Suchergebnisse

Regional Perspectives in Bioethics" illustrates the ways in which the national and international political landscape encompasses persons from diverse and often fragmented moral communities with widely varying moral intuitions, premises, evaluations and commitments.

This chapter provides a brief description about the history and current standings of Bioethics in Malta. The author not only discusses the legal point of view of bioethics but also takes into account three issues which have sparked public debate. This issues are In Vitro Fertilization (IVF), hydration and nutrition (euthanasia), and abortion. ; peer-reviewed

M.A.BIOETHICS ; Bioethics education is being adopted in various countries as an integral part of the curriculum. Should bioethics be implemented in Maltese curricula, and if yes, how and at what educational level? On 19 October 2005, the 33rd Session of the General Conference of UNESCO adopted the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which has been agreed upon by 191 Member States of UNESCO. After much deliberation and discussion, there has been a universal consensus on the importance of the introduction of bioethics education within each Member State, and consolidation of bioethics education where this is already in place. Bioethical principles are being seen as the basis of having virtuous citizens, and thus it is being suggested to strengthen and disseminate these principles at all levels, for practical reasons and to help people face important daily decisions with a conscientious background. Moral education has been prioritized for millennia, and educators worldwide have tried to instil in their students ethical perspectives as part of a holistic education. Modern scholars are reverting to the original meaning Potter gave to the term Global Bioethics, as it is argued that medical, social, and ecological issues are interconnected, as originally stated by Potter himself. Moreover, educational psychologists believe that a holistic and unified approach to education is more beneficial, and therefore we should combine our concerns and widen our focus to encompass environmental ethics, professional ethics, politics and economic issues. In this dissertation the author will argue that there is the need for the introduction of bioethics education in the Maltese curriculum through compulsory education as a cross-curricular theme to complement a holistic education scenario for the Maltese students. ; N/A

ed. by Catherine Myser ; Literaturangaben und Index ; Bioethics as missionary work : the export of Western ethics to developing countries ; Facing up to the hard problems : Western bioethics in the Eastern land of India ; Capacity building in developing world bioethics : perspectives on biomedicine and biomedical ethics in contemporary Sri Lanka ; French bioethics : the rhetoric of universality and the ethics of medical responsibility ; The social forms and functions of bioethics in the United Kingdom ; Bioethics between two worlds : the politics of ethics in Central Europe ; Bioethics in Chile and the need for Latin American bioethics ; Bioethics in Costa Rica : origins and challenges ; The social functions of bioethics in South Africa ; Toward an African Ubuntu/Umunthu bioethics in Malawi in the context of globalization ; Reflections on bioethics in China : interactions between bioethics and society ; The dominion of bioethics : nationalism and Canadian bioethics ; Negotiating Islamic identity in Egypt through bioethics : contesting 'the West' and Saudi Arabia ; Bioethics in Australia : on politics, power, and the rise of the Christian right ; Bioethics in the United States : contested terrain for competing visions of American liberalism

The study aims to report an extension project completion entitled "Cinema, Health and Bioethics", organized by the Research Center for Bioethics and Collective Health (NUPEBISC) of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), in partnership with public institutions of health. The project enables the rapprochement between university and health services, discussing some issues related to the work process in health, care and management policies to the Unified Health System (SUS) in the light of the theoretical framework of Daily Bioethics by Giovanni Berlinguer. The project's first experience was in 2010, and it is still in progress. It enables the participation and integration of new subjects such as workers, undergraduate and post-graduate students. The working method to trigger reflection and debate is through cinematographic works selected from a list provided by the research group and elected by the participants according to their interests. During each of the five sections that make up each project's edition, the participants have the opportunity to reflect more deeply on relevant ethical topics in their daily lives. That has been considered an exciting time of health permanent education according to the assessment performed by the subjects, in the end. It is worth mentioning that the method encourages participation and provides subsidies for anchoring produced reflections, facilitates more critical, ethical and political analyses. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

International audience ; The article analyses the debate on egg donation in Norway using source material from the parliamentary debate of amendments to the Biotechnology Law. In both policy documents on bioethics and the Biotechnology Law, gender is not a spoken issue, but bringing egg and sperm directly to the fore highlights how gender is implicated in bioethics debates. Gender perceptions affect the understanding of `what egg and sperm may do' at the same time as the debate sets established perceptions of gender in motion. In Norway, gender equality is a valid and important premise within the general political debate. It is, however, contested as a valid argument in the context of egg donation, which therefore becomes a field of negotiations about the limits of equal opportunities. The article analyses the egg donation debate as a process of cultural co-production and asks how the Norwegian emphasis on gender equality influences the debate on egg donation and, vice versa, how debates of assisted reproductive technology (ART) reopen debates on gender in relation to reproduction and parenthood.

Alongside a revival of interest in Thomism in philosophy, scholars have realised its relevance when addressing certain contemporary issues in bioethics. This book offers a rigorous interpretation of Aquinas's metaphysics and ethical thought, and highlights its significance to questions in bioethics. Jason T. Eberl applies Aquinas's views on the seminal topics of human nature and morality to key questions in bioethics at the margins of human life – questions which are currently contested in the academia, politics and the media such as: When does a human person's life begin? How should we define and clinically determine a person's death? Is abortion ever morally permissible? How should we resolve the conflict between the potential benefits of embryonic stem cell research and the lives of human embryos? Does cloning involve a misuse of human ingenuity and technology? What forms of treatment are appropriate for irreversibly comatose patients? How should we care for patients who experience unbearable suffering as they approach the end of life? Thomistic Principles and Bioethics presents a significant philosophical viewpoint which will motivate further dialogue amongst religious and secular arenas of inquiry concerning such complex issues of both individual and public concern.

In the decision-making involving biosciences and biotechnology, both politicians and the general public have come to increasingly rely on different kinds of experts and specialised bodies. Interest groups such as industry, religious authorities and consumer organisations also try to influence political decision-making, and the role of the media has not always been - it is claimed - as neutral as the public perceives it to be. At the same time, according to the democratic ideal, ultimate power should rest with the parliamentarians and with the people. Who has the power in decision-making in biotechnology? Can there be legitimate expertise in bioethics? How can we improve the power balance? These are some of the questions this book seeks to answer. The book is divided into three parts. The first part presents articles dealing with the role of biopolitics and the expert bodies in relation to the democratic ideal. The second part looks at the special role of the media in relation to decision-making in bioethics and biopolitics. The third part of the book looks at the links between the biotechnology industry and bioethical decision-making.

Comparative assessments of national bioethics commissions in the United States commonly look at the differences among these groups over their forty‐year history. A particular focus has been differences in the membership, mission, methods, and reports of the President's Council on Bioethics, which was active from 2001 until 2009, compared to those of its predecessors and the recent Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, active from 2009 until 2016. The differences are real, but disproportionate attention to them can obscure the substantial similarities in commissions' structure and function throughout the history of expert bioethics advice to government. As the Trump administration considers what role, if any, a bioethics commission will play in its work, it would be well served to consider how choices regarding the design of such a group and the topics it examines can best facilitate the unique contributions it can make to the government and to the country.

The suggestion that deliberative democratic approaches would suit the management of bioethical policymaking in democratic pluralistic societies has triggered what has been called the "deliberative turn" in health policy and bioethics. Most of the empirical work in this area has focused on the allocation of healthcare resources and priority setting at the local or national level. The variety of the more or less articulated theoretical efforts behind such initiatives is remarkable and has been accompanied, to date, by an overall lack of method specificity. We propose a set of methodological requirements for online deliberative procedures for bioethics. We provide a theoretical motivation for these requirements. In particular, we discuss and adapt an "epistocratic" proposal and argue that, regardless of its merits as a general political theory, a more refined version of its normative claims can generate a useful framework for the design of bioethical forums that combine maximal inclusiveness with informed and reasonable deliberation.

A primary concern of practical contemporary philosophy is to discover an ethical rationality, which makes possible the justification of determined decisions in the context of a multicultural society. Bioethics is a field in which this necessity is perhaps especially pressing. However, the proposals that have come forth in this sense, along the lines of promoting a "minimalist ethics"– be it in principle (Beauchamp and Childress 1994) or in practice (Engelhard 1986), are open to criticism, and do not appear to be sufficient. In this article, I explore another path, more in tune with the ethics of virtue and the classical doctrine of Natural Law. Yet, before that, I expound the reasons that advise against tackling the question of multiculturalism merely from the perspective of minimalist ethics. The main reason against taking minimalist ethics as the way to deal with cultural differences is that minimalist ethics involve a liberal understanding of the private and the public sphere, according to which cultural differences would be accepted as long as they do not conflict with a supposedly neutral rationality which reigns in the public sphere. Implicit therein is the idea that culture can be confined to the realm of the private. Yet, all culture, to the extent it is alive, fights to become present in public life. From this perspective, the insistence in a minimalist ethics is hardly compatible with respect to true cultural diversity. Indeed, the proposal, apparently impartial, of a formal morality for a multicultural society, i.e. a morality which should be superimposed upon the ethics of a particular community, is the proposal of a double morality, which contradicts the unity of practical reason, and eventually leads to cultural uniformity. Accordingly, if we consider cultural diversity in the context of a single society with values worthy of being preserved, the path is not the imposition of a minimum ethics: the path to defend diversity follows, rather, by strengthening cultures from the inside. Now, the first step in this direction leads to respect the natural basis of each culture, because, just as Robert Spaemann observes, "culture is humanized nature, not abolished nature". Now, if one can define culture as "humanized nature," it is important to point out that the humanization of nature depends essentially on the development of habits. These, as Aristotle indicates, can be of three types: intellectual, ethical, and technical. Indeed, the consistency and perdurability of a culture depends, in a great measure, upon the solidity, not only of its institutions but also of the intellectual and moral habits developed by its people. Thus, the intellectual habits make possible the achievement of a vital synthesis between the new and the old, fostering the continuity between progress and tradition. The moral habits, in turn, make possible the integration of scientific and technical knowledge into the practical context of human life. From this perspective, protecting a culture cannot mean anything other than enabling or favoring the growth of the habits of its people. Now, while the development of habits is, for its most part, the work of the individual members of the community, politics can also help to this end by protecting the natural floor, upon which moral habits develop. At this point, the appeal to Natural Law becomes opportune. In this context, however, I depart from the usual –foundationalist- understanding of Natural Law, to regard it merely as the natural way of reasoning on practical matters, i.e., a way of reasoning based upon the very structure of our practical reason.

Recent decades have witnessed profound shifts in the politics of medicine and the biological sciences. Members of several professions, including philosophers, lawyers and social scientists, now discuss and help regulate issues that were once left to doctors and scientists, in a form of outside involvement known as 'bioethics'. The making of British bioethics provides the first in-depth study of the growing demand for this outside involvement in Britain, where bioethicists have become renowned and influential 'ethics experts'. The book moves beyond existing histories, which often claim that bioethics arose in response to questions surrounding new procedures such as in vitro fertilisation. It shows instead that British bioethics emerged thanks to a dynamic interplay between changing sociopolitical concerns and the aims of specific professional groups and individuals. Highlighting this interplay has important implications for our understanding of how issues such as embryo experiments, animal research and assisted dying became high profile 'bioethical' concerns in late twentieth century Britain. And it also helps us appreciate how various individuals and groups intervened in and helped create the demand for bioethics, playing a major role in their transformation into 'ethics experts'. The making of British bioethics draws on a wide range of materials, including government archives, popular sources, professional journals, and original interviews with bioethicists and politicians. It is clearly written and will appeal to historians of medicine and science, general historians, bioethicists, and anyone interested in what the emergence of bioethics means for our notions of health, illness and morality.

Benefiting from a widely recognised experience of the field of bioethics, the Council of Europe which represents all the democratic countries of Europe, has embarked on the ambitious task of drafting a European Convention on bioethics. The purpose of this text is to set out fundamental values, such as respect for human dignity, free informed consent and non-commercialisation of the human body. In addition to this task, protocols will provide specific standards for the different fields concerned with the application of biomedical sciences. The convention and the first two protocols (human experiments and organ transplants) are due to be ready for signature by mid 1994.

Foreword by Nada Al-Nashif, Assistant Director-General of the Social and Human Sciences Sector, UNESCO ; Includes bibliography

Foreword by Nada Al-Nashif, Assistant Director-General of the Social and Human Sciences Sector, UNESCO ; Includes bibliography