Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 327-358 |
| Number of pages | 32 |
| Journal | Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2023 |
Abstract
Since the invention of hormonal contraceptives, there has been disagreement between users and providers about the existence of side effects and their implications for care. The lack of consideration for cisgender women, and other people who may become pregnant, has often been explained by sexist bias in the philosophy of medicine. My goal is to contribute additional elements to this discussion. I will argue that there are structurally embedded assumptions about the responsibilities and goals of medicine that open the door to this sexism in the first place. While we tend to accept that contraception is part of medicine for pragmatic reasons, we do not exhibit the same form of pragmatism when it comes to dealing with side effects. This is an unjustified double standard that fails to recognize the goals of contraception and the fact that it relies on medical expertise to achieve them.
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Nursing(all)
- Issues, ethics and legal aspects
- Social Sciences(all)
- Health(social science)
- Medicine(all)
- Health Policy
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- History and Philosophy of Science
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, 12.2023, p. 327-358.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Goals of Medicine
T2 - Debate and Disagreements Around Contraceptive Side Effects
AU - Prince, Ilvie
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 by Johns Hopkins University Press.
PY - 2023/12
Y1 - 2023/12
N2 - Since the invention of hormonal contraceptives, there has been disagreement between users and providers about the existence of side effects and their implications for care. The lack of consideration for cisgender women, and other people who may become pregnant, has often been explained by sexist bias in the philosophy of medicine. My goal is to contribute additional elements to this discussion. I will argue that there are structurally embedded assumptions about the responsibilities and goals of medicine that open the door to this sexism in the first place. While we tend to accept that contraception is part of medicine for pragmatic reasons, we do not exhibit the same form of pragmatism when it comes to dealing with side effects. This is an unjustified double standard that fails to recognize the goals of contraception and the fact that it relies on medical expertise to achieve them.
AB - Since the invention of hormonal contraceptives, there has been disagreement between users and providers about the existence of side effects and their implications for care. The lack of consideration for cisgender women, and other people who may become pregnant, has often been explained by sexist bias in the philosophy of medicine. My goal is to contribute additional elements to this discussion. I will argue that there are structurally embedded assumptions about the responsibilities and goals of medicine that open the door to this sexism in the first place. While we tend to accept that contraception is part of medicine for pragmatic reasons, we do not exhibit the same form of pragmatism when it comes to dealing with side effects. This is an unjustified double standard that fails to recognize the goals of contraception and the fact that it relies on medical expertise to achieve them.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85198058408&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1353/ken.2023.a931050
DO - 10.1353/ken.2023.a931050
M3 - Article
C2 - 38973482
AN - SCOPUS:85198058408
VL - 33
SP - 327
EP - 358
JO - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
JF - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
SN - 1054-6863
IS - 4
ER -