TY - JOUR
T1 - Unintended Intrauterine Death and Preterm Delivery
T2 - What Does Philosophy Have to Offer?
AU - Colgrove, Nicholas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Inc. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/6/1
Y1 - 2023/6/1
N2 - This special issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy focuses on unintended intrauterine death (UID) and preterm delivery (both phenomena that are commonly-and unhelpfully-referred to as “miscarriage,” “spontaneous abortion,” and “early pregnancy loss”). In this essay, I do two things. First, I outline contributors' arguments. Most contributors directly respond to “inconsistency arguments,” which purport to show that abortion opponents are unjustified in their comparative treatment of abortion and UID. Contributors to this issue show that such arguments often rely on a grossly oversimplified picture of abortion opponents' views. Furthermore, contributions in this issue weigh in on issues regarding UID with theoretical import and therapeutic implication beyond the inconsistency argument debate. These papers can be mined for principles that better inform us about anembryonic pregnancies (i.e., nonviable pregnancies in which a gestational sac exists but no embryonic pole can be seen via transvaginal ultrasound), UID-prevention research, the law concerning UID (especially post-Dobbs), policies for handling embryonic remains, and moral psychology as it relates to UID, emotion, and empathy. In each case, conceptual philosophical analysis might bring about therapeutic benefits for those affected by UID. Philosophers, therefore, are in position not only to provide clarity-careful analysis and discussion of UID and related phenomena-but are also in position to genuinely help people affected by UID.
AB - This special issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy focuses on unintended intrauterine death (UID) and preterm delivery (both phenomena that are commonly-and unhelpfully-referred to as “miscarriage,” “spontaneous abortion,” and “early pregnancy loss”). In this essay, I do two things. First, I outline contributors' arguments. Most contributors directly respond to “inconsistency arguments,” which purport to show that abortion opponents are unjustified in their comparative treatment of abortion and UID. Contributors to this issue show that such arguments often rely on a grossly oversimplified picture of abortion opponents' views. Furthermore, contributions in this issue weigh in on issues regarding UID with theoretical import and therapeutic implication beyond the inconsistency argument debate. These papers can be mined for principles that better inform us about anembryonic pregnancies (i.e., nonviable pregnancies in which a gestational sac exists but no embryonic pole can be seen via transvaginal ultrasound), UID-prevention research, the law concerning UID (especially post-Dobbs), policies for handling embryonic remains, and moral psychology as it relates to UID, emotion, and empathy. In each case, conceptual philosophical analysis might bring about therapeutic benefits for those affected by UID. Philosophers, therefore, are in position not only to provide clarity-careful analysis and discussion of UID and related phenomena-but are also in position to genuinely help people affected by UID.
KW - early pregnancy loss
KW - miscarriage
KW - preterm delivery
KW - spontaneous abortion
KW - unintended intrauterine death
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168974082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85168974082&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/jmp/jhad016
DO - 10.1093/jmp/jhad016
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85168974082
SN - 0360-5310
VL - 48
SP - 195
EP - 208
JO - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
JF - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
IS - 3
ER -