van der Burg Wibren
Bioethics. 1997 Apr;11(2):91-114. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00048.
In most Western countries, health law [and] bioethics are strongly intertwined. This strong connection is the result of some specific factors that, in the early years of these disciplines, facilitated a rapid development of both. In this paper, I analyze these factors and construe a development theory existing of three phases, or ideal-typical models. In the moralistic-paternalistic model, there is almost no health law of explicit medical ethics, and the little law there is is usually based on traditional morality, combined with paternalist motives. The objections to this model are that its paternalism and moralism are unacceptable, that it is too static and knows no external control mechanisms. In the liberal model, which is now dominant in most Western countries, law and ethics closely cooperate and converge, both disciplines use the same framework for analysis: they are product-oriented rather than practice-oriented; they use the same conceptual categories, they focus on minimally decent rather than the ideal, and they are committed to the same substantive normative theory in which patient autonomy and patient rights are central. However, each of these four characteristics also results in a certain one-sidedness. In some countries, a third model is emerging. In this postliberal model, health law is more modest and acknowledges its inherent and normative limits, whereas ethics takes a richer and most ambitious self image. As a result health law and ethics will partly diverge again.
在大多数西方国家,卫生法与生物伦理学紧密相连。这种紧密联系是由一些特定因素造成的,在这些学科发展的早期,这些因素推动了两者的快速发展。在本文中,我分析了这些因素,并构建了一个由三个阶段或理想类型模型组成的发展理论。在道德家长式模型中,几乎没有明确的医学伦理卫生法,现有的少量法律通常基于传统道德,并结合家长式动机。对该模型的反对意见是,其家长式作风和道德主义是不可接受的,它过于僵化,且没有外部控制机制。在自由模型中,法律和伦理密切合作且相互趋同,这两个学科使用相同的分析框架:它们以产品为导向而非以实践为导向;它们使用相同的概念范畴,关注的是最低限度的体面而非理想状态,并且它们致力于以患者自主和患者权利为核心的相同实质性规范理论。然而,这四个特征中的每一个也都导致了某种片面性。在一些国家,正在出现第三种模型。在这种后自由模型中,卫生法更为适度,并承认其内在的和规范性的局限,而伦理学则呈现出更丰富、更具抱负的自我形象。结果,卫生法和伦理将再次部分地分道扬镳。