Suchergebnisse

Part 1 Socio-humane Sciences of New Technology -- Chapter 1 Risk and the Regulation of New Technology -- Chapter 2 The Gradation of the Causation and the Responsibility focusing on "Omission" -- Chapter 3 Ockham's Proportionality: A Model Selection Criterion for Levels of Explanation -- Part 2 Reproductive Technology and Life -- Chapter 4 Enforcing legislation on reproductive medicine with uncertainty via a broad social consensus -- Chapter 5 Gene Editing Baby in China: From the Perspective of Responsible Research and Innovation -- Chapter 6 Posthumously Conceived Children and Succession from Perspective of Law -- Chapter 7 Aristotle and Bioethics -- Chapter 8 Reinterpreting Motherhood: Separating Being a "Mother" from Giving Birth -- Part 3 Environmental Technology -- Chapter 9 Domains of Climate Ethics -- Chapter 10 Electricity Market Reform in Japan: Fair Competition and Renewable Energy -- Chapter 11 Renewable Energy Development in Japan -- Chapter 12 Adverse effects of pesticides on regional biodiversity and their mechanisms -- Chapter 13 Reconsidering Precautionary Attitudes and Sin of Omission for Emerging Technologies: Geoengineering and Gene Drive -- Part 4 Science and Society -- Chapter 14 Exploring the contexts of ELSI and RRI in Japan: Case studies in dual-use, regenerative medicine, and nanotechnology -- Chapter 15 Global climate change and uncertainty: An examination from the history of science.

BACKGROUND: Human rights are best protected, promoted and guaranteed when they can compel binding and enforceability duty. One prominent criticism of category of human rights which includes the human right to health is that it is difficult, to assign the duties that correspond to these rights, because of stark disparity in how the main duty bearers approach their duties. METHODS: This paper adopts a doctrinal approach to examine and evaluate the duties to the right to health. The method in this study entails a detailed literature search to systematically evaluate the legal implications, regulations, arguments and policy regarding the nature of the obligation to the right to health. This study also engages with normative and philosophical aspects of human rights. RESULTS: This paper posits that human rights protect against common, serious, and remediable threats and risks, and ensure that there are remedies from governments and third parties. However, it is difficult to compel duties especially in regard to the right to health. First it is not easy to achieve a uniform standard for duty bearers implied by the words 'highest attainable physical and mental health.' Theorists discussed in the paper outline views of what this could mean, from serious to common health concerns. Second, the right to health is not a legally established right in many jurisdictions, making it difficult to enforce. This paper outlines different layers of state and non-state legal duty bearers to enforce the right to health. CONCLUSION: The duty to respect, protect, fulfil and even remedy the right to health, will often be meaningless in practice without a clear identification of the necessary duty bearers to enforce them. The law is the starting point for this to not only enshrine this right as a legally enforceable one but also to clearly identify duty bearers. Without this, the human right to health as outlined under international and regional human rights law generates an implausible, or even impossible, profusion of duties. There ...

This paper considers ways in which rulers can respond to, generate, or exploit fear of COVID-19 infection for various ends, and in particular distinguishes between 'fear-invoking' and 'fear-minimising' strategies. It examines historical precedent for executive overreach in crises and then moves on to look in more detail at some specific areas where fear is being mobilised or generated: in ways that lead to the suspension of civil liberties; that foster discrimination against minorities; and that boost the personality cult of leaders and limit criticism or competition. Finally, in the Appendix, we present empirical work, based on the results of an original survey in Brazil, that provides support for the conjectures in the previous sections. While it is too early to tell what the longer-term outcomes of the changes we note will be, our purpose here is simply to identify some warning signs that threaten the key institutions and values of democracy.

This paper considers ways in which rulers can respond to, generate, or exploit fear of COVID-19 infection for various ends, and in particular distinguishes between 'fear-invoking' and 'fear-minimising' strategies. It examines historical precedent for executive overreach in crises and then moves on to look in more detail at some specific areas where fear is being mobilised or generated: in ways that lead to the suspension of civil liberties; that foster discrimination against minorities; and that boost the personality cult of leaders and limit criticism or competition. Finally, in the Appendix, we present empirical work, based on the results of an original survey in Brazil, that provides support for the conjectures in the previous sections. While it is too early to tell what the longer-term outcomes of the changes we note will be, our purpose here is simply to identify some warning signs that threaten the key institutions and values of democracy.

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- Contributors -- 1 Introduction: Impartiality, Neutrality and Justice -- 2 From Contracts to Pluralism? -- 3 Rational, Fair and Reasonable -- 4 Taking Utilitarianism Seriously -- 5 The Priority of the Right Over the Good Rides Again -- 6 Impartiality and Liberal Neutrality -- 7 What's 'Wrong' in Contractualism? -- 8 Mutual Advantage and Impartiality -- 9 Reasonable Agreement: Political not Normative -- 10 Care, Justice and the Good -- 11 Some Mistakes About Impartiality -- 12 Something in the Disputation not Unpleasant -- Index

Social justice is a contested term, incorporated into the language of widely differing political positions. Those on the left argue that it requires intervention from the state to ensure equality, at least of opportunity; those on the right believe that it can be underpinned by the economics of the market place with little or no state intervention. To date, political philosophers have made relatively few serious attempts to explain how a theory of social justice translates into public policy. This important book, drawing on international experience and a distinguished panel of political philosophers and social scientists, addresses what the meaning of social justice is, and how it translates into the everyday concerns of public and social policy, in the context of both multiculturalism and globalisation

Once effective coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are developed, they will be scarce. This presents the question of how to distribute them fairly across countries. Vaccine allocation among countries raises complex and controversial issues involving public opinion, diplomacy, economics, public health, and other considerations. Nevertheless, many national leaders, international organizations, and vaccine producers recognize that one central factor in this decision-making is ethics (1, 2). Yet little progress has been made toward delineating what constitutes fair international distribution of vaccine. Many have endorsed ?equitable distribution of COVID-19?vaccine? without describing a framework or recommendations (3, 4). Two substantive proposals for the international allocation of a COVID-19 vaccine have been advanced, but are seriously flawed. We offer a more ethically defensible and practical proposal for the fair distribution of COVID-19 vaccine: the Fair Priority Model.The Fair Priority Model is primarily addressed to three groups. One is the COVAX facility?led by Gavi, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)?which intends to purchase vaccines for fair distribution across countries (5). A second group is vaccine producers. Thankfully, many producers have publicly committed to a ?broad and equitable? international distribution of vaccine (2). The last group is national governments, some of whom have also publicly committed to a fair distribution (1).These groups need a clear framework for reconciling competing values, one that they and others will rightly accept as ethical and not just as an assertion of power. The Fair Priority Model specifies what a fair distribution of vaccines entails, giving content to their commitments. Moreover, acceptance of this common ethical framework will reduce duplication and waste, easing efforts at a fair distribution. That, in turn, will enhance producers' confidence that vaccines will be fairly allocated to benefit people, thereby motivating an increase in vaccine supply for international distribution. ; Fil: Emanuel, Ezekiel J. University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Persad, Govind. University of Denver.; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Kern, Adam. University of Princeton; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Buchanan, Allen. University of Arizona; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Fabre, Cécile. All Souls College; Reino Unido ; Fil: Halliday, Daniel. University of Melbourne; Australia ; Fil: Heath, Joseph. University of Toronto; Canadá ; Fil: Herzog, Lisa. University of Groningen; Países Bajos ; Fil: Leland, R. J. University of Manitoba; Canadá ; Fil: Lemango, Ephrem T. No especifíca; ; Fil: Luna, Florencia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales; Argentina ; Fil: McCoy, Matthew S. University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Norheim, Ole F. University of Bergen; Noruega ; Fil: Ottersen, Trygve. Norwegian Institute Of Public Health; Noruega ; Fil: Schaefer, G. Owen. Yong Loo Lin School Of Medicine; Singapur ; Fil: Tan, Kok-Chor. University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Wellman, Christopher Heath. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados Unidos ; Fil: Wolff, Jonathan. University of Oxford; Reino Unido ; Fil: Richardson, Henry S. Kennedy Institute Of Ethics; Estados Unidos