posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 04:19 AM
The authors of the paper wrote an open letter addressing the concerns:
However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just
about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting
the plurality of ethical views, people’s emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts,
not with legal policy.
I found a full copy of the letter above. It's actually not the newest article ever; and was critisized by doctors and peers of theirs too. (In
response to people who think this is a 'scientific' or 'progressive liberal' movement) The authors themselves and the publishing body all agreed
it was not desired to be policy. To classify this article with the title 'experts say' is just bombastic and media glorifying to cause a stir.
Academic journals are not the place to read and say 'experts say', since university staff and students submit to them all the time.
I notice a number of persons in this very thread who have posted regarding the idea of 'thought crimes' and certain ideas of theirs being legislated
out of existence. Philosophical essays, even in the under graduate area investigate how and why we know what is morally correct and incorrect on a
daily basis. We need freedom to ask these questions I suppose to understand how we come to our conclusions in the first place.
As a few of said, the two writers should have the right to investigate these ideas without death threats. I disagree with their proposed conclusions
having read the paper, but free speech etc ...
However, such rare and severe pathologies are not the only ones that are likely to remain undetected until delivery; even more common congenital
diseases that women are usually tested for could fail to be detected. An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only
the 64% of Down's syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing.2 This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under
examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down's syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth. Once these children are born, there is
no choice for the parents but to keep the child, which sometimes is exactly what they would not have done if the disease had been diagnosed before
There are other justifications in the article. Francesca's main interests appear to be: Philosophy, Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Neuroethics and
Bioethics, Death, Life extension. Really the person is just doing their job; investigating and issue and asking 'why'. I haven't looked into it too
deeply but just because someone is in a university, it doesn't make them the expert or even that particularly well trained. No offense to the
writers, but it looks like Francesca has only written a few journal articles.
Like I say, I'm not saying I agree with it. There really is nothing to politicize here though. It's just philosophers doing what philosophers do!
It's not science.