Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40704530›Full record

ArticleBioethics2025

Disability, Subject-Dependence, and the Bad-Difference View.

Shu Ishida, Mitsuru Sasaki-Honda, Tsutomu Sawai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Shu IshidaUehiro Division for Applied Ethics, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-7532-6086
Mitsuru Sasaki-HondaInstitute of Biomedicine and Biotechnology of Cantabria, CSIC/Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1288-1346
Tsutomu SawaiUehiro Division for Applied Ethics, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-3806-0573

Funding

This study was financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP18J15194 and JP23K11997 to S.I.; JP24K00039 and JP24H00813 to T.S.), Osaka University to S.I., the Kurata research grant from the Hitachi Global Foundation (FY2022, #1568) to M.S.H. and T.S., and the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education (UEHIRO2023-0125) to T.S.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Philosophers have debated on the "mere-difference" view of disability, according to which disability as such is neutral in terms of well-being, just like race and gender. It is contrasted with the "bad-difference" view, which holds that disability is bad for its possessor even in a non-ableist situation. We first illustrate how neither view can be sensitive to the diversity of disabled people and their disabilities. Subsequently, we propose an alternative outlook-the conditional bad-difference view of disability: a disability is bad for its possessor if and only if it hampers her aspired way of life, even without ableism. In addition to being theoretically moderate and thus more plausible than the existing outlooks, this view also offers a robust ethical case for policies and practices catering to the varying needs and values of disabled people, such as personalized healthcare and the user-led research of assistive technologies.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesFemaleHumansMaledisabilitypersonalizationthe bad‐difference viewthe mere‐difference viewwell‐being

Identifiers

PMID40704530
PMCPMC12511903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.