ABSTRACT
Over the past 20 years, many scales have been created to measure general attitudes toward People with HIV/AIDS (PWA). A high correlation between negative attitudes toward PWA and rejecting attitudes toward homosexuality has been demonstrated in many studies, which may suggest that although the scales posit to examine "attitudes toward PWA," they may actually tap into attitudes toward homosexuals with HIV/AIDS. These scales may be inappropriate to use for examining attitudes toward other groups of people with HIV/AIDS (e.g., heterosexual women). The present researchers developed and validated the Attitudes Toward Women with HIV/AIDS Scale (ATWAS). Principal components analysis of the ATWAS yielded a four-factor structure accounting for 48.6% of the total variance of attitudes toward women with HIV/AIDS. The four factors were Child Care, Myths/Negative Stereotypes, Reproduction/Contraception issues, and Sympathy/Transmission Route. The ATWAS was found to have good internal consistency (r = .82) and construct validity.
Subject(s)
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/psychology , Attitude , Gender Identity , HIV Infections/psychology , Personality Inventory/statistics & numerical data , Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Female , HIV Infections/transmission , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prejudice , Psychometrics , Reproducibility of Results , Stereotyping , Students/psychologySubject(s)
Anencephaly , Ethical Analysis , Ethics, Medical , Personhood , Tissue Donors , Tissue and Organ Procurement/methods , Wedge Argument , Anencephaly/prevention & control , Brain Diseases , Ethical Theory , Health Policy , Humans , Logic , Moral Obligations , Morals , Patient Advocacy , Personal Autonomy , Stress, PsychologicalABSTRACT
In recent years, the need for infant organs for transplantation has increased. There is a growing recognition of the potential use of anencephalics as sources of organs. Prevalent arguments defending the use of live anencephalics for organ sources are identified and criticized. I argue that attempts to deny the applicability of the "dead-donor rule" are either question-begging or based on false premises and that attempts to skirt the Kantian dictum against treating others as a means only are not successful. I contend that the apparent utilitarian justification for live anencephalics as organ sources is unsatisfactory for two reasons: first, because it ignores the undermining effect the policy would have on parental values and sentiments central to social welfare; and second, because attempts to respond adequately to the slippery slope argument against live anencephalic use are unconvincing.
