Fins Joseph J
Division of Medical Ethics, Weill Cornell Medical College, 435 E 70th St Ste 4-J, New York, New York 10021 USA.
J Clin Ethics. 2019 Spring;30(1):27-34.
While neuroethics is generally thought to be a modern addition to the broader field of bioethics, this subdiscipline has existed in clinical practice throughout the course of the 20th century. In this essay, Fins describes an older tradition of clinical neuroethics that featured such physician-humanists as Sir William Osler, Wilder Penfield, and Fred Plum, whose work and legacy exploring disorders of consciousness is highlighted. Their normative work was clinically grounded and focused on the needs of patients, in contrast to modern neuroethics, which is more speculative and distant from the lived reality of the clinic. Using recent developments in the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of consciousness, and the history of the vegetative and minimally conscious states, Fins asks why modern neuroethics has taken this turn and what can be done to restore clinical neuroethics to a more proportionate place in the field.
虽然神经伦理学通常被认为是生物伦理学这一广泛领域的现代补充,但这一学科在整个20世纪的临床实践中都存在。在本文中,芬斯描述了临床神经伦理学的一个更古老的传统,其中包括像威廉·奥斯勒爵士、怀尔德·彭菲尔德和弗雷德·普卢姆这样的医生-人文主义者,他们探索意识障碍的工作和遗产得到了突出强调。与现代神经伦理学相比,他们的规范性工作以临床为基础,关注患者的需求,而现代神经伦理学更具思辨性,与临床的实际情况相去甚远。利用意识障碍诊断和治疗的最新进展,以及植物人和最低意识状态的历史,芬斯提出疑问,现代神经伦理学为何转向,以及如何做才能使临床神经伦理学在该领域恢复到更恰当的位置。