Why do some doctors routinely deny birth control refills without additional tests, and why do some doctors disrespect patient autonomy in decisions about abortions, labor and delivery, organ transplants, and more? This book argues that medical sexism is a major cause of this pervasive mistreatment.

This best-selling text continues to fill an existing gap in the literature taught in applied ethics courses. As a growing number of courses that include the perspectives of diverse cultures are being added to the university curriculum, texts are needed that represent more multicultural and diverse histories and backgrounds. This new edition enhances gender coverage, as nearly half of the pieces are now authored by women. The new edition also increases the percentage of pieces written by those who come from (...) a non-Western background. It offers twelve up-to-date articles on human rights, environmental ethics, poverty, war and violence, gender, race, euthanasia, and abortion; all of these topics are addressed from Western and non-Western perspectives. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend an account of the ethics of precision medicine that can explain both its possibilities and limits. Creating a new conceptual and normative model of the ethics of precision health can ensure that good medicine is also excellent and that excellent medicine is also good by providing a resource to scientists and clinicians. First, I propose a new conceptual analysis of precision health. I argue that precision health is defined primarily by targeted medical interventions and not (...) by stratification, as others have asserted. Next, I argue that failure to be adequately responsive to this conceptual analysis explains common ethical abuses in the field. Third, I argue that this conceptual analysis can also pave the way for future research heretofore overlooked. Thus, we can limit abuses in precision health research and care while at the same time opening new avenues to help historically oppressed communities. (shrink)

How should we respond to political ambivalence when conflicting avenues for political action arise? Some theories of justice, such as objective theories, tell us to follow whatever norms realize a set of independently determined objective goods. I argue such theories are incomplete because they specify political goods to aim at, but do not specify which norms to follow, and thus yield an ineliminable ambivalence. Through analysis of a series of significant obstacles, I show that the objective goods that theorists defend (...) are multiply realizable and thus that different sets of mutually exclusive norms could successfully bring about such goods. I call this set of obstacles “ambivalence” in objective theories of political norms because we must choose between multiple conflicting would-be norms, each of which is compatible with the theory. Objective theories cannot provide direction on these choices and so international norms of justice raise a question about which ambivalence could be appropriate. How should we solve this ambivalence problem? I consider a range of competing alternatives that could complete objective accounts and show that consent through social contract theory presents the best available alternative. I conclude that avoiding political ambivalence on objective global political norms necessitates a consent-based constructivist element. (shrink)