1,721,017 research outputs found
The Voices and Rooms of European Bioethics
No full textThis book reflects on the many contributions made in and to European bioethics to date, in various locations, and from various disciplinary perspectives. In so doing, the book advances understanding of the academic and social status of European bioethics as it is being supported and practiced by various disciplines such as philosophy, law, medicine, and the social sciences, applied to a wide range of areas. The European focus offers a valuable counter-balance to an often prominent US understanding of bioethics.The volume is split into four parts. The first contains reflection on bioethics in the past, present and future, and also considers how comparison between countries and disciplines can enrich bioethical discourse. The second looks at bioethics in particular locations and contexts, including: policy, boardrooms and courtrooms; studios and virtual rooms; and society, while the third part explores the translation of theories and concepts of bioethics into the clinical setting. The fourth and final section focuses on academic expressions of bioethics, as it is theorised in various disciplines and also as it is taught, whether in classrooms or at the patient’s bedside. The book features unique contributions from a range of experts including: Alastair V Campbell; Ruth Chadwick; Angus Dawson; Raymond G. De Vries; Suzanne Ost; Renzo Pegoraro; Rouven Porz; Paul Schotsmans;Jochen Vollmann; Guy Widdershoven and Hub Zwart
A (social) room with a view (to the future): advance decisions and the problem of personhood
No full textThis chapter discusses advance decisions to refuse medical treatment (hereafter ‘advance decisions’) and a specific challenge to their legitimacy that has been made based on certain conceptions of personhood. I argue that the alternative conceptions of personhood on which these challenges are based are incompatible with the democratically mandated end of the legal recognition of advance decisions
‘You Don't Need Proof When You've Got Instinct!’:Gut Feelings and Some Limits to Parental Authority
Full text linkWhile, in Europe and beyond, decisions about children who lack competence to contribute to their treatment decisions are based upon their best interests, both the European Court of Human Rights and bioethical theorists consider that there must be substantial involvement of parents in these decisions. In the United Kingdom (UK), legal and clinical guidelines say that critically ill children’s best interests must be agreed by their parents and doctors, or the courts, in a process of shared decision-making. There is widespread acceptance that there should be limitations on parental authority in shared decisions, yet parental authority is ill defined, and without some agreement on the source of parental authority it is difficult to limit it either cogently or consistently. This paper presents results from an empirical ethics investigation into shared decision-making in the paediatric intensive care unit, a study that focused on critical decisions in which an infant child’s treatment or non-treatment might be decided
‘You Don't Need Proof When You've Got Instinct!’:Gut Feelings and Some Limits to Parental Authority
No full textWhile, in Europe and beyond, decisions about children who lack competence to contribute to their treatment decisions are based upon their best interests, both the European Court of Human Rights and bioethical theorists consider that there must be substantial involvement of parents in these decisions. In the United Kingdom (UK), legal and clinical guidelines say that critically ill children’s best interests must be agreed by their parents and doctors, or the courts, in a process of shared decision-making. There is widespread acceptance that there should be limitations on parental authority in shared decisions, yet parental authority is ill defined, and without some agreement on the source of parental authority it is difficult to limit it either cogently or consistently. This paper presents results from an empirical ethics investigation into shared decision-making in the paediatric intensive care unit, a study that focused on critical decisions in which an infant child’s treatment or non-treatment might be decided
Is Rationing the Inevitable Consequence of Medical Advance?
No full textThe past decades have seen an impressive advance in medical technology. However, there are concerns about the growing costs of medical technology and the need to ration health care services. Some economists argue that the use of technology might be expensive now but that it would be unwise to ration technological advances as they will save money in the long-term. The author argues that increased productivity in health care does not necessarily lead to reduction of costs. In fact, it has often resulted in increased costs because such innovations made possible a widening of the indications for the treatment. Rationing of medical technology is inevitable, as further advances of technology will lead to higher pressures on the financing of the public health care system and the increased removal from the basic package of long-term care services for chronic conditions, the provision of which is an important responsibility of our society
Voices carry? : the voice of bioethics in the courtroom and voice of law in bioethics
Full text linkThis paper explores the interaction between bioethics and law in the theatre of the courtroom, with particular reference to English law. No matter what some judges say, the courtroom has long been a location in which law and bioethics interact, not least in seminal health care law cases such as Re A (Minors) (Conjoined Twins: Separation [2000] and R v Arthur [1981]. Judge-made law has made some positive contributions to the shaping of bioethics as a discipline, providing a real-world testing ground for moral arguments, issuing the judicial ‘products’ with which bioethics engages, and emphasising the importance of observing due process. At the same time, the courtroom is an adversarial arena, not always ideally suited to the resolution of ethical conflict, and its concern with actions that satisfy attainable standards can fall short of the aspirations set in philosophical ethics. Indeed, sometimes the judges misinterpret or wholly neglect the ethical dimensions of the case at hand. So much of what judges do involves orchestrated framing, the manipulation of legal concepts, interpretation (of the facts of the case, the story of legal precedent and of the particular ethical dilemma) and translation (of ethical issues into law's discourse). Whether they like it or not, the judges are interpreting and responding to the voice of bioethics alongside the voice of the law in their attempts to reach the 'right' judgment and in the face of the theatre surrounding cases involving bioethical controversy. The end result may be distorting because bioethical theory is misinterpreted or the voice of bioethics becomes obscured because of the drama of the case. But this is not to claim that bioethics has some access to the ‘right’ or ‘true’ response to the case at hand. Indeed, neither bioethics nor law can necessarily claim superiority or access to the ‘truth’ of the matter. We nevertheless argue that each will be likely to gain greater insight by opening a dialogue with the other, telling and re-telling the story, so that the voices of one forum can carry over into the other
- …
