This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The authors do note abortion in passing when discussing the categories to be distinguished when circumscribing what properly falls under the purview of medicine (and so may qualify as treatment or non-enhancement (see 299)). As they note, abortion services do not seem to be properly classed under the categories of prevention, treatment or enhancement. Abortion services, the authors continue, seem to belong to a fourth category whose members “have a close connection to the sphere of medicine” (298 [emphasis mine]). The authors seem to inadequately appreciate that relegating abortion services to a fourth category, not to be further addressed in discussions seeking to pinpoint rules or principles for deciding what services are properly covered under a national healthcare program, implies that such a national program properly limits its coverage to those services that qualify as prevention or treatment.
Acknowledgements
Thanks are owed to members of the Novel Tech Ethics research team for comments on earlier drafts of this review. Thanks also to members of the Novel Tech Ethics journal club who worked through the book. This work is supported by a research grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fenton, A. Merkel, R. et al. 2007. Intervening in the Brain: Changing Psyche and Society. New York: Springer: A Review. Neuroethics 1, 213–215 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-008-9018-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-008-9018-4