Neuroscience is a rapidly growing scientific field, whose recent findings gain major interest in the field of criminal law and forensic psychiatry. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in criminal trials as part of psychiatric testimony, particularly in the US, but also in Europe.This article presents the findings of an empirical study with focus groups involving judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and neurologists, aiming to examine through a focus group interaction process, the use of neuroscientific data in psychiatric testimony from the perspective of all the actors involved in the criminal proceedings. In particular, the study aims to examine the way that neuroscientific evidence would likely be used by lawyers, the way that this evidence is perceived and interpreted by judges, as well as the opinion of psychiatrists - experts and neuroscientists concerning the usefulness, effectiveness and limitations of neurosciences’ use in criminal courts, especially in relation with the assessment of guilt and the assessment of the recidivism risk posed by an offender.
{"title":"Οι νευροεπιστήμες στις ψυχιατρικές πραγματογνωμοσύνες: ευρήματα από ομάδες εστίασης","authors":"Γεωργία-Μάρθα Γκότση","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.20835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.20835","url":null,"abstract":"Neuroscience is a rapidly growing scientific field, whose recent findings gain major interest in the field of criminal law and forensic psychiatry. Neuroscientific evidence is increasingly being used in criminal trials as part of psychiatric testimony, particularly in the US, but also in Europe.This article presents the findings of an empirical study with focus groups involving judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and neurologists, aiming to examine through a focus group interaction process, the use of neuroscientific data in psychiatric testimony from the perspective of all the actors involved in the criminal proceedings. In particular, the study aims to examine the way that neuroscientific evidence would likely be used by lawyers, the way that this evidence is perceived and interpreted by judges, as well as the opinion of psychiatrists - experts and neuroscientists concerning the usefulness, effectiveness and limitations of neurosciences’ use in criminal courts, especially in relation with the assessment of guilt and the assessment of the recidivism risk posed by an offender.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72779691","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During recent years, bioethics have become increasingly important as it has become clear that citizens of all ages will be called upon to take ethical decisions about the use of science and technology at some stage of their lives. Research shows that there is a global agreement on the need to teach more of these ethical and social issues related to science and technology at all levels of education.This article attempts to investigate the importance and role of bioethics in secondary and undergraduate university education. Examples of primary and secondary education curricula, their goals and their contribution to improving students' understanding of the different aspects of bioethics are presented. Then, it is attempted to review the situation of bioethics in universities curricula. The article analyzes the different philosophies of approaching bioethical education, its relation with human rights and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the teaching strategies of integration and specialization.In conclusion, it seems that bioethics is worthwhile being joined together with other disciplines and integrated into a wider framework of effective and informed decision-making skills, whether the person is a health professional or a modern citizen.
{"title":"Η βιοηθική στην εκπαίδευση","authors":"Αλεξάνδρα Γλυκοφρύδη (Alexandra Glykofridi), Μαρία Ζαπουνίδου (Maria Zapounidou)","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.20833","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.20833","url":null,"abstract":"During recent years, bioethics have become increasingly important as it has become clear that citizens of all ages will be called upon to take ethical decisions about the use of science and technology at some stage of their lives. Research shows that there is a global agreement on the need to teach more of these ethical and social issues related to science and technology at all levels of education.This article attempts to investigate the importance and role of bioethics in secondary and undergraduate university education. Examples of primary and secondary education curricula, their goals and their contribution to improving students' understanding of the different aspects of bioethics are presented. Then, it is attempted to review the situation of bioethics in universities curricula. The article analyzes the different philosophies of approaching bioethical education, its relation with human rights and compares the advantages and disadvantages of the teaching strategies of integration and specialization.In conclusion, it seems that bioethics is worthwhile being joined together with other disciplines and integrated into a wider framework of effective and informed decision-making skills, whether the person is a health professional or a modern citizen.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88026793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Euthanasia is one of the issues that bioethics deals with, which is one of the outmost importance. Furthermore it is very up-to-date. In Greece and in most countries of the European Union euthanasia has not been subject to specialized legislation. It is only occasionally debated, resulting in tension and conflict. On one hand, people have the right to self determination, so the end of life should be among them. On the other hand, life is considered to be of the highest value and it is the duty of healthcare personnel to guard and preserve it by any means, using their expertise and knowledge.In this paper, a brief report is made to the practices used across countries in the European Union regarding the end of life. Most countries are opposed to euthanasia while acknowledging the right of a patient to refuse or receive treatment. Only three countries have passed bills that legalize euthanasia under strict conditions. The rest, due to sensitivity in this matter, have not yet proceeded in reforming their laws accordingly. It seems that society does not have the necessary reassurances so that they can engulf that issue guarding the true will of a person.
{"title":"Ευθανασία: Πρακτικές που εφαρμόζουν οι χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης","authors":"Αλεξάνδρα Κοζαμάνη (Alexandra Kozamani)","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.20837","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.20837","url":null,"abstract":"Euthanasia is one of the issues that bioethics deals with, which is one of the outmost importance. Furthermore it is very up-to-date. In Greece and in most countries of the European Union euthanasia has not been subject to specialized legislation. It is only occasionally debated, resulting in tension and conflict. On one hand, people have the right to self determination, so the end of life should be among them. On the other hand, life is considered to be of the highest value and it is the duty of healthcare personnel to guard and preserve it by any means, using their expertise and knowledge.In this paper, a brief report is made to the practices used across countries in the European Union regarding the end of life. Most countries are opposed to euthanasia while acknowledging the right of a patient to refuse or receive treatment. Only three countries have passed bills that legalize euthanasia under strict conditions. The rest, due to sensitivity in this matter, have not yet proceeded in reforming their laws accordingly. It seems that society does not have the necessary reassurances so that they can engulf that issue guarding the true will of a person.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87626560","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Στην παρούσα eργασία παρουσιάζουμe τους τρόπους μe τους οποίους συνδέονται μe θeσμούς οι πρακτικές που ακολουθούν οι τράπeζeς ομφαλοπλακουντιακού αίματος (ΟπΑ). Οι διάφορeς μέθοδοι διαχeίρισης του ΟπΑ σχeτίζονται μe την καθιέρωση της λeιτουργίας τραπeζών ΟπΑ δημόσιου και ιδιωτικού χαρακτήρα. Οι δημόσιeς και οι ιδιωτικές τράπeζeς ΟπΑ συνδέονται μe διαφορeτικές κοινωνικές συνδηλώσeις. Οι δημόσιeς τράπeζeς αντιστοιχούν στις αρχές της αναδιανeμητικής οικονομίας, eνώ οι ιδιωτικές τράπeζeς στην οικονομία της αγοράς. Από την άλλη, οι πρακτικές λeιτουργίας των τραπeζών, όπως έχουν αναδeίξeι μeλέτeς από το διeπιστημονικό πeδίο σπουδών ‘Eπιστήμη, Τeχνολογία, Κοινωνία’, καθιστούν λιγότeρη άκαμπτη τη διάκριση μeταξύ δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών τραπeζών. Δίνοντας έμφαση στην κινητικότητα των κυττάρων ΟπΑ σe ένα eυρύ δίκτυο υποδομών και οργανισμών που αφορά στην αξιοποίησή τους, eπιχeιρούμe να δeίξουμe τους παράγοντeς που σχeτικοποιούν τη διάκριση μeταξύ δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών θeσμών αποθήκeυσης του ΟπΑ.
{"title":"«Υγρός βιολογικός χρυσός»: Κριτικές προσεγγίσεις των τραπεζών ομφαλοπλακουντιακού αίματος από το πεδίο «Επιστήμη, Τεχνολογία, Κοινωνία»","authors":"Κωνσταντίνος Μορφάκης (Constantinos Morfakis), Κατερίνα Βλαντώνη (Katerina Vlantoni)","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.20834","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.20834","url":null,"abstract":"Στην παρούσα eργασία παρουσιάζουμe τους τρόπους μe τους οποίους συνδέονται μe θeσμούς οι πρακτικές που ακολουθούν οι τράπeζeς ομφαλοπλακουντιακού αίματος (ΟπΑ). Οι διάφορeς μέθοδοι διαχeίρισης του ΟπΑ σχeτίζονται μe την καθιέρωση της λeιτουργίας τραπeζών ΟπΑ δημόσιου και ιδιωτικού χαρακτήρα. Οι δημόσιeς και οι ιδιωτικές τράπeζeς ΟπΑ συνδέονται μe διαφορeτικές κοινωνικές συνδηλώσeις. Οι δημόσιeς τράπeζeς αντιστοιχούν στις αρχές της αναδιανeμητικής οικονομίας, eνώ οι ιδιωτικές τράπeζeς στην οικονομία της αγοράς. Από την άλλη, οι πρακτικές λeιτουργίας των τραπeζών, όπως έχουν αναδeίξeι μeλέτeς από το διeπιστημονικό πeδίο σπουδών ‘Eπιστήμη, Τeχνολογία, Κοινωνία’, καθιστούν λιγότeρη άκαμπτη τη διάκριση μeταξύ δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών τραπeζών. Δίνοντας έμφαση στην κινητικότητα των κυττάρων ΟπΑ σe ένα eυρύ δίκτυο υποδομών και οργανισμών που αφορά στην αξιοποίησή τους, eπιχeιρούμe να δeίξουμe τους παράγοντeς που σχeτικοποιούν τη διάκριση μeταξύ δημόσιων και ιδιωτικών θeσμών αποθήκeυσης του ΟπΑ.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84591659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present manuscript examines the new ethics data protection requirements introduced for the research projects funded by the European Programme Horizon 2020.Initially, reference is made to the basic data protection principles introduced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the derogations permitted in the research field in favor of the science advancement. Although these derogations are subject to a number of safeguards to protect personal data, new ethics requirements are introduced for research projects funded by the European Programme Horizon 2020. The aim of these safeguards is the increased transparency and accountability at the data processing and the consequent enhanced protection of the individuals’ rights. These requirements are geared to the main research ethics postulate, which requires free, voluntary and informed participation of the research subject.Under these new requirements, Horizon 2020 beneficiaries/applicants must comply with a set of predefined standards, reflecting their ethical and legal obligations, provide a detailed and precise description of the technical and organisational measures that will be implemented in order to safeguard the rights of the research participants and also demonstrate their observance. In addition, depending on the type of the data being processed and the data processing techniques, the H2020 applicants/beneficiaries may need to provide a number of additional documents/explanations and implement further measures.
{"title":"General Data Protection Regulation and Horizon 2020 Ethics Review Process: Ethics Compliance under GDPR","authors":"Albena Kuyumdzhieva","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.20832","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.20832","url":null,"abstract":"The present manuscript examines the new ethics data protection requirements introduced for the research projects funded by the European Programme Horizon 2020.Initially, reference is made to the basic data protection principles introduced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the derogations permitted in the research field in favor of the science advancement. Although these derogations are subject to a number of safeguards to protect personal data, new ethics requirements are introduced for research projects funded by the European Programme Horizon 2020. The aim of these safeguards is the increased transparency and accountability at the data processing and the consequent enhanced protection of the individuals’ rights. These requirements are geared to the main research ethics postulate, which requires free, voluntary and informed participation of the research subject.Under these new requirements, Horizon 2020 beneficiaries/applicants must comply with a set of predefined standards, reflecting their ethical and legal obligations, provide a detailed and precise description of the technical and organisational measures that will be implemented in order to safeguard the rights of the research participants and also demonstrate their observance. In addition, depending on the type of the data being processed and the data processing techniques, the H2020 applicants/beneficiaries may need to provide a number of additional documents/explanations and implement further measures.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88325317","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article attempts to analyze and compare the two most influential systems that regulate prostitution in Europe: the Nordic model that is based on the total prohibition of prostitution and on the penalization of the purchase of sexual services and the German-Dutch model that introduces the normalization of prostitution via the legalization of the activity in question and the imposition of State controls and regulations.Furthermore, the article will focus on the policy of the European Union as well as on the Greek legislation regarding the confrontation of the phenomenon of prostitution. As far as the latter is concerned, the inconsistencies of the current legal framework and its applicability problems will be highlighted and the first efforts aiming at an alternative regulation of prostitution will be described.
{"title":"The question of the prohibition of prostitution in Europe: A comparative overview of the Nordic and the German- Dutch model and the inconsistencies of the Greek Legislation","authors":"Αριάδνη Πολυχρονίου","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.20836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.20836","url":null,"abstract":"This article attempts to analyze and compare the two most influential systems that regulate prostitution in Europe: the Nordic model that is based on the total prohibition of prostitution and on the penalization of the purchase of sexual services and the German-Dutch model that introduces the normalization of prostitution via the legalization of the activity in question and the imposition of State controls and regulations.Furthermore, the article will focus on the policy of the European Union as well as on the Greek legislation regarding the confrontation of the phenomenon of prostitution. As far as the latter is concerned, the inconsistencies of the current legal framework and its applicability problems will be highlighted and the first efforts aiming at an alternative regulation of prostitution will be described.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90302406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The two-fold significance of Research Ethics Committees (RECs): ensuring ethical research but also providing indirect ethics training of researchers","authors":"Βασιλική Μολλάκη (Vasiliki Mollaki)","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.20831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.20831","url":null,"abstract":"<jats:p>.</jats:p>","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2019-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90524360","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Advance directives (ADs) are directives that a competent person gives in advance, for her treatment in case she is characterized (legally or by medical evaluation) incompetent for rational decision making that can guide action. ADs may be demands for active or passive euthanasia, raising legal and moral issues concerning their acceptance.In bioethics, although the view supporting the decisive authority of ADs, without any presuppositions, as expressions of self determination and of “critical interests”, remains dominant, there are strong philosophical objections to their unconditional acceptance. There are two opposed views on this issue: a) The so called extension view that supports the moral authority of ADs. b) The moral authority objection view that questions the moral acceptance of ADs, focusing on the continuity of personal identity (PI) and on the existence of experiential interests. In this paper we attempt to criticize the dominant bioethical view about the moral justification of ADs based on the extension view, dwelling mainly on cases of “happy demented” patients, who have strong experiential interests that can conflict with the “extended” critical interests.We thus examine first the more influential PI theories in bioethical discourse. These are the biological, the anthropological, the narrative and the psychological theories. Both psychological and narrative conceptions of PI adopt experiential data that are subject to relativistic evaluations and can lead to limitations of, and exceptions from, the concept of personhood. They both demand a thick first person identification of PI, which is then established as personal identity, supposedly grounding the authority of ADs. Despite their dominant position in bioethics, insofar as they lend support to the extension view, they face several objections.We try to defend the moral authority objection regarding ADs, by adopting a Kantian transcendental account of PI, which provides a rigid kernel that grounds a conception of human dignity as independent from any experiential assessment of abilities. This conception of human dignity also includes patients incompetent to express their will, and is endangered by the unconditional acceptance of ADs. We also investigate a possible moral justification of ADs in Kantian ethics which appeals to Kant’s positions on suicide.
{"title":"Προγενέστερες οδηγίες και το θέμα της προσωπικής ταυτότητας","authors":"Γεώργιος Μπούτλας, Στέλιος Βιρβιδάκης","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.19688","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.19688","url":null,"abstract":"Advance directives (ADs) are directives that a competent person gives in advance, for her treatment in case she is characterized (legally or by medical evaluation) incompetent for rational decision making that can guide action. ADs may be demands for active or passive euthanasia, raising legal and moral issues concerning their acceptance.In bioethics, although the view supporting the decisive authority of ADs, without any presuppositions, as expressions of self determination and of “critical interests”, remains dominant, there are strong philosophical objections to their unconditional acceptance. There are two opposed views on this issue: a) The so called extension view that supports the moral authority of ADs. b) The moral authority objection view that questions the moral acceptance of ADs, focusing on the continuity of personal identity (PI) and on the existence of experiential interests. In this paper we attempt to criticize the dominant bioethical view about the moral justification of ADs based on the extension view, dwelling mainly on cases of “happy demented” patients, who have strong experiential interests that can conflict with the “extended” critical interests.We thus examine first the more influential PI theories in bioethical discourse. These are the biological, the anthropological, the narrative and the psychological theories. Both psychological and narrative conceptions of PI adopt experiential data that are subject to relativistic evaluations and can lead to limitations of, and exceptions from, the concept of personhood. They both demand a thick first person identification of PI, which is then established as personal identity, supposedly grounding the authority of ADs. Despite their dominant position in bioethics, insofar as they lend support to the extension view, they face several objections.We try to defend the moral authority objection regarding ADs, by adopting a Kantian transcendental account of PI, which provides a rigid kernel that grounds a conception of human dignity as independent from any experiential assessment of abilities. This conception of human dignity also includes patients incompetent to express their will, and is endangered by the unconditional acceptance of ADs. We also investigate a possible moral justification of ADs in Kantian ethics which appeals to Kant’s positions on suicide.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82979624","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the present article I will depict some of the emerging controversies that are expected to be of serious concern in the developing field of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics is the branch of genetics concerned with determining the likely response of an individual to therapeutic medications. The first upcoming issue is the voluntary agreement of the patients, concerning the research of their genome, that is also reflected in their relatives, as well as in their wider social group (s). Secondly, the great financial costs of pharmacogeonomic therapies is most likely to lead to new social inequalities or upsurge the existing ones in commodity of health. Furthermore, this will possibly lead to more group minorities, based on the rarity of some alleles among individuals and their following response to the applied medication. As for cognitive functions, pharmacogenomics seems to be a great challenge for the enhancement of both cognitive dysregulation in patients and intellectual ability in healthy individuals. Consequently, this will lead to an unbridgeable gap between the users and nonusers of newer medications regarding their intellectual abilities, that are unachievable by normal training of physical abilities. Last but not least, l will refer to whether or not genetic data regard strictly confidential personal data, not allowed to be published, despite of possible social benefit and to what extent their carrier has the right of ignoring it.
{"title":"Φαρμακογονιδιωματική: Ηθικά διλήμματα","authors":"Θωμάς Κορδόνης","doi":"10.12681/BIOETH.19691","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/BIOETH.19691","url":null,"abstract":"In the present article I will depict some of the emerging controversies that are expected to be of serious concern in the developing field of pharmacogenomics. Pharmacogenomics is the branch of genetics concerned with determining the likely response of an individual to therapeutic medications. The first upcoming issue is the voluntary agreement of the patients, concerning the research of their genome, that is also reflected in their relatives, as well as in their wider social group (s). Secondly, the great financial costs of pharmacogeonomic therapies is most likely to lead to new social inequalities or upsurge the existing ones in commodity of health. Furthermore, this will possibly lead to more group minorities, based on the rarity of some alleles among individuals and their following response to the applied medication. As for cognitive functions, pharmacogenomics seems to be a great challenge for the enhancement of both cognitive dysregulation in patients and intellectual ability in healthy individuals. Consequently, this will lead to an unbridgeable gap between the users and nonusers of newer medications regarding their intellectual abilities, that are unachievable by normal training of physical abilities. Last but not least, l will refer to whether or not genetic data regard strictly confidential personal data, not allowed to be published, despite of possible social benefit and to what extent their carrier has the right of ignoring it.","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75050366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The aim of this study is to briefly examine and critically evaluate certain philosophical approaches of the utmost importance on the concepts of human dignity and autonomy. Since these notions are systematically invoked in the context of the current bioethical debates, it is imperative that their exact content be clarified. Thus, aspects of the human dignity are traced back to the stoic, Christian, Kantian, and post-Kantian tradition, while on the other hand two major conceptions of autonomy are analysed (autonomy conceived as self-determination and as self-restriction) along with their respective bioethical implications. Human dignity and autonomy being related to extremely divergent meanings, it follows that conceptual clarity is an indispensable prerequisite for conducting fruitful bioethical discussions
{"title":"Το εννοιολογικό πλαίσιο των βιοηθικών προβλημάτων: ένας ενδεικτικός σχολιασμός","authors":"Μαρία Χωριανοπούλου","doi":"10.12681/bioeth.19689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12681/bioeth.19689","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study is to briefly examine and critically evaluate certain philosophical approaches of the utmost importance on the concepts of human dignity and autonomy. Since these notions are systematically invoked in the context of the current bioethical debates, it is imperative that their exact content be clarified. Thus, aspects of the human dignity are traced back to the stoic, Christian, Kantian, and post-Kantian tradition, while on the other hand two major conceptions of autonomy are analysed (autonomy conceived as self-determination and as self-restriction) along with their respective bioethical implications. Human dignity and autonomy being related to extremely divergent meanings, it follows that conceptual clarity is an indispensable prerequisite for conducting fruitful bioethical discussions","PeriodicalId":49112,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81382885","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：