PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

J K Swales

Publications and source records attributed to J K Swales.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Surrogate motherhood, rights and duties: a reply to Campbell.

In a recent article in Health Care Analysis (Vol. 8, No. 1), Campbell misrepresents our specific arguments about commercial surrogate motherhood (C.S.M.) and our general philosophical and political views by saying or suggesting that we are 'Millsian' liberals and consequentialists. He gives too the false impression that we do not oppose, in principle, slavery and child purchase. Here our position on C.S.M. is re-expressed and elaborated upon in order to eliminate possible confusion. Our general ethical and philosophical framework is also outlined and shown to be other than Campbell says that it is. In particular, a moral philosophy that is based on neither consequentialism nor Kantianism is presented. C.S.M., it is argued, is not child purchase. It is like it in some respects and unlike it in others. It is unlike it in the respects which, relative to the present discussion, matter.

Child↗
PubMed2000

Babies, child bearers and commodification: Anderson, Brazier et al., and the political economy of commercial surrogate motherhood.

It is argued by Anderson and also in the Brazier Report that Commercial Surrogate Motherhood (C.S.M.) contracts and agencies should be illegal on the grounds that C.S.M. involves the commodification of both mothers and babies. This paper takes issue with this view and argues that C.S.M. is not inconsistent with the proper respect for, and treatment of, children and women. A case for the legalization of C.S.M. is made.

Commerce↗
PubMed1999

A drunk driver, a sober pedestrian and the allocation of tragically scarce and indivisible emergency hospital treatment.

Le Grand describes a situation where a drunk driver, who has medical insurance, is the cause of an accident in which he and a sober pedestrian, who has no medical insurance, are both equally and seriously injured. At the private hospital to which they are both taken, there is available emergency treatment for one of them only. Who should receive it? The issues raised by Le Grand's example are shown to be more interesting, more complex and less clearcut than Le Grand suggests and implies. In particular, it is not the case that, unequivocally, the drunkenness of the driver establishes that the pedestrian rather than he should be treated nor that, unequivocally, the driver's possession of health insurance is morally irrelevant.

Accidents, Traffic↗