FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W76280465> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W76280465 endingPage "3" @default.
• W76280465 startingPage "3" @default.
• W76280465 abstract "In this issue of the Report, Arthur Frank recommends a the ethical evaluation of contested surgeries. Consumer protectionist bioethics--his term for the mainstream bioethical offshoot of modern liberalism--focuses on risks and benefits, adequate disclosure, and the consumer's sovereign choice. Socratic bioethics, by contrast, asks questions about the good life and its relation health; it takes seriously the effects of someone's choice on the choices open others. Without judging some types of surgery morally acceptable and others beyond the pale, Socratic bioethics can prove liberating, he argues, by expanding our awareness of options. Moreover, it can show how decision-making can proceed in ways that command respect. Accordingly, Frank's aim is offer guidelines for practice but to open up the discourses in which people both professionals and potential patients--are able think about how their actions affect themselves and their communities. Frank discusses four types of surgery: surgically shaping women's feet fit into designer shoes, limb-lengthening surgery on children with congenital dwarfism, intersex surgery on children with anomalous genitalia, and craniofacial surgery on children with major facial deformities. His commentary on these surgeries is very valuable--open-minded yet critical, and insightful about cultural dimensions. While he emphasizes process--improving the way we think, talk, and decide about contested surgeries he hardly abstains from moral judgments about the surgeries, even though he avoids the language of right and wrong. But while I generally agree with his judgments, I respectfully disagree with several aspects of his approach. Frank dichotomizes modern liberal bioethics and the Socratic approach. But the latter is a methodology, or style of questioning, whereas the former is a moral-political worldview. I reject the dichotomy. Indeed, I think vigorous use of the Socratic approach will vindicate some version of the modern liberal worldview. Moreover, I suspect that a robust liberalism better supports Frank's moral judgments than does the postmodernism that he apparently embraces. Craniofacial surgery on children is often justified because, as Frank's observations suggest, it frequently serves the children's best interests; whether repeated follow-up surgeries are warranted depends largely on whether they help the children. But evidence abounds that many intersex surgeries on children have not only followed an anemic or even deceitful proxy consent process, but have violated the best interests standard: many who have undergone the procedure deeply regret the choice made for them. …" @default.
• W76280465 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W76280465 creator A5001332610 @default.
• W76280465 date "2004-03-01" @default.
• W76280465 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W76280465 title "Liberal bioethics and contested surgeries." @default.
• W76280465 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15156825" @default.
• W76280465 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W76280465 type Work @default.
• W76280465 sameAs 76280465 @default.
• W76280465 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W76280465 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W76280465 hasAuthorship W76280465A5001332610 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C188084074 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C2777617010 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C2801541 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W76280465 hasConcept C95124753 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C107038049 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C138885662 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C144024400 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C15744967 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C17744445 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C188084074 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C199539241 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C2777617010 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C2801541 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C71924100 @default.
• W76280465 hasConceptScore W76280465C95124753 @default.
• W76280465 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W76280465 hasLocation W762804651 @default.
• W76280465 hasLocation W762804652 @default.
• W76280465 hasOpenAccess W76280465 @default.
• W76280465 hasPrimaryLocation W762804651 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W1554550405 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W1602569592 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W1607159892 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W1971195644 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2085906864 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2087741384 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2090053102 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2091282037 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2106815569 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2137221754 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2165149733 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2170403888 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2321997555 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2400518255 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W266057745 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2963233685 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2972109957 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W3042721229 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W3111068153 @default.
• W76280465 hasRelatedWork W2739822185 @default.
• W76280465 hasVolume "34" @default.
• W76280465 isParatext "false" @default.
• W76280465 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W76280465 magId "76280465" @default.
• W76280465 workType "article" @default.