We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
Modeling lay people's ethical views on abortion: A Q‐methodology study.
- Authors
Hammami, Muhammad; Hammami, Rakad; Kawadry, Suraya; Alvi, Syed
- Abstract
Background: It isn't clear how lay people balance the various ethical interests when addressing medical issues. We explored lay people's ethical resolution models in relation to abortion. Methods: In a tertiary healthcare setting, 196 respondents rank‐ordered 42 opinion‐statements on abortion following a 9‐category symmetrical distribution. Statements' scores were analyzed by averaging‐analysis and Q‐methodology. Results: Respondents' mean (SD) age was 34.5(10.5) years, 53% were women, 68% Muslims (31% Christians), 28% Saudis (26% Filipinos), and 38% healthcare‐related. The most‐agreeable statements were "Acceptable if health‐benefit to woman large," "Acceptable if congenital disease risk large," and "Woman's right if fetus has congenital disease." The most‐disagreeable statements were "State's right even if woman disagrees," "Acceptable even with no congenital disease risk," and "Father's right even if woman disagrees." Q‐methodology identified several resolution models that were multi‐principled, consequentialism‐dominated, and associated with respondents' demographics. The majority of Christian women and men identified with and supported a relatively "fetus rights plus State authority‐oriented" model. The majority of Muslim women and men identified with and supported a "conception‐oriented" model and "consequentialism plus virtue‐oriented" model, respectively. One or more of three motives‐related statements received extreme ranks on averaging‐analysis and in 33% of the models. Conclusions: 1) On average, consequentialism, focusing on a woman's health‐benefit and congenital disease risk, was the predominant approach. This was followed by the rights approach, favoring a woman's interest but taking context into account. 2) Q‐methodology identified various ethical resolution models that were multi‐principled and partially associated with respondents' demographics. 3) Motives were important to some respondents, providing empirical evidence against adequacy of principlism.
- Publication
Developing World Bioethics, 2022, Vol 22, Issue 2, p67
- ISSN
1471-8731
- Publication type
Article
- DOI
10.1111/dewb.12290