Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the “Disparate Impact” Argument against Legalization of Assisted Suicide.Ronald A. Lindsay - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):6-16.
    Prominent among the arguments against the legalization of assisted suicide is the contention that legalization will have a disproportionately adverse, or “disparate,” impact on various vulnerable groups. There are many versions of this argument, with different advocates of this argument focusing on different vulnerable groups, and some advocates confusedly blending slippery slope and social justice concerns. Also, the weight placed on this argument by its various advocates is not uniform, with some including the argument in a list of multiple, apparently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Justice and the Politics of Difference.Iris Marion Young - 1990 - Princeton University Press.
    In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   885 citations  
  • Review of Iris Marion Young: Justice and the Politics of Difference[REVIEW]Debra A. DeBruin - 1993 - Ethics 103 (2):398-400.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   449 citations  
  • The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decisions.Eric J. Cassell & Carl E. Schneider - 2000 - Hastings Center Report 30 (5):46.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   49 citations  
  • The "Disparate Impact" Argument Reconsidered: Making Room for Justice in the Assisted Suicide Debate.Carl H. Coleman - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):17-23.
    In “Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the ‘Disparate Impact’ Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” Ronald Lindsay argues that it should make no difference to the debate over legalizing assisted suicide whether the risks associated with legalization would fall disproportionately on the poor, people with disabilities, racial minorities, or any other especially vulnerable social group. Even assuming such an inequitable distribution of risks would occur, he maintains, attempting to avoid such an outcome is not a good reason to deny assisted (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the "Disparate Impact" Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide.Ronald A. Lindsay - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):6-16.
    Prominent among the arguments against the legalization of assisted suicide is the contention that legalization will have a disproportionately adverse, or “disparate,” impact on various vulnerable groups. There are many versions of this argument, with different advocates of this argument focusing on different vulnerable groups, and some advocates confusedly blending slippery slope and social justice concerns. Also, the weight placed on this argument by its various advocates is not uniform, with some including the argument in a list of multiple, apparently (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Why Gender Matters to the Euthanasia Debate: On Decisional Capacity and the Rejection of Women's Death Requests.Jennifer A. Parks - 2000 - Hastings Center Report 30 (1):30-36.
    Are women's requests for aid in dying honored more often than men's, or less? Feminist arguments can support conclusions either that gendered perceptions of women as self‐sacrificing predispose physicians to accede to women's requests to die — or that cultural understandings of women as not fully rational agents lead physicians to reject their requests as irrational.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The “Disparate Impact” Argument Reconsidered: Making Room for Justice in the Assisted Suicide Debate.Carl H. Coleman - 2002 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 30 (1):17-23.
    In “Should We Impose Quotas? Evaluating the ‘Disparate Impact’ Argument Against Legalization of Assisted Suicide,” Ronald Lindsay argues that it should make no difference to the debate over legalizing assisted suicide whether the risks associated with legalization would fall disproportionately on the poor, people with disabilities, racial minorities, or any other especially vulnerable social group. Even assuming such an inequitable distribution of risks would occur, he maintains, attempting to avoid such an outcome is not a good reason to deny assisted (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations