Non-medical egg freezing and individualisation arguments: reply to Moen, Segers and Campo-Engelstein
An argument against the use of non-medical egg freezing (NMEF) is that women should not use NMEF as it is an individualistic and morally problematic answer to the social problems that women face, for instance, in the labour market. Instead of allowing or expecting women to deal with these problems i...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
BMJ Publ.
2021
|
| In: |
Journal of medical ethics
Year: 2021, Volume: 47, Issue: 4, Pages: 265-266 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1816164755 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230428063551.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 220908s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1136/medethics-2021-107319 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1816164755 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1816164755 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Petersen, S. |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Non-medical egg freezing and individualisation arguments: reply to Moen, Segers and Campo-Engelstein |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a An argument against the use of non-medical egg freezing (NMEF) is that women should not use NMEF as it is an individualistic and morally problematic answer to the social problems that women face, for instance, in the labour market. Instead of allowing or expecting women to deal with these problems individually, we should address them by challenging the patriarchal structure of the labour market—for example, by securing equal pay and affordable childcare. In a recent article in Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), I argue that we should distinguish between different versions of this kind of reasoning and that all the versions discussed are implausible.1 In three separate comments following my article in the March 2021 issue of JME, Moen,2 Segers3 and Campo-Engelstein4 have supported and criticised some of my results. It is impossible, in such a short reply, to discuss all of their many relevant comments in detail, but in what follows I will reply to some of their criticism.Moen presents several interesting comments; let me try to deal with what I take to be the two most important ones. The first of these deals with some of my critical comments concerning … | ||
| 601 | |a Argumentation | ||
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of medical ethics |d London : BMJ Publ., 1975 |g 47(2021), 4, Seite 265-266 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)323607802 |w (DE-600)2026397-1 |w (DE-576)260773972 |x 1473-4257 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:47 |g year:2021 |g number:4 |g pages:265-266 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107319 |x Resolving-System |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://jme.bmj.com/content/47/4/265.abstract |x Verlag |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 935 | |a mteo | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| ITA | |a 1 |t 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 4185618700 | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1816164755 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20220908053801 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 220908||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 035 |a (DE-Tue135)IxTheo#2022-08-03#46BD59E13C25D09497C3A01D64915B5F811FDE68 | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-Tue135 |c DE-627 |d DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-Tue135 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a ixzs |a ixrk |a zota | ||
| OAS | |a 1 |b inherited from superior work | ||
| ORI | |a SA-MARC-ixtheoa001.raw | ||