Llibres

Ressenya del llibre: Les principes de l’éthique biomédicale, de Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress Joan March Noguer

Professional Ethics Explored in Honors Scholar Address

News release announces Tom L. Beauchamp, senior research scholar at the Center for Bioethics of Georgetown University, will present the third annual scholars address at the University of Dayton. His talk will address deceptive practices in law, medicine, and business

Consideraciones bioéticas en torno al caso de Ramón Sampedro

El presente ensayo se circunscribe dentro de la bioética, pues desarrolla un análisis al caso del español Ramón Sampedro, reflexionando las tensiones que se generan a partir de su deseo de muerte asistida, como mecanismo para alcanzar la muerte digna. La novedad del presente estudio radica en la utilización del principio de la alteridad y el contextual, sin acudir a los principios de Tom L. Beauchamp y James F. Childress, con elobjetivo de establecer un parámetro de análisis alterno a casos similares

Consideraciones bioéticas en torno al caso de Ramón Sampedro

El presente ensayo se circunscribe dentro de la bioética, pues desarrolla un análisis al caso del español Ramón Sampedro, reflexionando las tensiones que se generan a partir de su deseo de muerte asistida, como mecanismo para alcanzar la muerte digna. La novedad del presente estudio radica en la utilización del principio de la alteridad y el contextual, sin acudir a los principios de Tom L. Beauchamp y James F. Childress, con el objetivo de establecer un parámetro de análisis alterno a casos similares

Forming Bioethics

Bioethics has become a prominent part of the American landscape. In only a few short decades this interdisciplinary field permeated academia and the public sphere. Despite the recent scholarly effort to chronicle its history, there is still quite a bit of controversy surrounding bioethics’ origin and rapid evolution. Bioethics’ emergence has already been thoroughly examined through the lens of the potential impact of various events, issues, biomedical and technological developments, and cultural changes. However, there appears to be a widespread neglect of the influence the first texts had on the field. Specifically, the importance of Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics deserves much more consideration than the limited attention it is given in many of the histories of bioethics. This text, more than any other, gave bioethics the structure it needed to become a recognizable field of inquiry

GRUNDSATZE IN DER BIOETHIK

Pitanje moralnih problema u biomedicinskoj znanosti autor promatra sa stajališta utemeljenja moralnih načela kao pretpostavki moralnog djelovanja u medicinskoj praksi. Autor definira biomedicinska načela kao osnovne norme u sustavu normi određenih za moralno razmišljanje, s temeljnom zadaćom ukazivanja na moralno relevantna svojstva pojedinih okolnosti. Zato sustav biomedicinskih načela nije, niti može biti, sustav isključivo osobnih vjerovanja ili neobveznih normi. Podjela biomedicinskih načela, narav načela i potreba za njihovom specifikacijom središnji su dio članka. Tako autor dijeli biomedicinska načela u četiri grupe: 1. poštivanje autonomnosti (načelo koje zahtijeva poštivanje sposobnosti donošenja odluka samostojnih osoba), 2. neškodljivost (načelo koje zahtijeva da se drugima ne nanosi zlo), 3. dobročinstvo (skup načela koja zahtijevaju da spriječimo štetu, omogućimo dobrobit i odmjerimo dobrobit u odnosu na opasnost i cijenu) i 4. pravednost (skup načela koja zahtijevaju ravnomjernu i poštenu raspodjelu dobrobiti, opasnost i cijene).The question of moral issues in biomedical science is discussed by the author from the point of establishment of moral principles as prerequisites of moral action in medical practice. The author defines biomedical principles as the basic norms in a system of norms determined for moral contemplation, with the fundamental task of indicating morally relevant features of specific circumstances. Therefore, the system of biomedical principles is not, and cannot be, solely a system of personal beliefs and optional norms. The distribution of biomedical principles, the nature of these principles and the need for their specification is the central topic of this article. The author thus discerns four groups of blomedlcal principles: 1. consideration for autonomy (the principle which demands the respect of an independent person\u27s ability to make decisions), 2. harmlessness (the principle that prevents harm to be inflicted on others), 3. benefaction (a set of principles demanding the prevention of harm, enabling well-being and assessing well-being with regard to prospective danger and cost), and 4. justice (a set of principles demanding the equal and fair distribution of well-being, danger and cost).Ausgehend von der Position, daB mit der Grundlegung morelischer Prinzipien die Voraussetzungen zu moralischem Handein in der medizinisehen Praxis gegeben seien, untersucht der Verfasser die Frage moralischer Probleme in der biomedizinischen Wissenschaft. Die biomedizinischen Grundsatze werden als die Hauptnormen innerhalb eines zu moralischem Denken dienenden Normensystems definiert, deren Hauptaufgabe es ist, auf moraliseh relevante Eigenschaften einzelner Umstande hinzuweisen. Daher ist das System biomedizinischer Prinzipien keine Sammlung ausschlieBlich personIicher Ansichten oder unverbindIicher Normen und kann es auch nicht sein. Den zentralen Teil des Artikels bilden eine Unterteilung der biomedizinischen Prinzipien, die Beschreibung ihres Wesens und ihre Spezifizierung. Der Verfasser unterscheidet so vier verschiedene Gruppen biomedizinischer Grundsatze: 1. Respektierung der Autonomie (Forderung nach Respektierung der Fahigkeit, selbstandig EntschlOsse zu fassen), 2. Unschadlichkeit (Forderung, anderen keinen Schaden zuzufOgen), 3. Wohltatigkeit (Gruppe von Grundsatzen mit der Forderung, Schaden zu verhindern, Wohl zu ermoglichen und dieses am Verhaltnis zu Risiko und Preis zu messen) und 4. Gerechtigkeit (Gruppe von Grundsatzen mit der Forderung nach gleichmaBiger und fairer Verteilung von Wohl, Risiko und Preis)

Empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning of physicians and molecular biologists – the importance of the four principles of biomedical ethics

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study presents an empirical investigation of the ethical reasoning and ethical issues at stake in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. The aim of this study was to test empirically whether there is a difference in ethical considerations and principles between Danish physicians and Danish molecular biologists, and whether the bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress are applicable to these groups.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>This study is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with three groups of respondents: a group of oncology physicians working in a clinic at a public hospital and two groups of molecular biologists conducting basic research, one group employed at a public university and the other in a private biopharmaceutical company.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this sample, the authors found that oncology physicians and molecular biologists employed in a private biopharmaceutical company have the specific principle of beneficence in mind in their daily work. Both groups are motivated to help sick patients. According to the study, molecular biologists explicitly consider nonmaleficence in relation to the environment, the researchers' own health, and animal models; and only implicitly in relation to patients or human subjects. In contrast, considerations of nonmaleficence by oncology physicians relate to patients or human subjects. Physicians and molecular biologists both consider the principle of respect for autonomy as a negative obligation in the sense that informed consent of patients should be respected. However, in contrast to molecular biologists, physicians experience the principle of respect for autonomy as a positive obligation as the physician, in dialogue with the patient, offers a medical prognosis based upon the patients wishes and ideas, mutual understanding, and respect. Finally, this study discloses utilitarian characteristics in the overall conception of justice as conceived by oncology physicians and molecular biologists from the private biopharmaceutical company. Molecular biologists employed at a public university are, in this study, concerned with allocation, however, they do not propose a specific theory of justice.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study demonstrates that each of the four bioethical principles of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress – respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice – are reflected in the daily work of physicians and molecular biologists in Denmark. Consequently, these principles are applicable in the Danish biomedical setting.</p