人的尊严和研究人员的行为在紧急护理研究与丧失行为能力的成年人

IF 0.5 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS South African Journal of Bioethics and Law Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.7196/sajbl.2023.v16.2.378
PhD Emergency Med C Stein
{"title":"人的尊严和研究人员的行为在紧急护理研究与丧失行为能力的成年人","authors":"PhD Emergency Med C Stein","doi":"10.7196/sajbl.2023.v16.2.378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\n\nEmergency care research sometimes involves incapacitated adults as research participants. The ethical principle of respect for autonomy may not necessarily apply to an incapacitated person unable to act in an autonomous manner, although it can be argued that researchers still have a duty of respect towards such people because they have moral status despite being incapacitated. Sharing some common ground with theories of moral status based on ‘humanness’ and the ability for rational thought is the notion of human dignity, which features in arguments regarding researcher conduct with incapacitated patients. However, human dignity premised upon the unique ability of humans for rational thought and moral self-regulation is contingent upon these capabilities – a limitation that possibly makes dignity a less useful framework for research conduct in emergency care research. In this article, I will discuss the different conceptions of human dignity – as equality, status and virtue – and then draw on more recent literature that explains human dignity as a social constraint and as a factor influencing the conduct of healthcare professionals and researchers. I will address questions of whether dignity as a principle ought to apply only to those who have the ability to think rationally, or to all humans regardless of their condition or mental status. I will argue that, in relation to offering protection to research participants in emergency conditions, it is immaterial which view is taken.\n\n\n\n","PeriodicalId":43498,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Human dignity and researcher conduct in emergency care research with incapacitated adults\",\"authors\":\"PhD Emergency Med C Stein\",\"doi\":\"10.7196/sajbl.2023.v16.2.378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\n\\n\\nEmergency care research sometimes involves incapacitated adults as research participants. The ethical principle of respect for autonomy may not necessarily apply to an incapacitated person unable to act in an autonomous manner, although it can be argued that researchers still have a duty of respect towards such people because they have moral status despite being incapacitated. Sharing some common ground with theories of moral status based on ‘humanness’ and the ability for rational thought is the notion of human dignity, which features in arguments regarding researcher conduct with incapacitated patients. However, human dignity premised upon the unique ability of humans for rational thought and moral self-regulation is contingent upon these capabilities – a limitation that possibly makes dignity a less useful framework for research conduct in emergency care research. In this article, I will discuss the different conceptions of human dignity – as equality, status and virtue – and then draw on more recent literature that explains human dignity as a social constraint and as a factor influencing the conduct of healthcare professionals and researchers. I will address questions of whether dignity as a principle ought to apply only to those who have the ability to think rationally, or to all humans regardless of their condition or mental status. I will argue that, in relation to offering protection to research participants in emergency conditions, it is immaterial which view is taken.\\n\\n\\n\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":43498,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2023.v16.2.378\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal of Bioethics and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2023.v16.2.378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

紧急护理研究有时涉及无行为能力的成年人作为研究参与者。尊重自主的伦理原则可能不一定适用于不能自主行事的无行为能力的人,尽管可以认为研究人员仍然有义务尊重这些人,因为他们尽管无行为能力,但仍有道德地位。与基于“人性”和理性思考能力的道德地位理论有一些共同点的是人类尊严的概念,这一概念在关于研究人员对无行为能力病人的行为的争论中占有重要地位。然而,人类尊严的前提是人类理性思考和道德自律的独特能力,这取决于这些能力——这一限制可能使尊严成为急诊护理研究中研究行为的一个不太有用的框架。在这篇文章中,我将讨论人类尊严的不同概念——平等、地位和美德——然后借鉴最近的文献,这些文献将人类尊严解释为一种社会约束,是影响医疗保健专业人员和研究人员行为的一个因素。我将讨论尊严作为一项原则是否应该只适用于那些有能力理性思考的人,还是适用于所有人,无论他们的状况或精神状态如何。我认为,在向紧急情况下的研究参与者提供保护方面,采取哪种观点并不重要。
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
Human dignity and researcher conduct in emergency care research with incapacitated adults
Emergency care research sometimes involves incapacitated adults as research participants. The ethical principle of respect for autonomy may not necessarily apply to an incapacitated person unable to act in an autonomous manner, although it can be argued that researchers still have a duty of respect towards such people because they have moral status despite being incapacitated. Sharing some common ground with theories of moral status based on ‘humanness’ and the ability for rational thought is the notion of human dignity, which features in arguments regarding researcher conduct with incapacitated patients. However, human dignity premised upon the unique ability of humans for rational thought and moral self-regulation is contingent upon these capabilities – a limitation that possibly makes dignity a less useful framework for research conduct in emergency care research. In this article, I will discuss the different conceptions of human dignity – as equality, status and virtue – and then draw on more recent literature that explains human dignity as a social constraint and as a factor influencing the conduct of healthcare professionals and researchers. I will address questions of whether dignity as a principle ought to apply only to those who have the ability to think rationally, or to all humans regardless of their condition or mental status. I will argue that, in relation to offering protection to research participants in emergency conditions, it is immaterial which view is taken.
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
1.10
自引率
11.10%
发文量
18
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Stellenbosch University Senate ought to remain neutral on the Israel-Palestine war in Gaza - A response to Mahomed and Hendricks A response to 'The Stellenbosch University Senate ought to remain neutral on the Israel-Palestine war in Gaza - A response to Mahomed and Hendricks' International humanitarian law: Dunant would be devastated again Organ donation after circulatory death – legal in South Africa and in alignment with Chapter 8 of the National Health Act and Regulations relating to organ and tissue donation The noble cause of medicine – fact or fallacy?
×
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