歴史生命倫理学
historical bioethics, or bioethical historicism
歴史生命倫理学
historical bioethics, or bioethical historicism
歴史生命倫理学（historical bioethics）ないしは生命倫理的歴史主義（bioethical historicism）とは、人類の歴史における倫理事象の検討、とりわけ、生命に関わる倫理現象をとりあつかう歴史学分野のひとつ、あるいは（時間的 ／歴史的な倫理的相対主義をこれまで克服できなかった）生命倫理学の発想をもって人間の命の歴史を再考するプロジェクトのことである。
ウィキのBioethicsに 歴史を扱った箇所は５箇所である。そこからBioethicsにおける 歴史概念の相対化／解体を模索 するのが、歴史生命倫理学の理論的作業の第一歩である。
"Medical ethics is the study of moral values and judgments as they apply to medicine. The four main moral commitments are respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Using these four principles and thinking about what the physicians’ specific concern is for their scope of practice can help physicians make moral decisions.[12] As a scholarly discipline, medical ethics encompasses its practical application in clinical settings as well as work on its history, philosophy, theology, and sociology.
Many religious communities have their own histories of inquiry into bioethical issues and have developed rules and guidelines on how to deal with these issues from within the viewpoint of their respective faiths. The Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths have each developed a considerable body of literature on these matters. In the case of many non-Western cultures, a strict separation of religion from philosophy does not exist. In many Asian cultures, for example, there is a lively discussion on bioethical issues. Buddhist bioethics, in general, is characterised by a naturalistic outlook that leads to a rationalistic, pragmatic approach. Buddhist bioethicists include Damien Keown. In India, Vandana Shiva is a leading bioethicist speaking from the Hindu tradition. In Africa, and partly also in Latin America, the debate on bioethics frequently focuses on its practical relevance in the context of underdevelopment and geopolitical power relations.[vague] Masahiro Morioka argues that in Japan the bioethics movement was first launched by disability activists and feminists in the early 1970s, while academic bioethics began in the mid-1980s. During this period, unique philosophical discussions on brain death and disability appeared both in the academy and journalism.[15]
Additionally, bioethics
has been condemned for its lack of diversity in thought, particularly
with regards to race. Even as the field has grown to include the areas
of public opinion, policymaking, and medical decisions, little to no
academic writing has been authored concerning the intersection between
race- especially the cultural values imbued in that construct- and
bioethical literature. John Hoberman illustrates this in a 2016
critique, in which he points out that bioethicists have been
traditionally resistant to expanding their discourse to include
sociological and historically relevant applications. [18] Central to
this is the notion of white normativity, which establishes the
dominance of white hegemonic structures in bioethical academia[19] and
tends to reinforce existing biases.
本文……
リンク
文献
その他の情報
