Kopelman Loretta M
Department of Medical Humanities, Brody School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina 27834, USA.
J Med Philos. 2006 Dec;31(6):601-28. doi: 10.1080/03605310601009414.
A dispute exists about whether bioethics should become a new discipline with its own methods, competency standards, duties, honored texts, and core curriculum. Unique expertise is a necessary condition for disciplines. Using the current literature, different views about the sort of expertise that might be unique to bioethicists are critically examined to determine if there is an expertise that might meet this requirement. Candidates include analyses of expertise based in "philosophical ethics," "casuistry," "atheoretical or situation ethics," "conventionalist relativism," "institutional guidance," "regulatory guidance and compliance," "political advocacy," "functionalism," and "principlism." None succeed in identifying a unique area of expertise for successful bioethicists that could serve as a basis for making it a new discipline. Rather expertise in bioethics is rooted in many professions, disciplines and fields and best understood as a second-order discipline.
关于生物伦理学是否应成为一门拥有自身方法、能力标准、职责、经典文本和核心课程的新学科,存在争议。独特的专业知识是学科的必要条件。利用当前的文献,对关于生物伦理学家可能独有的专业知识类型的不同观点进行了批判性审视,以确定是否存在可能满足这一要求的专业知识。候选的专业知识包括基于“哲学伦理学”、“决疑论”、“无理论或情境伦理学”、“传统主义相对主义”、“机构指导”、“监管指导与合规”、“政治倡导”、“功能主义”和“原则主义”的专业知识分析。但没有一种分析能够成功地为成功的生物伦理学家确定一个独特的专业领域,以此作为将其打造成为一门新学科的基础。相反,生物伦理学的专业知识植根于许多职业、学科和领域,最好将其理解为一门二阶学科。