James Cordeiro

> Stephan, a middle-aged immigrant, presents with acute sepsis from his diabetic foot ulcer and confusion that significantly diminishes his capacity. His attending physician, Marta, has initiated an aggressive antibiotic regime but is considering amputation. Unsure, whether this aligns with the preferences of Stephan, his family, and his devoted support worker, Emily, she is considering using a P4 AI for substituted judgment using a corpus of Stephan’s emails and online posts. > > When diagnosed with diabetes shortly after immigrating seventeen years ago, Stephan railed against the disease’s ravages online, declaiming that he would rather be dead than blind or immobile. Five years ago, anxiety over disturbing trends in online discourse led to his abruptly ceasing all online communication, turning increasingly to Emily as a confidant and guide to advances in vision treatment and prosthetics. And two years ago, Stephan gained significantly new purpose and joy with the birth of his first grandchild Anya. This case, following Annoni,1 helps illustrate the potential use of P4 artificial intelligence (AI) to advance moral goods in a substituted judgement setting by (1) honouring the patient’s unique identity and past agency and (2) reducing the burdens on human surrogate decision-makers. However, against (2), we argue that decision-making discourse …

Ectogestation technology, when feasible, will permit fetal development within an artificial womb. Ectogestation is termed ectogenesis when it is full (gestation occurs exclusively within an artificial womb post in vitro fertilisation) or partial (artificial gestation occurs during the course of in vivo gestation, post a caesarean-like fetal transfer). In what follows, I explore the implications for the gestational versus moral parenthood debate recently spotlighted by Benjamin Lange1 for various alternative uses of ectogestation compared to the baseline case of in vivo gestation. I contrast ectogestation in four different contexts with in vivo gestation followed by vaginal delivery. I document the relevant outcomes, burdens and harms in particular, to the gestating mother, the biological father, the fetus and the child into whom it will develop. The focus on harms in considering intraparental claims to parenthood follows Lange’s focal article1: importantly, however, I focus not on harms from separation from the gestational procreator (as in adoption cases) but instead on harms arising from the use of ectogestation in various forms. I note at the outset, how, for each case discussed below, I indicate opportunities for each biological parent to establish voluntarism-based claims to moral parenthood. In the analyses, except where specifically noted, the default implication is that it is …

Rodger et al 1 present a thoughtful case for the ethical defensibility of genetic disenhancement targeting unnecessary harm and suffering of the pigs raised for xenotransplantation research. On the assumption that xenotransplantation research is unlikely to be halted (and by my lights, also that no other short-term palliative options can be identified or developed), their view appears to be largely reasonable and aligned with recent proposals by animal ethicists for targeting pain in factory-farmed animals. Yet, despite their thoughtful responses to anticipated objections, the authors overlook an important class of recent harm-based objections grounded in the ethics of care. Drawing on recent work in animal ethics, I present a case for potential (a) care-based harms to pigs and (b) care-based harms to humans that are relevant to genetic disenhancement interventions of the sort these authors propose. I discuss each in turn below. The first concern over care-based harm draws on Mark Rowlands’2 notion that at least some non-human animals may be considered moral subjects, even if they are not considered moral agents. Rowlands’ view is based on the positive capacities that many animals possess for sympathy, compassion, kindness, patience and tolerance, as well as negative capacities including malice, anger and …

We use an event study to capture the investor reaction to the first Newsweek Green Rankings in September 2009, a notable, multi-dimensional recent development in the rating of corporate environmental CSR performance. Drawing on stakeholder theory, we develop hypotheses about market investor reaction to the disclosure of new, relevant corporate environmental performance in both the short and longer term, whether market investors’ reaction reflects industry context, and whether firm-level contextual variables representing firm size, and market legitimacy significantly impacts the investor reaction. We find that, for the sample of the largest 500 US firms ranked by Newsweek, investors react positively both to the raw and within-industry rankings of green performance in terms of both short-term and longer-term returns. Moreover, the investor reaction is significantly influenced by contextual variables such as firm size and firm market legitimacy. Our results are compatible with the inference that rating agencies like Newsweek serve a valuable information dissemination function such that investors in better ranked firms anticipate larger future cash flows due to more positive reactions from key stakeholders such as environmentally-conscious customers, employees, NGOs, regulators, and thus reward these firms with stock price increases. Finally, larger, more visible firms benefit more, while firms which have more market legitimacy benefit less. We believe these findings will be of considerable interest to scholars of environmental corporate social responsibility.