公共生物伦理学中良心的合理内容》。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1017/S0963180124000070
Abram Brummett, Jason Eberl
{"title":"公共生物伦理学中良心的合理内容》。","authors":"Abram Brummett, Jason Eberl","doi":"10.1017/S0963180124000070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bioethicists aim to provide moral guidance in policy, research, and clinical contexts using methods of moral analysis (e.g., principlism, casuistry, and narrative ethics) that aim to satisfy the constraints of public reason. Among other objections, some critics have argued that public reason lacks the moral content needed to resolve bioethical controversies because discursive reason simply cannot justify any substantive moral claims in a pluralistic society. In this paper, the authors defend public reason from this criticism by showing that it contains sufficient content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics-the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection. They develop a \"reasonability view\" grounded in public reason and apply it to some recent examples of conscientious objection.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics.\",\"authors\":\"Abram Brummett, Jason Eberl\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180124000070\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Bioethicists aim to provide moral guidance in policy, research, and clinical contexts using methods of moral analysis (e.g., principlism, casuistry, and narrative ethics) that aim to satisfy the constraints of public reason. Among other objections, some critics have argued that public reason lacks the moral content needed to resolve bioethical controversies because discursive reason simply cannot justify any substantive moral claims in a pluralistic society. In this paper, the authors defend public reason from this criticism by showing that it contains sufficient content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics-the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection. They develop a \\\"reasonability view\\\" grounded in public reason and apply it to some recent examples of conscientious objection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-13\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000070\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000070","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物伦理学家旨在利用道德分析方法(如原则论、案例论和叙事伦理学)为政策、研究 和临床提供道德指导,以满足公共理性的约束。除其他反对意见外,一些批评者认为公共理性缺乏解决生物伦理争议所需的道德内容,因为在一个多元化的社会中,辨证理性根本无法证明任何实质性的道德主张。在本文中,作者通过证明公共理性包含足够的内容来解决生命伦理学中长期存在的争议之一--临床医生依良心拒服兵役的允许性和限制--来为公共理性辩护。他们在公共理性的基础上提出了一种 "合理性观点",并将其应用于最近的一些良心反对案例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Reasonable Content of Conscience in Public Bioethics.

Bioethicists aim to provide moral guidance in policy, research, and clinical contexts using methods of moral analysis (e.g., principlism, casuistry, and narrative ethics) that aim to satisfy the constraints of public reason. Among other objections, some critics have argued that public reason lacks the moral content needed to resolve bioethical controversies because discursive reason simply cannot justify any substantive moral claims in a pluralistic society. In this paper, the authors defend public reason from this criticism by showing that it contains sufficient content to address one of the perennial controversies in bioethics-the permissibility and limits of clinician conscientious objection. They develop a "reasonability view" grounded in public reason and apply it to some recent examples of conscientious objection.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Ethics and the Observant Jewish and Muslim Patient: Shared Theocentric Perspectives in Practice. The Roles of Understanding and Belief in Prognostic Awareness. "Intellectual Lightening": A Tribute to John Harris through a Collection of Memories, Imaginary Books, Fictional Reviews, and an Interview. Decreasing Perceived Moral Distress in Pediatrics Residents: A Pilot Study. An Educational Framework for Healthcare Ethics Consultation to Approach Structural Stigma in Mental Health and Substance Use Health.
×
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