Suchergebnisse

Introduction: human rights in healthcare -- A right to treatment? the allocation of resouces in the National Health Service -- Ensuring quality healthcare: an issue of rights or duties? -- Autonomy and consent in medical treatment -- Treating incompetent patients: beneficence, welfare and rights -- Medical confidentiality and the right to privacy -- Property right in the body -- Medically assisted conception and a right to reproduce? -- Termination of pregnancy: a conflict of rights -- Pregnancy and freedom of choice -- The right to life at the end of life -- The law and ethics of assisted dying: is there a right to die?

Everyday practice is steeped in ethical considerations for nursing and healthcare professionals, but the theory behind ethics is removed from day to day care. This concise book shows how ethics implicates your work in a straightforward way. All the essential knowledge of ethics you need for passing your course is covered, including the principles of bioethics, rights and moral philosophy

This book deals with various facets of the human right to health: its normative profile as a universal right, current political and legal conflicts and contextualized implementation in different healthcare systems. The authors come from different countries and disciplines - law, political science, ethics, medicine etc. - and bring together a broad variety of academic and practical perspectives. The volume contains selected contributions of the international conference "The Right to Health - an Empty Promise?" held in September 2015 in Berlin and organized by the Emerging Field Initiative Project "Human Rights in Healthcare" (University of Erlangen-Nürnberg).

War is a situation in which the normal rules of civilised behaviour have broken down. The idea of upholding human rights within such a context is considered by many to be a little strange. However, warfare has always been one of the most rule-bound activities that mankind conducts. This paper explores some of the reasoning behind this apparent paradox, using the Just War Theory as a framework within which to explore the relationship between ethics, war and human rights and the way they interact in the contemporary military environment.

Ethical and human rights issues have assumed an increasingly high profile in the wake of miscarriages of justice, racism (Lawrence Inquiry), incompetence and corruption -- in both Britain and overseas. At the same time the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998 in England and Wales will have a major impact on policing, challenging many of the assumptions about how policing is carried out. This book aims to provide an accessible introduction to the key issues surrounding ethics in policing, linking this to recent developments and new human rights legislation. It sets out a powerful case fo

"Human rights include individual rights against government oppression, such as the right to freedom of thought, religion, speech, assembly, and to a fair system of criminal justice. But even in this basic political sense, "human rights" means different things in different historical and cultural contexts and advocacy of such rights has frequently been viewed as subjective. Justifying Ethics offers a thorough critique of the most common attempts to formulate objective standards through appeals to human nature, religion, and reason. Gorecki opens his inquiry by considering the role of norm-making concepts in the history of ethical thought: how standards of rights were claimed to conform to human nature and reason or have been stipulated by an external authoritative source such as God or social contracts. He then shows how such justifications may be discounted on analytical or practical grounds using such examples as divine will, Kantian reason, and the truth value of moral judgments. With respect to empirically grounded appeals to human nature, Gorecki argues against the notion that the innate plasticity of human behavior and potential for social diversity is sufficient grounds for human rights activity without objective justification. The search for justification remains essential in enhancing the persuasiveness of ethical action that aims at the moral "contagion" of the people by the human rights experience and the transition from moral acceptance to legal implementation. Broad in intellectual scope, Justifying Ethics draws upon moral and political philosophy, social policy, psychology, history, jurisprudence, and international law to clarify the prerequisites for the success of human rights activity. The book will be of special interest to political theorists, philosophers, sociologists, and human rights activists."--Provided by publisher.

This paper discusses the efficacy of applying a framework of universal human rights to resolve heritage conflicts. It considers the pitfalls and potentials in particular heritage settings for both archaeologists and the constituencies we seek to represent. A distinction is made throughout the paper between invoking universal human rights, as opposed to other rights or claims more broadly. Specifically, I ask what does the mantle of universal human rights bring to heritage? What additional work might it perform, and who wins and loses when archaeologists elevate cultural heritage to this arena of urgency? If archaeologists want to pursue this route, what steps might they take to be conversant with human rights and, more importantly, effective in practically implementing that knowledge? I then describe the situation in post-apartheid South Africa—a nation that has arguably crafted the world's most liberal constitution, yet in reality faces numerous challenges to instrumentalizing human rights. In terms of South African heritage rights, the archaeological site of Thulamela is offered as an example of conflict resolution at the local level by briefly examining the role of archaeologists and several connected communities each vying for access and ownership of the site. Following Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum I suggest that heritage practitioners might be more effective and ethically responsible by being attendant to pragmatic approaches that enhance human capabilities and human flourishing.

While the primary goal of the animal welfare movement is to eliminate suffering in those animal species that are exploited by humans, this goal, although exemplary, is narrow sighted. Notwithstanding the practical difficulties of proving animal suffering, especially psychological, suffering could conceivably be eliminated, as in confined farm animals, through the use of tranquilizers, or even brain surgery. A goose being made to eat compulsively, following selective partial destruction or stimulation of its brain to cause hypertrophy of its liver for the liver pate trade, may not suffer. But it is being harmed. Likewise, to selective breed a farm animal, like a broiler chicken, that eats to excess and its rate of growth jeopardizes its health, or to raise a zoo or laboratory animal in a highly restricted environment, may not cause overt suffering, since the animals do "adapt." But they are being harmed, since such treatments can increase their susceptibility to stress and disease. In the parlance of animal rights philosophy, their rights are being violated, regardless of whether or not suffering occurs or can be scientifically proven.