University of Technology Sydney Law School, Level 14 UTS Central (Building 2) 61, Broadway, Ultimo, NSW, 2007, Australia.
Human Flourishing Program, Institute for Quantitative Social Science, Harvard University, 12 Arrow Street, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA.
Med Health Care Philos. 2023 Dec;26(4):549-556. doi: 10.1007/s11019-023-10162-y. Epub 2023 Jul 20.
Principlism is an ethical framework that has dominated bioethical discourse for the past 50 years. There are differing perspectives on its proper scope and limits. In this article, we consider to what extent principlism provides guidance for the abortion and euthanasia debates. We argue that whilst principlism may be considered a useful framework for structuring bioethical discourse, it does not in itself allow for the resolution of these neuralgic policy discussions. Scholars have attempted to use principlism to analyse the ethics and legality of abortion and euthanasia; but such efforts are methodologically problematic. We close with a consideration of the proper scope of principlism in bioethics-a vision that is more modest than the manner in which principlism is often deployed in contemporary academic bioethics and medical education.
原则主义是一种伦理框架,它主导了过去 50 年的生物伦理话语。对于它的适当范围和限制,存在不同的观点。在本文中,我们考虑原则主义在多大程度上为堕胎和安乐死辩论提供了指导。我们认为,虽然原则主义可以被认为是构建生物伦理话语的有用框架,但它本身并不能解决这些棘手的政策讨论。学者们试图使用原则主义来分析堕胎和安乐死的伦理和合法性;但这些努力在方法论上存在问题。最后,我们考虑了原则主义在生物伦理学中的适当范围——这一愿景比原则主义在当代学术生物伦理学和医学教育中经常被应用的方式更为适度。