Suppr超能文献

艰难时刻,艰难抉择:当今生物伦理学的创立

Hard times, hard choices: founding bioethics today.

作者信息

Gracia Diego

出版信息

Bioethics. 1995 Jul;9(3-4):192-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00355.x.

Abstract

The discussions of these past twenty years have significantly improved our knowledge about the foundation of bioethics and the meaning of the four bioethical principles with concern to at least three different points: that they are organised hierarchically, and therefore not "prima facie" of the same level; that they have exceptions, and consequently lack of absolute character; and that they are neither strictly deontological nor purely teleological. The only absolute principle of moral life can be the abstract and unconcrete respect of human beings. But when determining the material content of this respect, principles become contingent and relative. Therefore, moral reasoning must have necessarily no less than three moments, one absolute but merely formal, namely respect for all human beings, and the other two relative and material. The first material moment is comprised of the four bioethical principles, divided into two levels, one private, including the principles of autonomy and beneficence, and the other one public, including those of nonmaleficence and justice. The second material moment deals with specific cases, and requires analysis of their context, including their circumstances and consequences. Only when following these steps, and therefore balancing principlism and contextualism, can moral reasoning be correct and complete.

摘要

在过去二十年的讨论显著增进了我们对生物伦理学基础以及四条生物伦理原则含义的理解,至少在三个不同方面有所提升:它们是分层组织的,因而并非处于同一“初显”层面;它们存在例外情况,所以不具备绝对特性;它们既非严格的道义论,也不是纯粹的目的论。道德生活中唯一的绝对原则只能是对人类抽象且不具体的尊重。但在确定这种尊重的具体内容时,原则就变得偶然且相对了。因此,道德推理必然至少有三个环节,一个是绝对但仅为形式上的,即尊重所有人,另外两个是相对且具体的。第一个具体环节由四条生物伦理原则构成,分为两个层面,一个是私人层面,包括自主原则和行善原则,另一个是公共层面,包括不伤害原则和公正原则。第二个具体环节涉及具体案例,需要分析其背景,包括情形和后果。只有遵循这些步骤,也就是平衡原则主义和情境主义,道德推理才会正确且完整。

相似文献

1
Hard times, hard choices: founding bioethics today.
Bioethics. 1995 Jul;9(3-4):192-206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00355.x.
2
Not just autonomy--the principles of American biomedical ethics.
J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):332-8. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.6.332.
3
A theory of international bioethics: multiculturalism, postmodernism, and the bankruptcy of fundamentalism.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998 Sep;8(3):201-31. doi: 10.1353/ken.1998.0017.
4
Defending 'the four principles' approach to biomedical ethics.
J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):323-4. doi: 10.1136/jme.21.6.323.
5
Principlism and its alleged competitors.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1995 Sep;5(3):181-98. doi: 10.1353/ken.0.0111.
6
Principlism's Balancing Act: Why the Principles of Biomedical Ethics Need a Theory of the Good.
J Med Philos. 2020 Jul 29;45(4-5):441-470. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhaa014.
8
Negotiating international bioethics: a response to Tom Beauchamp and Ruth Macklin.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998 Dec;8(4):423-53. doi: 10.1353/ken.1998.0025.
9
A defense of fundamental principles and human rights: a reply to Robert Baker.
Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 1998 Dec;8(4):403-22. doi: 10.1353/ken.1998.0031.

引用本文的文献

1
Bioethical evaluation of methylphenidate and atomoxetine for pediatric ADHD and cognitive enhancement.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2025 Mar 19;20(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13010-025-00167-1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验