McGrath P
Centre for Public Health Research, Queensland University of Technology, Red Hill, Australia.
J Med Philos. 1998 Aug;23(5):516-32. doi: 10.1076/jmep.23.5.516.2568.
In recent years there has been an increasing critique of the philosophically based reasoning in bioethics which is known as principlism. This article seeks to make a postmodern contribution to this emerging debate by using notions of power and discourse to highlight the limits and superficiality of this abstract, rationalistic mode of reflection. The focus of the discussion will be on the principle of autonomy. Recent doctoral research on a hospice organization (Karuna Hospice Service) will be used to contextualize the debate to end-of life ethical dilemmas. The conclusion will be reached that the discursive richness of this organization's notion of autonomy or choice, which incorporates a holistic respect for the individual and the active creation of alternatives, can provide important insights to our understanding of autonomy in bioethics. The concern is raised that if autonomy is reified as a principle outside of the context of discourse, it may only complement the hegemonic power of biomedicine.
近年来,对生物伦理学中基于哲学的推理(即原则主义)的批评日益增多。本文试图通过运用权力和话语的概念,对这一新兴辩论做出后现代的贡献,以凸显这种抽象、理性主义反思模式的局限性和表面性。讨论的焦点将是自主性原则。近期关于一家临终关怀组织(卡鲁纳临终关怀服务机构)的博士研究将被用于将这场辩论置于临终伦理困境的背景中。结论是,该组织自主性或选择概念的话语丰富性,其中包含对个体的整体尊重和积极创造替代方案,可为我们理解生物伦理学中的自主性提供重要见解。有人担心,如果自主性被固化为话语背景之外的一项原则,它可能只会补充生物医学的霸权力量。