly
{"title":"“实验性怀孕”重现。","authors":"Anne Drapkin Lyerly","doi":"10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled \"Experimental Pregnancy.\" It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit \"Experimental Pregnancy\" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.</p>","PeriodicalId":46703,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299403/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"'Experimental pregnancy' revisited.\",\"authors\":\"Anne Drapkin Lyerly\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled \\\"Experimental Pregnancy.\\\" It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit \\\"Experimental Pregnancy\\\" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46703,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9299403/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09578-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中,我回顾了Bob Veatch在《黑斯廷斯中心报告》创刊号上发表的一篇重要文章,题为“实验性怀孕”。这是对Goldzieher研究的一份报告和优雅的分析,在该研究中,近400名妇女被随机分配接受激素避孕药或安慰剂,她们没有同意或透露使用安慰剂的情况,结果导致几次怀孕。注意到这项研究的知名度有限,我首先考虑的是在怀孕和研究的生物伦理学方法中占据主导地位的叙述:沙利度胺和二乙基斯蒂甾醇(DES)。这些叙述促进了对避免胎儿风险的狭隘关注,而排除了其他伦理相关的考虑。然后,我重新审视了“实验性怀孕”,并提供了鲍勃的分析作为重要纠正的两种方式,首先,通过突出研究对象(正在或可能怀孕的人),其次,通过使怀孕正常化,从而突出了在怀孕假定的例外论中有时会丢失的基本伦理考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
'Experimental pregnancy' revisited.

In this paper, I reflect on an important article by Bob Veatch in the inaugural issue of the Hastings Center Report, entitled "Experimental Pregnancy." It is a report and elegant analysis of the Goldzieher Study, in which nearly 400 women were randomized to receive hormonal contraception or placebo absent consent or disclosure about placebo use, resulting in several pregnancies. Noting the study's limited notoriety, I first consider the narratives that have instead dominated bioethics' approach to pregnancy and research: thalidomide and diethylstibesterol (DES). These narratives have facilitated a narrow focus on avoiding fetal risk, to the exclusion of other ethically relevant considerations. I then revisit "Experimental Pregnancy" and offer two ways in which Bob's analysis serves as an important corrective, first, by foregrounding research subjects (persons who are or may become pregnant), and second, by normalizing pregnancy and thus foregrounding foundational ethical considerations that are sometimes lost amidst pregnancy's presumed exceptionalism.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: AIMS & SCOPE Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics examines clinical judgment and reasoning, medical concepts such as health and disease, the philosophical basis of medical science, and the philosophical ethics of health care and biomedical research Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics is an international forum for interdisciplinary studies in the ethics of health care and in the philosophy and methodology of medical practice and biomedical research. Coverage in the philosophy of medicine includes the theoretical examination of clinical judgment and decision making; theories of health promotion and preventive care; the problems of medical language and knowledge acquisition; theory formation in medicine; analysis of the structure and dynamics of medical hypotheses and theories; discussion and clarification of basic medical concepts and issues; medical application of advanced methods in the philosophy of science, and the interplay between medicine and other scientific or social institutions. Coverage of ethics includes both clinical and research ethics, with an emphasis on underlying ethical theory rather than institutional or governmental policy analysis. All philosophical methods and orientations receive equal consideration. The journal pays particular attention to developing new methods and tools for analysis and understanding of the conceptual and ethical presuppositions of the medical sciences and health care processes. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics publishes original scholarly articles, occasional special issues on important topics, and book reviews. Related subjects » Applied Ethics & Social Responsibility – Bioethics – Ethics – Epistemology & Philosophy of Science – Medical Ethics – Medicine – Philosophy – Philosophy of Medicine – Surgery
期刊最新文献
An ageless body does not imply transhumanism: A reply to Levin Risky first-in-human clinical trials on medically fragile persons: owning the moral cost Probability and informed consent. Values, decision-making and empirical bioethics: a conceptual model for empirically identifying and analyzing value judgements. An account of medical treatment, with a preliminary account of medical conditions.
×
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