生物伦理学:没有方法就没有纪律?

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-03-22 DOI:10.1017/S0963180124000136
Bjørn Hofmann
{"title":"生物伦理学:没有方法就没有纪律?","authors":"Bjørn Hofmann","doi":"10.1017/S0963180124000136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article raises the question of whether bioethics qualifies as a discipline. According to a standard definition of discipline as \"a field of study following specific and well-established methodological rules\" bioethics is not a specific discipline as there are no explicit \"well-established methodological rules.\" The article investigates whether the methodological rules can be implicit, and whether bioethics can follow specific methodological rules within subdisciplines or for specific tasks. As this does not appear to be the case, the article examines whether bioethics' adherence to specific quality criteria (instead of methodological rules) or pursuing of a common goal can make it qualify as a discipline. Unfortunately, the result is negative. Then, the article scrutinizes whether referring to bioethics institutions and professional qualifications can ascertain bioethics as a discipline. However, this makes the definition of bioethics circular. The article ends by admitting that bioethics can qualify as a discipline according to broader definitions of discipline, for example, as an \"area of knowledge, research and education.\" However, this would reduce bioethics' potential for demarcation and identity-building. Thus, to consolidate the discipline of bioethics and increase its impact, we should explicate and elaborate on its methodology.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bioethics: No Method-No Discipline?\",\"authors\":\"Bjørn Hofmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0963180124000136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article raises the question of whether bioethics qualifies as a discipline. According to a standard definition of discipline as \\\"a field of study following specific and well-established methodological rules\\\" bioethics is not a specific discipline as there are no explicit \\\"well-established methodological rules.\\\" The article investigates whether the methodological rules can be implicit, and whether bioethics can follow specific methodological rules within subdisciplines or for specific tasks. As this does not appear to be the case, the article examines whether bioethics' adherence to specific quality criteria (instead of methodological rules) or pursuing of a common goal can make it qualify as a discipline. Unfortunately, the result is negative. Then, the article scrutinizes whether referring to bioethics institutions and professional qualifications can ascertain bioethics as a discipline. However, this makes the definition of bioethics circular. The article ends by admitting that bioethics can qualify as a discipline according to broader definitions of discipline, for example, as an \\\"area of knowledge, research and education.\\\" However, this would reduce bioethics' potential for demarcation and identity-building. Thus, to consolidate the discipline of bioethics and increase its impact, we should explicate and elaborate on its methodology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-22\",\"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/S0963180124000136\",\"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/S0963180124000136","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

本文提出了生命伦理学是否有资格成为一门学科的问题。根据学科的标准定义,学科是 "遵循特定的、既定的方法论规则的研究领域",生命伦理学不是一门特定的学科,因为没有明确的 "既定的方法论规则"。这篇文章探讨了方法论规则是否可以是隐含的,以及生命伦理学是否可以在分支学科内或针对特定任务遵循特定的方法论规则。由于情况似乎并非如此,文章探讨了生命伦理学是否可以遵循特定的质量标准(而不是方法规则)或追求共同的目标,从而使其成为一门学科。遗憾的是,结果是否定的。然后,文章仔细研究了生物伦理机构和专业资格是否可以确定生物伦理是一门学科。然而,这使得生物伦理学的定义成为循环论证。文章最后承认,根据更宽泛的学科定义,例如 "知识、研究和教育领域",生命伦理学也可以成为一门学科。然而,这将削弱生命伦理学划界和建立特性的潜力。因此,为了巩固生命伦理学学科并扩大其影响,我们应当对其方法论进行解释和阐述。
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
Bioethics: No Method-No Discipline?

This article raises the question of whether bioethics qualifies as a discipline. According to a standard definition of discipline as "a field of study following specific and well-established methodological rules" bioethics is not a specific discipline as there are no explicit "well-established methodological rules." The article investigates whether the methodological rules can be implicit, and whether bioethics can follow specific methodological rules within subdisciplines or for specific tasks. As this does not appear to be the case, the article examines whether bioethics' adherence to specific quality criteria (instead of methodological rules) or pursuing of a common goal can make it qualify as a discipline. Unfortunately, the result is negative. Then, the article scrutinizes whether referring to bioethics institutions and professional qualifications can ascertain bioethics as a discipline. However, this makes the definition of bioethics circular. The article ends by admitting that bioethics can qualify as a discipline according to broader definitions of discipline, for example, as an "area of knowledge, research and education." However, this would reduce bioethics' potential for demarcation and identity-building. Thus, to consolidate the discipline of bioethics and increase its impact, we should explicate and elaborate on its methodology.

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
At the Museum. Miracle. Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading. Seeing and Having Seen: On Suffering and Intersubjectivity. The Moral Significance of Biofixtures: A Response to Nathan Goldstein, Bridget Tracy, and Rosamond Rhodes "But I have a pacer…there is no point in engaging in hypothetical scenarios": A Non-imminently Dying Patient's Request for Pacemaker Deactivation.
×
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