This article considers two competing types of conceptions of the pre-autonomous child’s right to bodily integrity. The first, which I call encroachment conceptions, holds that any physically serious bodily encroachment infringes on the child’s right to bodily integrity. The second, which I call best-interests conceptions, holds that the child’s right to bodily integrity is infringed just in case the child is subjected to a bodily encroachment that substantially deviates from what is in the child’s best interests. I argue in this (...) article that best-interests conceptions are more plausible than encroachment conceptions. They have more attractive implications regarding the permissibility of interventions in children’s bodies that are beneficial for the child but are not medically necessary. They are better able to explain the moral distinction between cases in which an encroachment on a child’s body is needed to benefit that child and cases in which an encroachment on one child’s body is needed to benefit another. Finally, best-interests conceptions are more consonant than encroachment conceptions with our understanding of adults’ right to bodily integrity. (shrink)

I offer the first sustained defence of the claim that ugliness is constituted by the disposition to disgust. I advance three main lines of argument in support of this thesis. First, ugliness and disgustingness tend to lie in the same kinds of things and properties (the argument from ostensions). Second, the thesis is better placed than all existing accounts to accommodate the following facts: ugliness is narrowly and systematically distributed in a heterogenous set of things, ugliness is sometimes enjoyed, and (...) ugliness sits opposed to beauty across a neutral midpoint (the argument from proposed intensions). And third, ugliness and disgustingness function in the same way in both giving rise to representations of contamination (the argument from the law of contagion). In making these arguments, I show why prominent objections to the thesis do not succeed, cast light on some of the artistic functions of ugliness, and, in addition, demonstrate why a dispositional account of disgustingness is correct, and present a novel problem for warrant-based accounts of disgustingness (the ‘too many reasons’ problem). (shrink)

Background Healthcare systems are increasingly struggling with resource constraints, given demographic changes, technological development, and citizen expectations. The aim of this article is to normatively analyze different suggestions regarding how publicly financed plastic surgery should be delineated in order to identify a well-considered, normative rationale. The scope of the article is to discuss general principles and not define specific conditions or domains of plastic surgery that should be treated within the publicly financed system. Methods This analysis uses a reflective equilibrium (...) approach, according to which considered normative judgements in one area should be logically and argumentatively coherent with considered normative judgements and background theories at large within a system. Results and conclusions In exploring functional versus non-function conditions, we argue that it is difficult to find a principled reason for an absolute priority of functional conditions over non-functional conditions. Nevertheless, functional conditions are relatively easier to establish objectively, and surgical intervention has a clear causal effect on treating a functional condition. Considering non-functional conditions that require plastic surgery [i.e., those related to appearance or symptomatic conditions ], we argue that the patient needs to experience some degree of suffering, which must be ‘validated’ in some form by the healthcare system. This validation is required for both functional and non-functional conditions. Functional conditions are validated by distinguishing between statistically normal and abnormal functioning. Similarly, for non-functional conditions, statistical normality represents a potential method for distinguishing between what should and should not be publicly funded. However, we acknowledge that such a concept requires further development. (shrink)

The ideas and terminology of person-centred care have been part of health discourse for a very long time. Arguments that in healthcare one treats the whole person, not her/his component parts, date back at least to antiquity and the need to treat the patient as a person is articulated persuasively by clinical authors in the early twentieth century. Yet it is only in recent years that we have seen a growing consensus in health policy and practice literature that PCC, and (...) associated ideas including patient expertise, co-production and shared decision-making, are not simply “fine ideals” or “ethical add-ons” to sound scientific clinical practice, but rather they represent indispensable components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. The underlying conviction of this volume - one belief that, despite their differences, unites all of its contributors - is that PCC should not become the latest “revolutionary” concept to be “operationalised” before being “conceptualised”. It is imperative that we develop an open and inclusive dialogue about what we do and do not mean by “person-centred” to inform our attempts to implement PCC. (shrink)