China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Patient autonomy and criminal law
Published in Paweł Daniluk, Patient Autonomy and Criminal Law, 2023
In present circumstances where informed consent is basically related to the references to international legal acts adopted during the post–World War II period as well as to the provisions of Chapter VIII ‘Fundamental Human Rights' of the Constitution, the ECHR awards and the Supreme Court Senate awards, there may be a misconception that the requirement for informed consent and liability for its absence, if required, is new and still in a development stage. Such a perception of informed consent as an expression of the individual's autonomy and one of the key ethical principles as something attributable exclusively to our days is refuted, for example, by the updated Hippocratic Oath (dating back to 460–370 BCE) made by students of Rīga Stradiņš University, prospective doctors upon graduation, and the words contained in it: ‘I am committed to respect the autonomy and dignity of my patient'. Having studied the development of terms through centuries, L. Mazure concludes in her doctoral thesis that: ‘The Hippocratic Oath should be treated as a “cooperation agreement between the apprentice and the mentor” divided into two parts: commitment of the apprentice towards the mentor; the key principles of doctoral ethics including in relation to the patient'.12 Informed consent has acquired over time not only an ethical but also a criminal law dimension, and nowadays an informed consent is considered a cornerstone of medical law, medical ethics and bioethics.13
Disability Bioethics
Published in Joel Michael Reynolds, Christine Wieseler, The Disability Bioethics Reader, 2022
Bioethics is generally defined broadly as “the study of ethical, social, and legal issues that arise in biomedicine and biomedical research” (National Institutes of Health 2016). Different definitional sources name varying subfields such as medical, animal, environmental, and public health ethics, all of which suggest the applied aspect of bioethics. Other lists of bioethics subfields organize the field by theoretical approach to include feminist bioethics, virtue ethics, deontological approaches, utilitarianism, principlism, and practical bioethics. Some definitions emphasize the theoretical while others highlight the applied aspects. The Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences, for example, stresses practice by saying that bioethics “is an activity; it is a shared, reflective examination of ethical issues in health care, health science, and health policy.” It goes on to claim that bioethics “has brought about significant changes in standards for the treatment of the sick and for the conduct of research. Every health care professional now understands that patients have a right to know what is being done to them, and to refuse. Every researcher now understands that participants in their studies have the same rights, and review boards to evaluate proposed research on those grounds are almost universal” (Michigan State University Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences 2016).
Healthcare decision-making
Published in Joseph Tham, Alberto García Gómez, Mirko Daniel Garasic, Cross-Cultural and Religious Critiques of Informed Consent, 2021
Joseph Tham, Marie Catherine Letendre
The paternalistic perspective of deciding for patients and assuming a decision in their best interest gave way to the “contractual” perspective of discussing with the patient.6 Informing the patient adequately and gaining his consent for treatment in the end often meant accepting his decisions without questions as if it were only a business contract. In bioethical practice, patient autonomy received great applause for respecting individual rights and subsequently important legal support (Patient Self-determination Act 1990). The intent to involve patients and respect their autonomy became new terrain for both physicians and patients. Informing and not informing were two sides of the same coin minted as autonomy.
HIV testing inside Brazilian female prisons: results of a national survey
Published in AIDS Care, 2023
Ligia Kerr, Deborah Gurgel Smith, Carl Kendall, Marto Leal, Raimunda Hermelinda Maia Macena, Rosa Maria Salani Mota, Rosa Lívia Freitas de Almeida
The Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Ceará reviewed and approved the study (protocol n° 188,211). Especially given the nature of research in prisons we were concerned that the four basic principles of bioethics: autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice, were respected. That required privacy in data collection, and we used the health clinic as mentioned above, as well as providing tablets for CASI. Prison staff were kept at a distance. All participants were assured that there was no requirement for participation and that they could end the interview at any time. Tests were also separately consented. To conduct research in prisons in Brazil, not only a university ethical review committee needs to approve, but a State judge and State health authorities need to approve the research before review by the ethical review committee. Finally, each participant signed the Free and Informed Consent Form.
Normative account of Islamic bioethics in end-of-life care
Published in Global Bioethics, 2022
When we consider Islamic jurisprudence as an ethical enterprise, there is no good religious or theoretical reason to think of it as an absolute system of ethics. We are not compelled to accept some philosophical orthodoxy that would lead us to choose between either deontological or consequentialist normativity to justify Islamic ethical value and guide human action. The Islamic system of ethics is best understood as a hybrid system combining both consequentialist and deontological moral positions applicable to any given ethical context (Elmahjub, 2021, p. 27; Moosa, 2014, p. 36). EoLC is an ideal object for this hybrid vision of Islamic ethics. A hybrid theoretical structure that combines various elements of consequentialism and deontology would not be unique to Islamic ethics. It is an essential feature of mainstream bioethical discourse that we can easily locate in the four principles of bioethics. In clear terms, Childress associated himself with Christian deontology while Beauchamp identified himself as a rule utilitarian (1979, p. 40).
Introduction
Published in Global Bioethics, 2022
Conceptually, bioethics – constructed by Fritz Jahr and Sass (2010) and later Van Rensselaer Potter (1982, 1988) – was outward looking. It addressed the “problems of interference with other living beings … and generally everything related to the balance of the ecosystem” (Reich, 1978, introduction, xix). The “bilocated birth” of bioethics/biomedical ethics need not be rehashed here (Reich, 1995), though it is worth noting that the discipline continues to fracture and suffer from identity politics. With the recent co-optation of “biomedical ethics” by clinical ethics – the latter of which has a significant interest in the monetization of ethics – the discipline as a whole is spiraling closer to an égoïsme à deux between patient and the medical industrial complex instead of maintaining an expansive, even politically aware stance as an ethical system in service to the common good. Particularly as even those who are outside the traditional medical setting are scanned as potential patients, subjected to the medical gaze as businesses decide who is a health risk based on their ability to procure a pass sanitaire (French: health pass), the integrity of bioethics not only as liberation from medical imposition (hence the principle of respect for autonomy) but also an ethical philosophy dedicated to solidarity and justice is further compromised.