From 28 February to the end of March 2012, the Italian media reacted fiercely to the Giubilini and Minerva paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics a few days earlier. The first article viewed the proposal as analogous to ‘barbaric invasions’, but in a first stage of the debate it could be seen as a case of the usual controversy between Catholics and secularists. Then emotive reactions prevailed and a flood of papers expressed strong opposition to ‘infanticide’. The authors were even deemed insane; the fact that both are Italian certainly increased interest in the subject as well as surprise at their proposal, which some reckoned to be an insult to their ‘national identity’. Even freedom of academic research and discussion was put in question, and defenders of free debate were accused of being supporters of the theory of infanticide.
- Journalism/Mass media
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Yes, the baby should live: a pro-choice response to Giubilini and Minerva
- In defence of academic freedom: bioethics journals under siege
- Abortion, infanticide and moral context
- The moral status of babies
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- Potentials and burdens: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Of course the baby should live: against ‘after-birth abortion’
- Dilemma for appeals to the moral significance of birth
- Infanticide: a reply to Giubilini and Minerva
- Concern for our vulnerable prenatal and neonatal children: a brief reply to Giubilini and Minerva