Are some controversial views in bioethics Juvenalian satire without irony?

AbstractThe article examines five controversial views, expressed in Jonathan Swift ’sA Modest Proposal, Helga Kuhse and Peter Singer ’sShould the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva ’s “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, Julian Savulescu’s “Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children”, and the author’s “A rational cure for prereproductive stress syndrome”. These views have similarities and differences on five levels: the grie vances they raise, the proposals they make, the justifications they explicitly use, the justifications they implicitly rely on, and the criticisms that they have encountered. A comparison of these similarities and differences produces two findings. First, some controversial views based on utilitaria n considerations would probably fare better flipped upside down and presented as Juvenalian satires. Secondly, a modicum of humor or modesty could help presenters of controversial views to stir polite critical discussion on the themes that they put forward.

Source: Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics - December 24, 2022 Category: Medical Ethics Source Type: research