{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,2]],"date-time":"2022-04-02T03:55:12Z","timestamp":1648871712421},"reference-count":0,"publisher":"Cambridge University Press (CUP)","issue":"1","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2000,1,1]],"date-time":"2000-01-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":946684800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/terms"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Camb Q Healthc Ethics"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2000,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:p>The point of Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist \nexample is to establish that one person, A, can acquire \na right to use the body of another person, B, if and only \nif B performs some kind of affirmative act that gives A \nsuch a right. On her view, the reason it is permissible \nfor you to unplug yourself from the violinist is that you \ndid nothing to give the violinist a right to use your body: \nthe violinist was plugged into you without your consent. \nThus it follows that the mere fact that A needs use of \nB's body to survive is not enough to give rise to \na right in A to use B's body. Accordingly, Thomson \nconcludes, the claim that the fetus has a right to life \ndoes not imply abortion is morally impermissible.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.1017\/s0963180100001110","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2002,7,27]],"date-time":"2002-07-27T13:44:43Z","timestamp":1027777483000},"page":"120-122","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Response to \u201cCommentary on Thomson's Violinist \nand Conjoined Twins\u201d by John K. Davis (CQ Vol 8, No 4)"],"prefix":"10.1017","volume":"9","author":[{"given":"Kenneth Einar","family":"Himma","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"56","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2000,1,1]]},"container-title":["Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/services\/aop-cambridge-core\/content\/view\/S0963180100001110","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2019,4,5]],"date-time":"2019-04-05T19:24:09Z","timestamp":1554492249000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/product\/identifier\/S0963180100001110\/type\/journal_article"}},"subtitle":["Reply to Davis"],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2000,1]]},"references-count":0,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2000,1]]}},"alternative-id":["S0963180100001110"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/s0963180100001110","relation":{},"ISSN":["0963-1801","1469-2147"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0963-1801","type":"print"},{"value":"1469-2147","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2000,1]]}}}