Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1007/s40592-020-00108-y
Jesper Ahlin Marceta
{"title":"Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems.","authors":"Jesper Ahlin Marceta","doi":"10.1007/s40592-020-00108-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Respect for autonomy is a central moral principle in bioethics. It is sometimes argued that authenticity, i.e., being \"real,\" \"genuine,\" \"true to oneself,\" or similar, is crucial to a person's autonomy. Patients sometimes make what appears to be inauthentic decisions, such as when (decision-competent) anorexia nervosa patients refuse treatment to avoid gaining weight, despite that the risk of harm is very high. If such decisions are inauthentic, and therefore non-autonomous, it may be the case they should be overridden for paternalist reasons. However, it is not clear what justifies the judgment that someone or something is inauthentic. This article discusses one recent theory of what justifies judgments of inauthenticity. It is argued that the theory is seriously limited, as it only provides guidance in three out of nine identified cases. There are at least six authenticity-related problems to be solved, and autonomy theorists thus have reason to engage with the topic of authenticity in practical biomedicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205777/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-020-00108-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Respect for autonomy is a central moral principle in bioethics. It is sometimes argued that authenticity, i.e., being "real," "genuine," "true to oneself," or similar, is crucial to a person's autonomy. Patients sometimes make what appears to be inauthentic decisions, such as when (decision-competent) anorexia nervosa patients refuse treatment to avoid gaining weight, despite that the risk of harm is very high. If such decisions are inauthentic, and therefore non-autonomous, it may be the case they should be overridden for paternalist reasons. However, it is not clear what justifies the judgment that someone or something is inauthentic. This article discusses one recent theory of what justifies judgments of inauthenticity. It is argued that the theory is seriously limited, as it only provides guidance in three out of nine identified cases. There are at least six authenticity-related problems to be solved, and autonomy theorists thus have reason to engage with the topic of authenticity in practical biomedicine.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
已解决和未解决的生物伦理真实性问题。
尊重自主权是生命伦理学的一项核心道德原则。有时有人认为,真实性,即 "真实"、"真诚"、"忠于自我 "或类似的东西,对一个人的自主性至关重要。患者有时会做出一些看似不真实的决定,比如神经性厌食症患者(有决策能力)为了避免体重增加而拒绝治疗,尽管伤害的风险非常高。如果这些决定是不真实的,因而也是非自主的,那么出于家长式的考虑,这些决定就应该被推翻。然而,我们并不清楚什么才是判断某人或某事不真实的理由。本文讨论了最近的一种理论,即什么是判断不真实的正当理由。文章认为,该理论具有严重的局限性,因为它只为九种已确定的情况中的三种提供了指导。至少有六个与真实性相关的问题有待解决,因此自主性理论家有理由在实际生物医学中探讨真实性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
期刊最新文献
The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern. Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X. Do androids dream of informed consent? The need to understand the ethical implications of experimentation on simulated beings. Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology. Distributive justice and value trade-offs in antibiotic use in aged care settings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1