Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31372884›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2019

Epistemic Virtue, Prospective Parents and Disability Abortion.

James B Gould

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Why Intellectual Disability is Not Mere Difference.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

James B GouldDepartment of Philosophy, McHenry County College, 8900 Rt. 14, Crystal Lake, IL, 60110, USA. jgould@mchenry.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7614-3169
McHenry County College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research shows that a high majority of parents receiving prenatal diagnosis of intellectual disability terminate pregnancy. They have reasons for rejecting a child with intellectual disabilities-these reasons are, most commonly, beliefs about quality of life for it or them. Without a negative evaluation of intellectual disability, their choice makes no sense. Disability-based abortion has been critiqued through virtue ethics for being inconsistent with admirable moral character. Parental selectivity conflicts with the virtue of acceptingness (the commitment to welcome whatever child comes naturally) and exhibits the vice of wilfulness (the project of picking and choosing what children one will take). In this paper I claim that, beyond failures of moral virtue, disability abortion often involves failures of epistemic virtue on the part of parents. I argue two things: parents believe something false, or at least contested, about life with intellectual disability-and they do so because they are not epistemically conscientious. I first explain why a central motivation for disability abortion-that it prevents harm to the child-is mistaken. I next give a brief account of intellectual virtue and culpable ignorance. I then indicate why many parents fail to be intellectually virtuous when choosing to terminate pregnancy. I focus on elimination of intellectual disability and have little to say about physical and sensory impairments.

Indexed as

KnowledgeParentsVirtuesAbortion, EugenicCommunicationEthical TheoryFemaleHumansIntellectual DisabilityMaleMoralsPregnancyPrenatal DiagnosisQuality of LifeCulpable ignoranceEpistemic virtueIntellectual disabilitySelective abortion

Identifiers

PMID31372884
OpenAlexW2965513096

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.