论先行引产的有效性

A. Vincelette
{"title":"论先行引产的有效性","authors":"A. Vincelette","doi":"10.5840/ncbq202222462","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An ongoing debate in Catholic bioethical circles today centers around the liceity of inducing labor in a woman with a healthy previable fetus in order to save her life. Many Catholic bioethicists have defended the view that such inductions are morally licit even though the fetus itself has no medical issues and it is the combination of the pregnancy along with a weakened heart of the mother that is causing problems. Typically the basis for this view is the procedure’s satisfaction of the four criteria of the principle of double effect, namely: the act itself is not evil, the evil effect is not intended, the evil effect is not produced by means of the good effect, and there is proportionate reason for the procedure. A few Catholic bioethicists have worried that the procedure does not satisfy the fourth criterion, the principle of proportionate reason. Here I present arguments showing that it is also unlikely to satisfy the first criterion, that the act itself is not evil. This hinges on the principle that it is only permissible to perform acts from which evil effects follow necessarily when such acts only directly target a pathology. Fortunately such vital conflict cases are rare and hopefully medical advances will eliminate them.","PeriodicalId":86269,"journal":{"name":"The national Catholic bioethics quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Liceity of Previable Induction of Labor\",\"authors\":\"A. Vincelette\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/ncbq202222462\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"An ongoing debate in Catholic bioethical circles today centers around the liceity of inducing labor in a woman with a healthy previable fetus in order to save her life. Many Catholic bioethicists have defended the view that such inductions are morally licit even though the fetus itself has no medical issues and it is the combination of the pregnancy along with a weakened heart of the mother that is causing problems. Typically the basis for this view is the procedure’s satisfaction of the four criteria of the principle of double effect, namely: the act itself is not evil, the evil effect is not intended, the evil effect is not produced by means of the good effect, and there is proportionate reason for the procedure. A few Catholic bioethicists have worried that the procedure does not satisfy the fourth criterion, the principle of proportionate reason. Here I present arguments showing that it is also unlikely to satisfy the first criterion, that the act itself is not evil. This hinges on the principle that it is only permissible to perform acts from which evil effects follow necessarily when such acts only directly target a pathology. Fortunately such vital conflict cases are rare and hopefully medical advances will eliminate them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":86269,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The national Catholic bioethics quarterly\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The national Catholic bioethics quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq202222462\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The national Catholic bioethics quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ncbq202222462","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

今天,天主教生命伦理界正在进行一场辩论,辩论的焦点是为了挽救一个有健康胎儿的妇女的生命而引产是否合法。许多天主教生物伦理学家为这样的观点辩护,即这种诱导在道德上是合法的,即使胎儿本身没有医学问题,而且是怀孕和母亲心脏衰弱的结合造成了问题。这种观点的典型基础是程序满足双重效果原则的四个标准,即:行为本身不是恶的,恶的效果不是故意的,恶的效果不是通过善的效果产生的,并且程序存在相称的理由。一些天主教生物伦理学家担心这个程序不符合第四个标准,即合理比例原则。在这里,我提出的论据表明,它也不太可能满足第一个标准,即行为本身不是邪恶的。这取决于这样一个原则,即只有当这种行为直接针对一种病态时,才允许实施必然会产生恶果的行为。幸运的是,这种致命的冲突病例很少,希望医学进步能够消除它们。
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
On the Liceity of Previable Induction of Labor
An ongoing debate in Catholic bioethical circles today centers around the liceity of inducing labor in a woman with a healthy previable fetus in order to save her life. Many Catholic bioethicists have defended the view that such inductions are morally licit even though the fetus itself has no medical issues and it is the combination of the pregnancy along with a weakened heart of the mother that is causing problems. Typically the basis for this view is the procedure’s satisfaction of the four criteria of the principle of double effect, namely: the act itself is not evil, the evil effect is not intended, the evil effect is not produced by means of the good effect, and there is proportionate reason for the procedure. A few Catholic bioethicists have worried that the procedure does not satisfy the fourth criterion, the principle of proportionate reason. Here I present arguments showing that it is also unlikely to satisfy the first criterion, that the act itself is not evil. This hinges on the principle that it is only permissible to perform acts from which evil effects follow necessarily when such acts only directly target a pathology. Fortunately such vital conflict cases are rare and hopefully medical advances will eliminate them.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
To Die Is Gain: A Theological (re-)Introduction to the Sacrament of Anointing for Clergy, Laity, Caregivers, and Everyone Else by Roger W. Nutt Teleology and the Problem of Bodily-Rights Arguments Alan Donagan and the Fundamental Principle of Judeo-Christian Morality Illness, Pain, and Health Care in Early Christianity by Helen Rhee Technological Domination
×
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