- Submit
-
Browse
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- More
Switch to: References
Citations of:
Disability Rights as a Necessary Framework for Crisis Standards of Care and the Future of Health Care
Laura Guidry-Grimes, Katie Savin, Joseph A. Stramondo, Joel Michael Reynolds, Marina Tsaplina, Teresa Blankmeyer Burke, Angela Ballantyne, Eva Feder Kittay, Devan Stahl, Jackie Leach Scully, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Anita Tarzian, Doron Dorfman & Joseph J. Fins
Hastings Center Report 50 (3):28-32 (2020)
Add citations
You must login to add citations.
|
|
|
Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 3, Page 37-48, May–June 2022. |
|
|
Throughout March and April 2020, debate raged about how best to allocate limited intensive care unit (ICU) resources in the face of a growing COVID-19 pandemic. The debate was dominated by utility-based arguments for saving the most lives or life-years. These arguments were tempered by equity-based concerns that triage based solely on prognosis would exacerbate existing health inequities, leaving disadvantaged patients worse off. Central to this debate was the assumption that ICU admission is a valuable but scarce resource in the (...) |
|
|
This essay discusses the ethical challenges and dilemmas in allocating scarce medical resources during the COVID-19 pandemic, using the German legislative process as a starting point. It is guided by the right to non-discrimination of people with disability and generally contrasts utilitarian and rights-based principles of allocation. Three approaches that were suggested in the German discussion, are presented, the lottery principle, the first come first served principle and the probability to survive principle. Arguments in favour and against each principle are (...) |
|
|
Robert Veatch’s The Foundations of Justice: Why the Retarded and the Rest of Us Have Claims to Equality delves into deep questions of justice through the case of a child with disabilities. I describe what is basically right about this vision, as well as what is problematic from the standpoint of contemporary disability bioethics. From there, I dive into the notion of vulnerability that is at play in his work. He describes disability as necessarily a condition of weakness, lesser-than existence, (...) |
|
|
[This piece is written for those working in social gerontology and aging studies, with the aim of bringing insights from disability studies and philosophy of disability to bear on enduring debates in those fields.] The guiding question of humanistic age-studies—What does it mean to grow old?—cannot be answered without reflecting on disability. This is not simply because growing old invariably means becoming impaired in various ways, but also because the discriminations and stigmas involved in ageism are often rooted in ableism. (...) |
|
|
In “Reasons and Reproduction: Gene Editing and Genetic Selection,” McMahan and Savulescu (2024) contest the common notion that embryo selection is a morally better way of avoiding genetic condition... |
|
|
Bioethics has increasingly become a standard part of medical school education and the training of healthcare professionals more generally. This is a promising development, as it has the potential to help future practitioners become more attentive to moral concerns and, perhaps, better moral reasoners. At the same time, there is growing recognition within bioethics that nonideal theory can play an important role in formulating normative recommendations. In this chapter we discuss what this shift toward nonideal theory means for ethical curricula (...) |
|
|
|
|
|
The pandemic years have taught bioethicists a lot about the experience of working on an issue at the same time as being directly affected by it. Under normal circumstances, if we can remember what those were, we are very often thinking and writing about a situation of moral difficulty that we know, and can only know, as outsiders. We... |
|
|
The hard problem of disability is the problem of explaining what disability is despite the heterogeneity of (i) paradigmatic cases to which the concept refers and of (ii) paradigmatic applications of the concept across ordinary language use. Most theorists of disability, following Barnes, take this problem to be in the domain of social metaphysics and take themselves to solve it via an ameliorative constructivist approach. In this paper, I argue that such an approach cannot solve the hard problem and that (...) |
|
|
The hard problem of disability is the problem of explaining what disability is despite the heterogeneity of (i) paradigmatic cases to which the concept refers and of (ii) paradigmatic applications of the concept across ordinary language use. Most theorists of disability, following Barnes, take this problem to be in the domain of social metaphysics and take themselves to solve it via an ameliorative constructivist approach. In this paper, I argue that such an approach cannot solve the hard problem and that (...) |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-6dc498764b-l54s5 uwo