Response to “Abortion and Assent” by Rosamond Rhodes (CQ Vol 8, No 4) and “Abortion, Disability, Assent, and Consent” by Matti Häyry (CQ Vol 10, No 1): Assent and Selective Abortion: A Response to Rhodes and Häyry
It is now a widely shared opinion in the Western countries that a child's disability would probably place an unexpected burden on her parents, a burden that the parents have not committed themselves to dealing with. A child with a physical or mental disability is not, so to speak, a part of the...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
2001
|
In: |
Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Year: 2001, Volume: 10, Issue: 4, Pages: 433-440 |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | It is now a widely shared opinion in the Western countries that a child's disability would probably place an unexpected burden on her parents, a burden that the parents have not committed themselves to dealing with. A child with a physical or mental disability is not, so to speak, a part of the package the parents ordered. This line of reasoning has recently been supported by Rosamond Rhodes in her article “Abortion and Assent.” |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1469-2147 |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0963180101004108 |