| Title |
Moral uncertainty in bioethical argumentation: a new understanding of the pro-life view on early human embryos
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11017-014-9309-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tomasz Żuradzki |
| Abstract |
In this article, I present a new interpretation of the pro-life view on the status of early human embryos. In my understanding, this position is based not on presumptions about the ontological status of embryos and their developmental capabilities but on the specific criteria of rational decisions under uncertainty and on a cautious response to the ambiguous status of embryos. This view, which uses the decision theory model of moral reasoning, promises to reconcile the uncertainty about the ontological status of embryos with the certainty about normative obligations. I will demonstrate that my interpretation of the pro-life view, although seeming to be stronger than the standard one, has limited scope and cannot be used to limit destructive research on human embryos. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Argentina | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 16% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Philosophy | 4 | 21% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2019.
All research outputs
#3,210,148
of 24,831,063 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#40
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,022
of 255,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,831,063 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them