97 found
Order:
  1. Sandra Lee Bartky, Paul Benson, Sue Campbell, Claudia Card, Robin S. Dillon, Jean Harvey, Karen Jones, Charles W. Mills, James Lindemann Nelson, Margaret Urban Walker, Rebecca Whisnant & Catherine Wilson (2004). Moral Psychology: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    Moral psychology studies the features of cognition, judgement, perception and emotion that make human beings capable of moral action. Perspectives from feminist and race theory immensely enrich moral psychology. Writers who take these perspectives ask questions about mind, feeling, and action in contexts of social difference and unequal power and opportunity. These essays by a distinguished international cast of philosophers explore moral psychology as it connects to social life, scientific studies, and literature.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   22 citations  
  2. James Lindemann Nelson (2013). Just Caring for the Elderly: A Utopian Fantasy? Thoughts Prompted by Martha Holstein. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 6 (2):36-40.
    Midway in Martha Holstein’s article, these words occur: “[P]eople [should] get the help they need, when they need it, in the way that they would like to receive it, without exploiting family members or imperiling their dignity or self-respect” (24). In an essay that brims over with worrisome news, that this seemingly anodyne sentence appears in the section devoted to utopian thinking is perhaps the most dispiriting thought it conveys. Not that there isn’t keen competition for the role. Holstein reminds (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  4
    Sandra Lee Bartky, Daniel Callahan, Joan C. Callahan, Peggy DesAutels, Robin Fiore, Frida Kerner Furman, Martha Holstein, Diana Tietjens Meyers, Hilde Lindemann Nelson, James Lindemann Nelson, Sara Ruddick, Anita Silvers, Joan Tronto, Margaret Urban Walker & Susan Wendell (eds.) (2000). Mother Time: Women, Aging, and Ethics. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    Fifteen original essays open up a novel area of inquiry: the distinctively ethical dimensions of women's experiences of and in aging. Contributors distinguished in the fields of feminist ethics and the ethics of aging explore assumptions, experiences, practices, and public policies that affect women's well-being and dignity in later life. The book brings to the study of women's aging a reflective dimension missing from the empirical work that has predominated to date. Ethical studies of aging have so far failed to (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  4. Hilde Lindemann Nelson & James Lindemann Nelson (1995). The Patient in the Family. Routledge.
    The Patient in the Family diagnoses the ways in which the worlds of home and hospital misunderstand each other. The authors explore how medicine, through its new reproductive technologies, is altering the stucture of families, how families can participate more fully in medical decision-making, and how to understand the impact on families of medical advances to extend life but not vitality.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  5.  1
    Hilde Lindemann & James Lindemann Nelson (2014). The Surrogate's Authority. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 39 (2):161-168.
    The authority of surrogates—often close family members—to make treatment decisions for previously capacitated patients is said to come from their knowledge of the patient, which they are to draw on as they exercise substituted judgment on the patient’s behalf. However, proxy accuracy studies call this authority into question, hence the Patient Preference Predictor (PPP). We identify two problems with contemporary understandings of the surrogate’s role. The first is with the assumption that knowledge of the patient entails knowledge of what the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6. James Lindemann Nelson (2000). Moral Teachings From Unexpected Quarters: Lessons for Bioethics From the Social Sciences and Managed Care. Hastings Center Report 30 (1):12-17.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  7. James Lindemann Nelson (2010). How Catherine Does Go On: Northanger Abbey and Moral Thought. Philosophy and Literature 34 (1):pp. 188-200.
    A certain pupil with the vaguely Kafkaesque name B has mastered the series of natural numbers. B's new task is to learn how to write down other series of cardinal numbers and right now, we're working on the series "+2." After a bit, B seems to catch on, but we are unusually thorough teachers and keep him at it. Things are going just fine until he reaches 1000. Then, quite confounding us, he writes 1004, 1008, 1012."We say to him: 'Look (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  7
    James Lindemann Nelson (2014). Odd Complaints and Doubtful Conditions: Norms of Hypochondria in Jane Austen and Catherine Belling. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 11 (2):193-200.
    In her final fragmentary novel Sanditon, Jane Austen develops a theme that pervades her work from her juvenilia onward: illness, and in particular, illness imagined, invented, or self-inflicted. While the “invention of odd complaints” is characteristically a token of folly or weakness throughout her writing, in this last work imagined illness is also both a symbol and a cause of how selves and societies degenerate. In the shifting world of Sanditon, hypochondria is the lubricant for a society bent on turning (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  9.  29
    James Lindemann Nelson (2010). Donation by Default? Examining Feminist Reservations About Opt-Out Organ Procurement. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 3 (1):23-42.
    During 2006, a total of 130,527 Americans spent time on organ waiting lists; 7,191 of them died waiting. According to the U.S. Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network, 104,778 people are awaiting organs as this is being written (www.optn.org/data/; accessed November 4, 2009); every ninety minutes or so, one of them will die.In Spain, however, waiting list time is much shorter, and accordingly, very few die for the want of an organ; roughly thirty-five people per million provide organs in Spain upon (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  10.  4
    Barbara C. Thornton, Daniel Callahan & James Lindemann Nelson (1993). Bioethics Education. Hastings Center Report 23 (1):25-29.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  11.  4
    James Lindemann Nelson (2009). Hypotheticals, Analogies, Death's Harms, and Organ Procurement. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (8):14-16.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  12.  5
    James Lindemann Nelson (1992). Taking Families Seriously. Hastings Center Report 22 (4):6-12.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  13.  14
    James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Synecdoche and Stigma. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (4):475.
    In the portion of their reply directed to me, Professor Asch and Dr. Wasserman helpfully develop the synecdoche argument by highlighting its connections to stigma. I understand them to distinguish the situation of a woman making a decision concerning her pregnancy informed by prenatal testing from a woman making a similar decision informed by considerations of, for example, poverty, like so: In testing contexts, it will characteristically be the case that the woman's decision will be distorted by the stigma associated (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  14.  7
    James Lindemann Nelson (2011). Hurts, Insults and Stigmas: A Comment on Murphy. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (2):66-67.
    Both of the main points in Professor Murphy's paper seem to me clearly and effectively argued.1 It is incontrovertible that some people find hurtful the use of medical technologies to avoid the birth of children who, in the present order of things, would be disabled. No result from the philosophy of language, or anywhere else for that matter, can plausibly show otherwise. Indeed, even to speak of ‘legitimately interpreting’ events that cause one pain as ‘hurtful’, as Murphy does, seems a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  18
    James Lindemann Nelson (2005). The Baroness's Committee and the President's Council: Ambition and Alienation in Public Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (3):251-267.
    : The President's Council on Bioethics has tried to make a distinctive contribution to the methodology of such public bodies in developing what it has styled a "richer bioethics." The Council's procedure contrasts with more modest methods of public bioethical deliberation employed by the United Kingdom's Warnock Committee. The practices of both bodies are held up against a backdrop of concerns about moral and political alienation, prompted by the limitations of moral reasoning and by moral dissent from state policy under (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  48
    James Lindemann Nelson (2000). Prenatal Diagnosis, Personal Identity, and Disability. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 10 (3):213-228.
    : A fascinating criticism of abortion occasioned by prenatal diagnosis of potentially disabling traits is that the complex of test-and-abortion sends a morally disparaging message to people living with disabilities. I have argued that available versions of this "expressivist" argument are inadequate on two grounds. The most fundamental is that, considered as a practice, abortions prompted by prenatal testing are not semantically well-behaved enough to send any particular message; they do not function as signs in a rule-governed symbol system. Further, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  17.  30
    James Lindemann Nelson (2009). Dealing Death and Retrieving Organs. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6 (3):285-291.
    It has recently been argued by Miller and Truog (2008) that, while procuring vital organs from transplant donors is typically the cause of their deaths, this violation of the requirement that donors be dead prior to the removal of their organs is not a cause for moral concern. In general terms, I endorse this heterodox conclusion, but for different and, as I think, more powerful reasons. I end by arguing that, even if it is agreed that retrieval of vital organs (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  10
    James Lindemann Nelson (2005). Trust and Transplants. American Journal of Bioethics 5 (4):26 – 28.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  19.  16
    James Lindemann Nelson (2009). Alzheimer's Disease and Socially Extended Mentation. Metaphilosophy 40 (3-4):462-474.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  23
    Hilde Lindemann & James Lindemann Nelson (2008). The Romance of the Family. Hastings Center Report 38 (4):19-21.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21.  5
    James Lindemann Nelson (2004). Utility, Fairness, and What Really Matters in Organ Provision. American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):27 – 29.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  22.  6
    James Lindemann Nelson (2003). Harming the Dead and Saving the Living. American Journal of Bioethics 3 (1):13 – 15.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23.  12
    James Lindemann Nelson (2006). Field Notes. Hastings Center Report 36 (1):c2-c2.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  16
    James Lindemann Nelson (1998). The Meaning of the Act: Reflections on the Expressive Force of Reproductive Decision Making and Policies. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (2):165-182.
    : Prenatal and preconceptual testing and screening programs provide information on the basis of which people can choose to avoid the birth of children likely to face disabilities. Some disabilities advocates have objected to such programs and to the decisions made within them, on the grounds that measures taken to avoid the birth of children with disabilities have an "expressive force" that conveys messages disrespectful to people with disabilities. Assessing such a claim requires careful attention to general considerations relating meaning, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  25.  10
    James Lindemann Nelson (1991). Parental Obligations and the Ethics of Surrogacy: A Causal Perspective. Public Affairs Quarterly 5 (1):49-61.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  26.  19
    James Lindemann Nelson (2012). Quality of Care: A Preface. [REVIEW] Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 33 (4):237-242.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  4
    James Lindemann Nelson (2008). Respecting Boundaries, Disparaging Values. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (12):33 – 34.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28.  3
    James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Illusions About Persons. American Journal of Bioethics 7 (1):65-66.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29.  7
    James Lindemann Nelson (1991). At the Center. Hastings Center Report 21 (1).
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Trusting Bioethicists. In Lisa A. Eckenwiler & Felicia Cohn (eds.), The Ethics of Bioethics: Mapping the Moral Landscape. Johns Hopkins University Press
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31.  3
    James Lindemann Nelson & Hilde Lindemann Nelson (1993). Guided by Intimates. Hastings Center Report 23 (5):14-15.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  32. Elise Le Robinson, Hilde Lindemann Nelson & James Lindemann Nelson (1997). Fluid Families: The Role of Children in Custody Arrangements. In Hilde Lindemann (ed.), Feminism and Families. Routledge
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  8
    Jeannine Ross Boyer & James Lindemann Nelson (1990). A Comment on Fry's "The Role of Caring in a Theory of Nursing Ethics". Hypatia 5 (3):153-158.
    Our response to Sara Fry's paper focuses on the difficulty of understanding her insistence on the fundamental character of caring in a theory of nursing ethics. We discuss a number of problems her text throws in the way of making sense of this idea, and outline our own proposal for how caring's role may be reasonably understood: not as an alternative object of value, competing with autonomy or patient good, but rather as an alternative way of responding toward that which (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  17
    Hilde Lindemann Nelson & James Lindemann Nelson (1989). Cutting Motherhood in Two: Some Suspicions Concerning Surrogacy. Hypatia 4 (3):85 - 94.
    Surrogate motherhood-at least if carefully structured to protect the interests of the women involved-seems defensible along standard liberal lines which place great stress on free agreements as moral bedrocks. But feminist theories have tended to be suspicious about the importance assigned to this notion by mainstream ethics, and in this paper, we develop implications of those suspicions for surrogacy. We argue that the practice is inconsistent with duties parents owe to children and that it compromises the freedom of surrogates to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  35.  2
    Jeannine Ross Boyer & James Lindemann Nelson (1990). A Comment on Fry's “The Role of Caring in a Theory of Nursing Ethics”. Hypatia 5 (3):153-158.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  1
    James Lindemann Nelson & Hilde Lindemann Nelson (2001). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice (Review). American Journal of Bioethics 1 (2):70-72.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  17
    James Lindemann Nelson (2011). Internal Organs, Integral Selves, and Good Communities: Opt-Out Organ Procurement Policies and the 'Separateness of Persons'. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (5):289-300.
    Most people accept that if they can save someone from death at very little cost to themselves, they must do so; call this the ‘duty of easy rescue.’ At least for many such people, an instance of this duty is to allow their vital organs to be used for transplantation. Accordingly, ‘opt-out’ organ procurement policies, based on a powerfully motivated responsibility to render costless or very low-cost lifesaving aid, would seem presumptively permissible. Counterarguments abound. Here I consider, in particular, objections (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  10
    James Lindemann Nelson (1996). Measured Fairness, Situated Justice: Feminist Reflections on Health Care Rationing. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 6 (1):53-68.
    : Bioethical discussion of justice in health care has been much enlivened in recent years by new developments in the theory of rationing and by the emergence of a strong communitarian voice. Unfortunately, these developments have not enjoyed much in the way of close engagement with feminist-inspired reflections on power, privilege, and justice. I hope here to promote interchange between "mainstream" treatments of justice in health care and feminist thought.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  7
    James Lindemann Nelson (1995). Critical Interests and Sources of Familial Decision-Making Authority for Incapacitated Patients. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 23 (2):143-148.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  31
    James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Philosophizing in a Dissonant Key. Hypatia 22 (3):223-233.
  41.  10
    James Lindemann Nelson (2012). Still Quiet After All These Years. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (3):249-259.
    Some 14 years ago, I published an article in which I identified a prime site for bioethicists to ply their trade: medical responses to requests for hormonal and surgical interventions aimed at facilitating transgendered people’s transition to their desired genders. Deep issues about the impact of biotechnologies and health care practices on central aspects of our conceptual system, I argued, were raised by how doctors understood and responded to people seeking medical assistance in changing their gender, and there were obviously (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  3
    James Lindemann Nelson (1995). Is It Ever Right to Do Wrong? Hastings Center Report 25 (3):48-49.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  3
    Hilde Lindemann Nelson & James Lindemann Nelson (1994). Preferences and Other Moral Sources. Hastings Center Report 24 (6):19-21.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  2
    Hilde Lindemann Nelson & James Lindemann Nelson (1989). Cutting Motherhood in Two: Some Suspicions Concerning Surrogacy. Hypatia 4 (3):85-94.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  5
    James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Medicine and the Market: Equity Vs. Choice (Review). Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50 (3):474-478.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  18
    James Lindemann Nelson (2007). Testing, Terminating, and Discriminating. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16 (4):462.
    In my previous thinking about the considerations that go under the heading of the “expressivist argument,” I have been fascinated chiefly by two of its features: its semantic commitments and its independence from disputes about the moral standing of fetuses. Abortions prompted by prenatal testing are undertaken because of indications that the fetus has physical features that would be configured as disabilities in the social world into which it would otherwise emerge. The expressivist argument's allegation, as I have understood it, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  23
    James Lindemann Nelson (1997). Book Review: The Frankenstein Syndrome: Ethical and Social Issues in the Genetic Engineering of Animals, by Bernard E. Rollin. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (2):281-283.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  19
    James Lindemann Nelson (2001). Knowledge, Authority and Identity: A Prolegomenon to an Epistemology of the Clinic. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 22 (2):107-122.
    Disputes about theory in bioethics almost invariablyrevolve around different understandings of morality or practicalreasoning; I here suggest that the field would do well to becomemore explicitly contentious about knowledge, and start the taskof putting together a clinical epistemology. By way of providingsome motivation for such a discussion, I consider two cases ofresistance to shifts in clinical practice that are, by and large,not ethically controversial, highlighting how differentconceptions of epistemic authority may contribute to clinicians'unwillingness to adopt these changes, and sketching out (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  17
    James Lindemann Nelson (1995). Two Essays in Public Philosophy: Callahan'sthe Troubled Dream of Life and Dworkin'slife's Dominion. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 16 (1):115-123.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  5
    Ellen H. Moskowitz & James Lindemann Nelson (1995). The Best Laid Plans. Hastings Center Report 25 (6):3-5.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 97