Annette Leibing and Silke Schicktanz (eds): Preventing dementia?: Critical perspectives on a new paradigm of preparing for old age : Berghahn Books, New York / Oxford, 2020.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS Monash Bioethics Review Pub Date : 2021-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-08 DOI:10.1007/s40592-021-00135-3
Niklas Petersen, Julia Perry
{"title":"Annette Leibing and Silke Schicktanz (eds): Preventing dementia?: Critical perspectives on a new paradigm of preparing for old age : Berghahn Books, New York / Oxford, 2020.","authors":"Niklas Petersen, Julia Perry","doi":"10.1007/s40592-021-00135-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the lack of effective curative treatment options and in light of a significant reconceptualization of Alzheimer's disease, the focus of dementia research has shifted towards prevention, risk prediction, and detection in very early disease stages. In the context of these shifts, the edited volume Preventing Dementia?: Critical Perspectives on a New Paradigm of Preparing for Old Age (edited by Annette Leibing and Silke Schicktanz) collects critical and insightful positions on the new paradigm of dementia prevention from an interdisciplinary and international perspective. The editors introduce the overarching topic of prevention by reflecting on the optimistic framing of modifiable risk factors and their novelty in the dementia context. Leibing and Schicktanz call for a cautious reception of the findings in the Lancet report(s) and draw attention to epistemic, ethical, and socio-political issues of what the editors term the contested \"new dementia\" and to the effect that this might have on rethinking individual and societal perceptions of aging. The contributions of the anthology depict the social and cultural dimensions of dementia discourses and consider the ethical implications of the changing conceptions of Alzheimer's disease as well as the shift towards early disease stages and prevention. With this, the anthology initiates a debate about the often implicit unresolved social, ethical, and political implications and preconditions of the medical understanding and handling of cognitive disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":"39 2","pages":"180-183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8688382/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00135-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Given the lack of effective curative treatment options and in light of a significant reconceptualization of Alzheimer's disease, the focus of dementia research has shifted towards prevention, risk prediction, and detection in very early disease stages. In the context of these shifts, the edited volume Preventing Dementia?: Critical Perspectives on a New Paradigm of Preparing for Old Age (edited by Annette Leibing and Silke Schicktanz) collects critical and insightful positions on the new paradigm of dementia prevention from an interdisciplinary and international perspective. The editors introduce the overarching topic of prevention by reflecting on the optimistic framing of modifiable risk factors and their novelty in the dementia context. Leibing and Schicktanz call for a cautious reception of the findings in the Lancet report(s) and draw attention to epistemic, ethical, and socio-political issues of what the editors term the contested "new dementia" and to the effect that this might have on rethinking individual and societal perceptions of aging. The contributions of the anthology depict the social and cultural dimensions of dementia discourses and consider the ethical implications of the changing conceptions of Alzheimer's disease as well as the shift towards early disease stages and prevention. With this, the anthology initiates a debate about the often implicit unresolved social, ethical, and political implications and preconditions of the medical understanding and handling of cognitive disorders.

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
Annette Leibing 和 Silke Schicktanz(编著):预防痴呆症?为老年生活做准备的新模式的批判性视角》:Berghahn Books,纽约/牛津,2020 年。
由于缺乏有效的治疗方案,并鉴于对阿尔茨海默病概念的重大调整,痴呆症研究的重点已转向预防、风险预测和疾病早期阶段的检测。在这些转变的背景下,《预防痴呆症?为老年生活做准备的新模式的批判性视角》(由 Annette Leibing 和 Silke Schicktanz 编辑)从跨学科和国际视角收集了有关痴呆症预防新模式的批判性和深刻见解。编者通过反思可改变的风险因素的乐观框架及其在痴呆症背景下的新颖性,介绍了预防这一首要主题。莱宾(Leibing)和希克坦茨(Schicktanz)呼吁谨慎对待《柳叶刀》报告中的发现,并提请人们注意编者所称的 "新痴呆症 "的认识论、伦理和社会政治问题,以及这可能对重新思考个人和社会对老龄化的看法产生的影响。文集中的文章描述了痴呆症论述的社会和文化层面,并思考了阿尔茨海默病概念的变化以及向疾病早期阶段和预防转变的伦理影响。因此,文集发起了一场辩论,讨论医学上对认知障碍的理解和处理往往隐含着尚未解决的社会、伦理和政治影响及先决条件。
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
Health beyond biology: the extended health hypothesis and technology. Do androids dream of informed consent? The need to understand the ethical implications of experimentation on simulated beings. Zero-covid advocacy during the COVID-19 pandemic: a case study of views on Twitter/X. The provision of abortion in Australia: service delivery as a bioethical concern. The immorality of bombing abortion clinics as proof that abortion is not murder.
×
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