9 found
Order:
See also
Nicola Williams
Lancaster University
  1.  57
    Should uterus transplants be publicly funded?Stephen Wilkinson & Nicola Jane Williams - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (9):559-565.
    Since 2000, 11 human uterine transplantation procedures (UTx) have been performed across Europe and Asia. Five of these have, to date, resulted in pregnancy and four live births have now been recorded. The most significant obstacles to the availability of UTx are presently scientific and technical, relating to the safety and efficacy of the procedure itself. However, if and when such obstacles are overcome, the most likely barriers to its availability will be social and financial in nature, relating in particular (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  2.  28
    Positioning uterus transplantation as a ‘more ethical’ alternative to surrogacy: Exploring symmetries between uterus transplantation and surrogacy through analysis of a Swedish government white paper.Lisa Guntram & Nicola Jane Williams - 2018 - Bioethics 32 (8):509-518.
    Within the ethics and science literature surrounding uterus transplantation (UTx), emphasis is often placed on the extent to which UTx might improve upon, or offer additional benefits when compared to, existing ‘treatment options’ for women with absolute uterine factor infertility, such as adoption and gestational surrogacy. Within this literature UTx is often positioned as superior to surrogacy because it can deliver things that surrogacy cannot (such as the experience of gestation). Yet, in addition to claims that UTx is superior in (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  3.  50
    Possible Persons and the Problem of Prenatal Harm.Nicola Jane Williams - 2013 - The Journal of Ethics 17 (4):355-385.
    When attempting to determine which of our acts affect future generations and which affect the identities of those who make up such generations, accounts of personal identity that privilege psychological features and person affecting accounts of morality, whilst highly useful when discussing the rights and wrongs of acts relating to extant persons, seem to come up short. On such approaches it is often held that the intuition that future persons can be harmed by decisions made prior to their existence is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  4.  18
    Deceased Donation in Uterus Transplantation Trials: Novelty, Consent, and Surrogate Decision Making.Nicola Jane Williams - 2018 - American Journal of Bioethics 18 (7):18-20.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5.  24
    On harm thresholds and living organ donation: must the living donor benefit, on balance, from his donation?Nicola Jane Williams - 2018 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21 (1):11-22.
    For the majority of scholars concerned with the ethics of living organ donation, inflicting moderate harms on competent volunteers in order to save the lives or increase the life chances of others is held to be justifiable provided certain conditions are met. These conditions tend to include one, or more commonly, some combination of the following: The living donor provides valid consent to donation. Living donation produces an overall positive balance of harm–benefit for donors and recipients which cannot be obtained (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  6.  31
    Harms to “Others” and the Selection Against Disability View.Nicola Jane Williams - 2017 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 42 (2):154-183.
    In recent years, the question of whether prospective parents might have a moral obligation to select against disability in their offspring has piqued the attention of many prominent philosophers and bioethicists, and a large literature has emerged surrounding this question. Rather than looking to the most common arguments given in support of a positive response to the abovementioned question, such as those focusing on the harms disability may impose on the child created, duties and role-specific obligations, and impersonal ‘harms’, a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  7.  25
    The ethics of uterus transplantation.Nicola Jane Williams, Rosamund Scott & Stephen Wilkinson - 2018 - Bioethics 32 (8):478-480.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  23
    ‘Take my kidneys but not my corneas’—Selective preferences as a hidden problem for ‘opt‐out’ organ donation policy.Nicola Jane Williams & Neil C. Manson - 2022 - Bioethics 36 (8):829-839.
    With aims to both increase organ supply and better reflect individual donation preferences, many nations worldwide have shifted from ‘opt‐in’ to ‘opt‐out’ systems for post‐mortem organ donation (PMOD). In such countries, while a prospective donor's willingness to donate their organs/tissues for PMOD was previously ascertained—at least partially—by their having recorded positive donation preferences on an official register prior to death, this willingness is now presumed or inferred—at least partially—from their not having recorded an objection to PMOD—on an official organ donation (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  22
    Public funding, social change and uterus transplants: a response to commentaries.Stephen Wilkinson & Nicola Jane Williams - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (9):572-573.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark