Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal
-
In addressing the shape of appropriate gun policy, this essay assumes for the sake of discussion that there is a legal and moral right to private gun ownership. My thesis is that, against the background of this right, the most defensible policy approach in the United States would feature moderate gun control. ⋯ The section that follows presents a positive case for moderate gun control that emphasizes safety in the home and society as well as rights whose enforcement entails some limits or qualifications on the right to bear arms. A final section shows how the recommended gun regulations address legitimate purposes, rather than imposing arbitrary restrictions on gun rights, and offers concluding reflections.
-
This paper argues that societal duties of health promotion are underwritten (at least in large part) by a principle of beneficence. Further, this principle generates duties of justice that correlate with rights, not merely "imperfect" duties of charity or generosity. ⋯ After clarifying the distinction and setting out the basis of the equality of concern view, I argue that the result is a justice-based principle of "specific" beneficence that should be reflected in a society's health policy. I then draw on this account to criticize, refine, and extend some prominent health care policy proposals from the bioethics literature.
-
Kennedy Inst Ethics J · Sep 2013
Physicians' strikes and the competing bases of physicians' moral obligations.
Many authors have addressed the morality of physicians' strikes on the assumption that medical practice is morally different from other kinds of occupations. This article analyzes three prominent theoretical accounts that attempt to ground such special moral obligations for physicians--practice-based accounts, utilitarian accounts, and social contract accounts--and assesses their applicability to the problem of the morality of strikes. After critiquing these views, it offers a fourth view grounding special moral obligations in voluntary commitments, and explains why this is a preferable basis for understanding physicians' moral obligations in general and especially as pertaining to strikes.
-
Kennedy Inst Ethics J · Sep 2012
The problem of fetal pain and abortion: toward an ethical consensus for appropriate behavior.
Debate exists over whether fetuses feel pain, and if so what to do about it. Because they cannot provide self-report, certitude on the question cannot be reached. ⋯ It looks at the most recent evidence from fetal anatomical, neurochemical, physiological and behavioral research and concludes that a reasonable doubt exists that fetuses from 20 to 23 weeks do not feel pain. It proposes that where abortion is legal, providers should be legally required both to provide full disclosure of the possibility of fetal pain starting at 20 weeks and to offer pain-relief measures to suppress fetal pain to all women seeking an abortion.
-
Kennedy Inst Ethics J · Dec 2011
Is there a logical slippery slope from voluntary to nonvoluntary euthanasia?
John Keown has constructed a logical slippery slope argument from voluntary euthanasia (VAE) to nonvoluntary euthanasia (NVAE). VAE if justified implies that death can be of overall benefit, in which case it should also be facilitated in those who cannot consent (NVAE). ⋯ Its validity is confirmed by applying to VAE some well-established general principles of medical decision making. Thus, either VAE and NVAE must be accepted together or, if NVAE is regarded as unacceptable, VAE should also be rejected.