Home birth: Consumer choice and restriction of physician autonomy
It is frequently argued that home birth is morally irresponsible because it involves the taking of risks on behalf of the fetus. Against this position, I argue three things. First, the fact that home birth involves risks does not necessarily entail that choosing or attending one is morally unaccepta...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Tipo de documento: | Electrónico Artículo |
Lenguaje: | Inglés |
Verificar disponibilidad: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publicado: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
1987
|
En: |
Journal of business ethics
Año: 1987, Volumen: 6, Número: 6, Páginas: 481-487 |
Otras palabras clave: | B
Consumer Choice
B Current Attitude B Home Birth B Parental Decision B Economic Growth |
Acceso en línea: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Sumario: | It is frequently argued that home birth is morally irresponsible because it involves the taking of risks on behalf of the fetus. Against this position, I argue three things. First, the fact that home birth involves risks does not necessarily entail that choosing or attending one is morally unacceptable, irresponsible or wrong. Second, parents have a prima facia prerogative to decide on behalf of their fetuses and children whether risks should be taken. While this prima facia prerogative can be overridden, reasonable and widely accepted criteria for doing so are not met in the case of home birth. Third, since the current attitudes and behaviours of physicians with regard to home birth constitute a de facto morally and socially unjustifiable overriding of an informed parental decision, physician autonomy should be restricted so as to preserve the autonomy of the medical consumer. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1573-0697 |
Obras secundarias: | Enthalten in: Journal of business ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/BF00383290 |