Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Responsibility for Justice.Iris Marion Young - 2011 - , US: Oxford University Press USA.
    In her long-awaited Responsibility for Justice, Young discusses our responsibilities to address "structural" injustices in which we among many are implicated, often by virtue of participating in a market, such as buying goods produced in sweatshops, or participating in booming housing markets that leave many homeless.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   251 citations  
  • Treating Patients as Persons: A Capabilities Approach to Support Delivery of Person-Centered Care.Vikki A. Entwistle & Ian S. Watt - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (8):29-39.
    Health services internationally struggle to ensure health care is “person-centered” (or similar). In part, this is because there are many interpretations of “person-centered care” (and near synonyms), some of which seem unrealistic for some patients or situations and obscure the intrinsic value of patients’ experiences of health care delivery. The general concern behind calls for person-centered care is an ethical one: Patients should be “treated as persons.” We made novel use of insights from the capabilities approach to characterize person-centered care (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • Inclusion and Democracy.Iris Marion Young - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
    This latest work from one of the world's leading political philosophers will appeal to audiences from a variety of fields, including philosophy, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, sociology, and communications studies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   426 citations  
  • On the Genetic Modification of Psychology, Personality, and Behavior.Alex B. Neitzke - 2012 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 22 (4):307-343.
    I argue that the use of heritable modifications for psychology, personality, and behavior should be limited to the reversal or prevention of relatively unambiguous instances of pathology or likely harm (e.g. sociopathy). Most of the likely modifications of psychological personality would not be of this nature, however, and parents therefore should not have the freedom to make such modifications to future children. I argue by examining the viewpoints of both the individual and society. For individuals, modifications would interfere with their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations