Bioethicists launch ‘Journal of Controversial Ideas’
by Michael Cook | 24 Feb 2019 |
One of the more innovative recent initiatives in academic publishing is the Journal of Controversial Ideas. Not a single issue has appeared, but already it has created a lively debate in op-ed columns. Its most contentious feature is anonymous or pseudonymous contributions.
It’s probably no accident that the three academics behind it are bioethicists. Peter Singer has been a lightning rod for controversy for decades with his views on animal rights, abortion, and euthanasia. Francesca Minerva, currently at Ghent University, in Belgium, is the author of one of the most controversial bioethics articles ever published, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?”, in the Journal of Medical Ethics in 2013. And Jeff McMahan, an American teaching at Oxford, is an expert on just war theory and animal ethics. Singer and Minerva have received death threats from people infuriated by their proposals.
Details of the new journal are still being negotiated. The founders envisage an annual, open-access publication which publishes rigorous papers from any discipline, sifted through “an unusually meticulous review process”. They have already recruited a 40-strong editorial board in a range of disciplines.
Our aim in establishing the journal is only to enable academics – particularly younger, untenured, or otherwise vulnerable academics – to have the option of publishing under a pseudonym when they might otherwise be deterred from publishing by fear of death threats (which two of us have received in response to our writings), threats to their families, or threats to their careers. Pseudonymity is optional, not required. Our intention is to publish only articles that give carefully developed reasons, arguments and evidence in support of conclusions that some may find offensive or pernicious. We will not publish work that is polemical, intentionally inflammatory or ad hominem. These aims and constraints have consistently guided our own writing.
The new journal has had a mixed reception from other academics. Pseudonymous authorship could encourage moral recklessness, said two critics shortly after the announcement last November. Wring in Quillette, two other critics said that every journal should be open to controversial ideas; a dedicated journal would only encourage a culture of “safe spaces”. “A fantastic idea”, said science writer Alex Berezow.
It’s hard to think of a more volatile topic than transgender transitions for children entering puberty. The number of kids demanding puberty-blockers so that they can transition to the opposite sex is exploding all over the developed world. It’s a mysterious and poorly understood phenomenon which involves a range of bioethical issues.
Is gender dysphoria really a medical issue at all? Or is it just a waystation on a spectrum of sexualities? How do we decide? Is it ethical to offer treatments which have yet to prove their efficacy? Is it ethical to offer treatments which will have negative side-effects? How can children make decisions which will affect their whole lives without understanding the medical, sexual and psychological implications? There is enough here to fill a library with contending points of view.
But this is far from being a theoretical issue. Children with gender dysphoria are suffering now. Who is to decide how can they be best cared for? A bioethicist writing in the American Journal of Bioethics effectively argues that parents are not the best judges. (See article below.) They are in the same position as loving, well-intentioned parents who want to use herbal remedies for their child’s cancer. Doctors, backed by governments, should decide. The state has to step in to save the child from suffering and even death.
It’s a controversial, even incendiary, point of view. But that is the way the debate is heading. We can expect to hear more, much more, in the future.
Is gender dysphoria really a medical issue at all? Or is it just a waystation on a spectrum of sexualities? How do we decide? Is it ethical to offer treatments which have yet to prove their efficacy? Is it ethical to offer treatments which will have negative side-effects? How can children make decisions which will affect their whole lives without understanding the medical, sexual and psychological implications? There is enough here to fill a library with contending points of view.
But this is far from being a theoretical issue. Children with gender dysphoria are suffering now. Who is to decide how can they be best cared for? A bioethicist writing in the American Journal of Bioethics effectively argues that parents are not the best judges. (See article below.) They are in the same position as loving, well-intentioned parents who want to use herbal remedies for their child’s cancer. Doctors, backed by governments, should decide. The state has to step in to save the child from suffering and even death.
It’s a controversial, even incendiary, point of view. But that is the way the debate is heading. We can expect to hear more, much more, in the future.
 Michael Cook Editor BioEdge |  |  |  |
NEWS THIS WEEK
by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
Denying kids treatment could be a form of child abuse by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
It has 'no proven clinical benefits' by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
Government is rolling out abortion services quickly by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
High Court ruling will make it easier to access assisted suicide by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
There is no rational defence for it, argues an American ethicist by Michael Cook | Feb 24, 2019
Peter Singer is one of the founders by Xavier Symons | Feb 24, 2019
Reports suggest that DNA samples are obtained from free medical check-upsBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario