Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23637453›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2013

Personhood, harm and interest: a reply to Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva.

Matthew Beard, Sandra Lynch

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Matthew BeardCentre for Faith, Ethics & Society, University of Notre Dame, PO Box 944 Broadway 2007, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia. matthew.beard@nd.edu.au
Sandra Lynch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the article 'After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?' arguments are made in favour of the moral permissibility of intentionally killing newborn infants, under particular conditions. Here we argue that their arguments are based on an indefensible view of personhood, and we question the logic of harm and interest that informs their arguments. Furthermore, we argue that the conclusions here are so contrary to ordinary moral intuitions that the argument and conclusions based upon it-including those which defend more mainstream methods of abortion-should be treated with immediate suspicion.

Indexed as

AdoptionFetal ViabilityMoral ObligationsPersonhoodValue of LifeAbortion, InducedBeginning of Human LifeHumansInfanticideAbortionChildrenEmbryos and Fetuses

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.