监狱研究:一个生物伦理学问题还是一个伦理问题?

IF 0.5 4区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Acta Bioethica Pub Date : 2021-06-01 DOI:10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079
Manuel Fanega
{"title":"监狱研究:一个生物伦理学问题还是一个伦理问题?","authors":"Manuel Fanega","doi":"10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system. An alarm was raised at the time the research was published, encouraging the directorate of prisons to stop the ongoing replication of the experiment. Nevertheless, no (bio)ethics committee, in the universities or among bioethics experts, has questioned the research. In this think piece, we aim to again discuss some ethical approaches to these clinical interventions on crime. After its positivistic period, the field of criminology has been questioning the simple psychobiological approach to crime because of the reductionistic view of this phenomenon and its harmful consequences. Thus, we address academic experimentation under prison governance and the “re” roles of prisons. We argue that the minor disadvantages of such research, if performed with consent, could be positive if the research can minimize the harmfulness of prison itself; thus, penitentiary treatment and science should go together. Prison administrations, in addition to their duty to protect the individuals under their control from ethically biased research, must promote reintegration. We conclude that human rights are over criminal policy and science and that ethics are over narrower bioethics.","PeriodicalId":29643,"journal":{"name":"Acta Bioethica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Fanega\",\"doi\":\"10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\": The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system. An alarm was raised at the time the research was published, encouraging the directorate of prisons to stop the ongoing replication of the experiment. Nevertheless, no (bio)ethics committee, in the universities or among bioethics experts, has questioned the research. In this think piece, we aim to again discuss some ethical approaches to these clinical interventions on crime. After its positivistic period, the field of criminology has been questioning the simple psychobiological approach to crime because of the reductionistic view of this phenomenon and its harmful consequences. Thus, we address academic experimentation under prison governance and the “re” roles of prisons. We argue that the minor disadvantages of such research, if performed with consent, could be positive if the research can minimize the harmfulness of prison itself; thus, penitentiary treatment and science should go together. Prison administrations, in addition to their duty to protect the individuals under their control from ethically biased research, must promote reintegration. We conclude that human rights are over criminal policy and science and that ethics are over narrower bioethics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29643,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Bioethica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Bioethica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Bioethica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4067/S1726-569X2021000100079","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

:通过经颅直流电刺激降低攻击性的假设最近在西班牙的一组囚犯身上进行了测试。该实验包括1.5毫安的电击,是一项外部研究计划,最初得到了尸体系统的默许。这项研究发表时发出了警报,鼓励监狱管理局停止正在进行的实验复制。然而,大学或生物伦理专家中没有一个(生物)伦理委员会对这项研究提出质疑。在这篇思考文章中,我们的目标是再次讨论这些犯罪临床干预的一些伦理方法。在经历了实证主义时期之后,犯罪学领域一直在质疑对犯罪的简单心理生物学方法,因为对这一现象及其有害后果的还原论观点。因此,我们讨论了监狱管理下的学术实验和监狱的“再”作用。我们认为,如果在征得同意的情况下进行此类研究,如果研究能够最大限度地减少监狱本身的危害,那么这种研究的次要缺点可能是积极的;因此,监狱治疗和科学应该结合起来。监狱管理部门除了有义务保护其控制下的个人免受有道德偏见的研究之外,还必须促进重返社会。我们得出的结论是,人权高于刑事政策和科学,伦理高于狭义的生物伦理。
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
Prison research: a bioethics or an ethics issue?
: The hypothesis of reducing aggressiveness through transcranial direct current stimulation was recently tested on a cohort of inmates in Spain. The experiment, including 1.5 mA electric shocks, was an external research initiative that received the initial acquiescence of the carceral system. An alarm was raised at the time the research was published, encouraging the directorate of prisons to stop the ongoing replication of the experiment. Nevertheless, no (bio)ethics committee, in the universities or among bioethics experts, has questioned the research. In this think piece, we aim to again discuss some ethical approaches to these clinical interventions on crime. After its positivistic period, the field of criminology has been questioning the simple psychobiological approach to crime because of the reductionistic view of this phenomenon and its harmful consequences. Thus, we address academic experimentation under prison governance and the “re” roles of prisons. We argue that the minor disadvantages of such research, if performed with consent, could be positive if the research can minimize the harmfulness of prison itself; thus, penitentiary treatment and science should go together. Prison administrations, in addition to their duty to protect the individuals under their control from ethically biased research, must promote reintegration. We conclude that human rights are over criminal policy and science and that ethics are over narrower bioethics.
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
Acta Bioethica
Acta Bioethica Bioethical Issues-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Bioethica is a biannual publication by the Interdisciplinary Center for Studies in Bioethics of the University of Chile (ISSN 0717-5906, press edition, y 1726-569-X, electronic edition), which publishes in three languages: Spanish, English and Portuguese. Indexed in Science Citation Index (SCI), Scopus, Lilacs, SciELO y Latindex, and in database from several Institutions; it constitutes a pluralistic source of perspectives and an important tribune which accepts the contributions of authors compromised with the interdisciplinary study of ethical determinants and consequences of techno scientific research.
期刊最新文献
The relationship between covid-19 burnout and the moral sensitivity of healthcare professionals Artificial Intelligence in Medicine: Legal, Ethical and Social Aspects Complaints against Physicians in Minas Gerais, Brazil A autonomia do adolescente em relação ao direto de imunização contra infecções sexualmente transmissíveis: revisão bibliográfica Abordagem epidemiológica e considerações bioéticas sobre a infecção pelo vírus da hepatite b em crianças e adolescentes no estado do acre, Brasil
×
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