286 research outputs found
Incidencia de la fecundación "in vitro" sobre la distinción entre personas y cosas
A modo de sÃntesis de 10 expuesto podemos concluir 10
siguiente:
1.- El desarrollo de las bio-tecnologÃas y su aplicación en seres
humanos plantea graves conflictos éticos y jurÃdicos que resulta
urgente resolver.
2.- Creemos que la vÃa de solución más adecuada pasa por
resaltar la distinción entre "personas" y "cosas", manteniendo la
lÃnea de los llamados "sistemas jurÃdicos personalistas".
3.- Existe una dificultad para el camino propuesto, derivado del
prevaleciente esquema dualista cartesiano, que reduce el cuerpo del
hombre a la categorÃa de "cosa", identificando a la persona con su
conciencia. Para salvar este obstáculo hace falta recuperar el real
contenido de la noción de persona humana, considerando a ésta en
su unidad corpóreo-espiritual.
4.- Mientras en el plano ontológico la persona es una especie del
género "cosa", que se diferencia de las demás por ciertas caracterÃsticas
especiales (racionalidad, libertad, etc.), en los niveles ético
y jurÃdico la distinción es tajante: la persona es "sujeto"; la cosa es
simplemente "objeto"
El derecho europeo ante las nuevas técnicas de procreación humana: ¿primacÃa de la técnica o primacÃa de la persona?
biomédicas y el Derecho: la biologÃa y la medicina, cuyos desarrollos técnicos en materia de reproducción avanzan a un ritmo
acelerado, operan modificaciones de la estructura familiar y social,
al margen de los principios jurÃdicos, alterando la representación
clásica del valor acordado a la persona, a su corporeidad, a la
procreación humana, y a la familia basada en los lazos sanguÃneos.
El Derecho, por su parte, elaborado para resolver los conflictos
clásicos entre particulares, o entre los particulares y el Estado, se
encuentra desbordado por una situación para la cual no estaba
preparado: la ciencia y la técnica, gue tradicionalmente habÃan sido
aliados de la dignidad de la persona, se presentan a través de algunas de las recientes prácticas biomédicas, como generadoras de situaciones altamente conflictivas para esa misma dignidad
Synthetic Biology for Human Health: Issues for Ethical Discussion and Policy-making
Synthetic biology, the application of engineering principles to (re)design and construct novel biological systems and devices, provides an emerging focus for ethical and policy debates on emerging biotechnologies. Happily, no scandal or accident has occurred to give rise to this ethical attention. Rather, it was the researchers themselves who invited the involvement of ethicists, explaining their work and asking for ethical commentary. This proactive stance was fuelled by the intention to avoid another backlash like the one that occurred against some gene technologies. Many consumers have been and are still highly sceptical about genetically modified food, with field trials (for example) regularly being met with public protest. By engaging with the ethical implications of their work early on, many researchers in synthetic biology hoped to prevent such reactions. So far, it looks as if they have been successful, as public attitudes towards synthetic biology are largely positive
Global Ethics and Nanotechnology: A Comparison of the Nanoethics Environments of the EU and China
The following article offers a brief overview of current nanotechnology policy, regulation and ethics in Europe and The People’s Republic of China with the intent of noting (dis)similarities in approach, before focusing on the involvement of the public in science and technology policy (i.e. participatory Technology Assessment). The conclusions of this article are, that (a) in terms of nanosafety as expressed through policy and regulation, China PR and the EU have similar approaches towards, and concerns about, nanotoxicity—the official debate on benefits and risks is not markedly different in the two regions; (b) that there is a similar economic drive behind both regions’ approach to nanodevelopment, the difference being the degree of public concern admitted; and (c) participation in decision-making is fundamentally different in the two regions. Thus in China PR, the focus is on the responsibility of the scientist; in the EU, it is about government accountability to the public. The formulation of a Code of Conduct for scientists in both regions (China PR’s predicted for 2012) reveals both similarity and difference in approach to nanotechnology development. This may change, since individual responsibility alone cannot guide S&T development, and as public participation is increasingly seen globally as integral to governmental decision-making
- …