How bad can a good enough parent be?

Shields, Liam

doi:10.1080/00455091.2016.1148306

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the professionals’ descriptions of the women’s difficulties and insufficient abilities, the patients were sometimes described as being able to reach the level of being “good enough” parents. Through this pragmatic view, the professionals avoided a purely child-centered perspective (Shields, 2016), choosing to define a well-functioning parent in relative terms. This can be seen in contrast to how abstinence both during and after pregnancy was talked about as non-negotiable.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing Between Hope and Realism

Heimdahl

2018

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pregnancy for women who use substances has sometimes been referred to as a "window of opportunity" for lifestyle change. In this article, the aim is to analyze professional accounts of the transition of substance-using pregnant women into parenthood. Focus groups were carried out with professionals working at specialized maternity care units in Sweden. The analysis is guided by the discursive psychological concept of "ideological dilemma" and focuses on contradictory elements of commonsensemaking in the participants' discussions. The results suggest that professionals articulate two, partly contradictory, ideals: on the one hand, "believing in the patient" and, on the other, "being realistic." In their descriptions of their work with patients, professionals emphasize the significance of adjusting the self-image of the patients and increasing their awareness of their "abuse" problems in order to prevent future clashes between high expectations and reality. At the same time, they also underline that interacting with and treating those patients with the most serious problems as individuals with unforeseen strengths and resources is a matter of professional duty.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing Between Hope and Realism

Heimdahl

2018

Contemporary Drug Problems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An ongoing philosophical debate concerns the standards of parenting that ground the ‘right to rear’ one’s children. As Shields ( 2016 ) outlines, this debate has generated three broad views. The ‘Best Custodian’ (or ‘Best Available Parent’) view (Brighouse ( 1998 : 737); Arneson ( 2000 ); Vallentyne ( 2003 : 998); Dwyer ( 2011 : Chapter 5); Gheaus ( 2021 )) says parents have a right to rear only if they would provide as good a level of care, focusing solely on the child’s interests, as any other available carer.…”

Section: Choice-specific Dutiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The ‘Abuse and Neglect’ view (Schoeman 1980 : 17) sets a much lower bar, insisting that parental rights are retained in the absence of abuse and neglect. Finally, a range of ‘Dual-Interest’ views (Clayton ( 2006 ); Brighouse and Swift ( 2006 ); Shields ( 2016 2022 )) accommodate both parents’ and children’s interests.…”

Section: Choice-specific Dutiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeding Infants: Choice-Specific Considerations, Parental Obligation, and Pragmatic Satisficing

Moriarty

Davies

2023

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health institutions recommend that young infants be exclusively breastfed on demand, and it is widely held that parents who can breastfeed have an obligation to do so. This has been challenged in recent philosophical work, especially by Fiona Woollard. Woollard’s work critically engages with two distinct views of parental obligation that might ground such an obligation—based on maximal benefit and avoidance of significant harm—to reject an obligation to breastfeed. While agreeing with Woollard’s substantive conclusion, this paper (drawing on philosophical discussion of the ‘right to rear’) argues that there are several more moderate views of parental obligation which might also be thought to ground parental obligation. We first show that an obligation to breastfeed might result not from a general obligation to maximally benefit one’s child, but from what we call ‘choice-specific’ obligations to maximise benefit within particular activities. We then develop this idea through two views of parental obligation—the Dual Interest view, and the Best Custodian view—to ground an obligation to exclusively breastfeed on demand, before showing how both these more moderate views fail. Finally, we argue that not only is there no general obligation to breastfeed children, but that it is often morally right not to do so. Since much advice from health institutions on this issue implies that exclusive breastfeeding on demand is the best option for all families, our argument drives the feeding debate forward by showing that this advice often misrepresents parents’ moral obligations in potentially harmful ways.

show abstract

“…If it was the case that reshuffling custody of babies at birth would severely diminish racism within a generation that would be a very strong reason in its favour and would be more powerful than the interest in rearing one's own biological child. Moreover, if the benefits to the child of being reared by people who are not birth or current parents are sufficiently large, even above the minimal threshold, we should be more open-minded about changes to custody (Shields, 2016). Future advances in our knowledge of children's development, health and education may mean that it is possible for children to live very much better lives than one meeting a minimal threshold and if there were large gains to be had from being reared by those other than your birth parents, a child denied this possibility would have a serious complaint.…”

Section: Reshuffle and Better Parentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental rights and the importance of being parents

Shields

2016

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosoph

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is widely accepted both that adequate parents cannot be denied custodial rights for the reason that someone else would do a better job and that children should be reared in adequate families, even when communal arrangements would be no worse for children and would promote equality. So-called dual interest theorists of parental rights defend their view on the grounds that it can fully explain these convictions because only their view attaches importance to the interests of the parents which are adversely affected. In this paper the author argues that this defence of the dual interest view is flawed because some of these convictions can be explained only at the expense of others. The author offers an alternative defence of the dual interest view, one that requires us to revise these widely accepted convictions but ultimately puts the dual interest view on a surer footing.

show abstract

How bad can a good enough parent be?

Cited by 8 publications

References 37 publications

Balancing Between Hope and Realism

Balancing Between Hope and Realism

Feeding Infants: Choice-Specific Considerations, Parental Obligation, and Pragmatic Satisficing

Parental rights and the importance of being parents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About