Suppr超能文献

关于患者自主权的历史与哲学思考

Historical and philosophical reflections on patient autonomy.

作者信息

Tauber A I

机构信息

Center for Philosophy and History of Science, 745 Commonwealth Avenue, Room 506, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA.

出版信息

Health Care Anal. 2001;9(3):299-319. doi: 10.1023/A:1012901831835.

Abstract

Contemporary American medical ethics was born during a period of social ferment, a key theme of which was the espousal of individual rights. Driven by complex cultural forces united in the effort to protect individuality and self-determined choices, an extrapolation from case law to rights of patients was accomplished under the philosophical auspices of 'autonomy.' Autonomy has a complex history; arising in the modern period as the idea of self-governance, it received its most ambitious philosophical elaboration in Kant's moral philosophy. In examining the Kantian construction, it is evident that neither his universal moral imperative nor his rigorous application of self-legislated ethical action can sustain our own notions of moral agency in a pragmatic, pluralistic society. But the Kantian position is useful in highlighting that self-governance is not equivalent to 'autonomy,' and this distinction defines the limits of autonomy in the clinical setting. A critique of Engelhardt's idea of 'principle of permission' is used to illustrate autonomy's eclipse as a governing principle for medical ethics.

摘要

当代美国医学伦理诞生于一个社会动荡时期,其一个关键主题是对个人权利的拥护。在旨在保护个性和自主选择的复杂文化力量推动下,在“自主性”的哲学支持下,实现了从判例法到患者权利的推断。自主性有着复杂的历史;它在现代作为自我治理的理念出现,在康德的道德哲学中得到了最宏大的哲学阐释。在审视康德的建构时,很明显,在一个务实、多元的社会中,他的普遍道德律令以及他对自我立法的伦理行为的严格应用,都无法支撑我们自己关于道德行为主体的观念。但康德的立场有助于凸显自我治理并不等同于“自主性”,这种区别界定了临床环境中自主性的界限。对恩格尔哈特“许可原则”观点的批判被用来阐释自主性作为医学伦理主导原则的式微。

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