Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
In April of this year, we published a special issue entitled, “Controversial Arguments in Bioethics,” guest-edited by Joona Räsänen, Matti Häyry, and Tuija Takala [1]. While much of that special issue reflected abstractly on how controversial arguments function in philosophical ethics, some of the articles served as concrete examples of controversial arguments in bioethics.
It should surprise no one that these latter articles created a stir, particularly an article regarding the possibility that it might be morally suitable for brain dead women to be kept alive and used as surrogate mothers [2]. Even that sentence, describing the paper, could be regarded as controversial, because, if dead, how could they be kept alive? And how could anyone incapable of giving consent be a surrogate?
Two other controversial articles attracted attention as well—an argument that vegans, if they wish to remain philosophically consistent, ought not to have children [3], and an argument that welfare states have a moral obligation to provide sex doulas for certain disabled persons [4]. Much of the initial uproar about these articles was expressed via social media—in blogs, tweets, and other fora. In this issue of Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics we are providing an opportunity for a more measured academic exchange between critics and these authors. Some of these responses are full-length, externally reviewed articles and some of them are internally reviewed letters to the editor. We have collected them in this issue along with responses from the authors.
As I opined in my editorial accompanying the April issue, controversial arguments are not merely destructive of common moral assumptions. One of the functions of controversial arguments is to stir debate and prompt a refinement of arguments in support of the moral status quo [5]. Moreover, while it sounds like a tautology to say that controversial arguments are controversial, in fact, whether an article is controversial is an empirical question. The mere assertion that an argument is controversial is not proof that it is controversial. The articles and letters that follow provide empirical proof of the controversial nature of these arguments. In fact, given the extent of the controversy, these may not be the last word. We at Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics stand ready to serve as a venue for the free exchange of ideas and controversial academic debate in bioethics.
References
Räsänen, J., M. Häyry, and T. Takala. 2023. Introduction: controversial arguments in bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2): 109–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09617-3.
Smajdor, A. 2023. Whole body gestational donation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2): 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-022-09599-8.
Räsänen, J. 2023. Should vegans have children? Examining the links between animal ethics and antinatalism. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2): 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09613-7.
Firth, S. J., and I. Neiders. 2023. Anent the theoretical justification of a sex doula program. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2): 125–140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09612-8.
Sulmasy, D. P. 2023. The virtues and the vices of the outrageous. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 44 (2): 107–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09620-8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
P. Sulmasy, D. Controversial arguments are controversial. Theor Med Bioeth 44, 325–326 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09635-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-023-09635-1