Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of Consent

Bibbings, Lois S; Alldridge, Peter

doi:10.2307/1410312

Cited by 15 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, the partialities of each decision-making group may cause their judgement to be questioned. Judges have been criticised for their lack of diversity, conservative social attitudes [ 5 , 8 ] and deference to medicine [ 87 ]. Clinicians appear more pessimistic about the quality of life of disabled children than either parents or the children themselves [ 80 ].…”

Section: Drawbacks Of Unilateral Decisions In Paediatric Healthcarementioning

confidence: 99%

Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care

Birchley

2013

Health Care Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the western healthcare, shared decision making has become the orthodox approach to making healthcare choices as a way of promoting patient autonomy. Despite the fact that the autonomy paradigm is poorly suited to paediatric decision making, such an approach is enshrined in English common law. When reaching moral decisions, for instance when it is unclear whether treatment or non-treatment will serve a child’s best interests, shared decision making is particularly questionable because agreement does not ensure moral validity. With reference to current common law and focusing on intensive care practice, this paper investigates what claims shared decision making may have to legitimacy in a paediatric intensive care setting. Drawing on key texts, I suggest these identify advantages to parents and clinicians but not to the child who is the subject of the decision. Without evidence that shared decision making increases the quality of the decision that is being made, it appears that a focus on the shared nature of a decision does not cohere with the principle that the best interests of the child should remain paramount. In the face of significant pressures toward the displacement of the child’s interests in a shared decision, advantages of a shared decision to decisional quality require elucidation. Although a number of arguments of this nature may have potential, should no such advantages be demonstrable we have cause to revise our commitment to either shared decision making or the paramountcy of the child in these circumstances.

show abstract

Section: Drawbacks Of Unilateral Decisions In Paediatric Healthcarementioning

confidence: 99%

Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care

Birchley

2013

Health Care Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Writing almost three decades ago, legal ethicists, for instance, Bibbings and Aldridge [44] Sheldon and Wilkinson [45], raised concerns about the asymmetrical treatment of FGM and genital cosmetic surgery before the law. They warned of the lack of consistency of laws that distinguish between practices whereby the same parts of the genitalia are cut.…”

Section: Critiquing Inconsistencies-the Debate On the Asymmetry In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking the Anti-FGM Zero-Tolerance Policy: from Intellectual Concerns to Empirical Challenges

O‘Neill

Bader

Kraus

et al. 2020

Curr Sex Health Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Based on the discussions of a symposium co-organized by the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Lausanne (UNIL) in Brussels in 2019, this paper critically reflects upon the zero-tolerance strategy on “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) and its socio-political, legal and moral repercussions. We ask whether the strategy is effective given the empirical challenges highlighted during the symposium, and also whether it is credible. Recent Findings The anti-FGM zero-tolerance policy, first launched in 2003, aims to eliminate all types of “female genital mutilation” worldwide. The FGM definition of the World Health Organization condemns all forms of genital cutting (FGC) on the basis that they are harmful and degrading to women and infringe upon their rights to physical integrity. Yet, the zero-tolerance policy only applies to traditional and customary forms of genital cutting and not to cosmetic alterations of the female genitalia. Recent publications have shown that various popular forms of cosmetic genital surgery remove the same tissue as some forms of “FGM”. In response to the zero-tolerance policy, national laws banning traditional forms of FGC are enforced and increasingly scrutinize the performance of FGC as well as non-invasive rituals that are culturally meaningful to migrants. At the same time, cosmetic procedures such as labiaplasty have become more popular than ever before and are increasingly performed on adolescents. Summary This review shows that the socio-legal and ethical inconsistencies between “FGM” and cosmetic genital modification pose concrete dilemmas for professionals in the field that need to be addressed and researched.

show abstract

“…To date, the discussion of BDSM regulation has largely centred on the leading English case of R v Brown (1994) where a group of men engaging in consensual sadomasochistic sex were successfully prosecuted for contravening the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. Framed against the background of the emerging HIV/AIDS crisis and a conservative moral climate, the majority of the House of Lords viewed the whole scenario with unreservedly excoriating criticism and found that consent could afford no defence to the injuries inflicted (see further Bibbings and Alldridge, 1993). On appeal to the ECHR as Laskey, Jaggard and Brown v UK (1997) the judgment in Brown was endorsed on the basis that the State could legitimately interfere with rights to privacy where the health of its citizens is at stake.…”

Section: Sites Of Contest: Law and Consensual Bdsm Sexualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Pay v UK, the probation service and consensual BDSM sexual citizenship

Chatterjee

2012

Sexualities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Against a negative background, recent scholarship indicates a socio-cultural and medical reconceptualisation of consensual BDSM. At a point where consensual BDSM appears to be on the cusp of a new understanding and the question of full inclusion in the polity arises, any new legal frustration of its expression may have profound impacts, particularly in terms of citizenship claims. Focusing on the European Court of Human Rights' decision in Pay v UK (2009) concerning the dismissal of a self-identified BDSM probation officer, this article considers the case's significance for the development of consensual BDSM as a rights-bearing identity before the law and in relation to questions of sexual citizenship. Noting how the Court relies on negative and distorted stereotypes of consensual BDSM, this article further observes how the expulsion of the consensual BDSM identity from the probation service is rendered necessary to maintain the sexually normative coherence of the polity and, in the context of the Pay case, the civil institutions that regulate it.

show abstract

Sexual Expression, Body Alteration, and the Defence of Consent

Cited by 15 publications

References 1 publication

Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care

Deciding Together? Best Interests and Shared Decision-Making in Paediatric Intensive Care

Rethinking the Anti-FGM Zero-Tolerance Policy: from Intellectual Concerns to Empirical Challenges

Pay v UK, the probation service and consensual BDSM sexual citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About