China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Social Ethics of Medicine
Published in Robert M. Veatch, Laura K. Guidry-Grimes, The Basics of Bioethics, 2019
Robert M. Veatch, Laura K. Guidry-Grimes
A social ethics for healthcare is a special concern of contemporary bioethics. Ancient Hippocratic medical ethics lacked a social ethics, in fact, it often implied that concern for the welfare of third parties was immoral. Since the time of an awareness of a public aspect to health and especially since the time that health insurance made us aware of competition for scarce medical resources, a social ethics is unavoidable. We have seen that it also unavoidable in the era of transplant medicine and human subjects research.
How do we see medicine, health and disease? A basic set of rules and fundamental paradigms (including evidence!)
Published in Milos Jenicek, Foundations of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019
Good physicians must successfully meet many challenges: The assimilation of a considerable volume of facts such as elements of anatomy, hundreds of syndromes for further pattern recognition, dosages of drugs and pieces of legislation or administrative rules governing medical practice.The acquisition of automatisms necessary for the execution of many clinical maneuvers such as those required to perform a physical examination or to practice emergency medicine.The ability to effectively communicate (listening and talking) with the patient, the patient's family, as well as members of the health team.The assessment of patient risks.The making of diagnosis and prognosis.The listing of problems and creation of a hierarchical classification.The making of decisions (choices).The mastery of exploratory and surgical procedures (performance).The management of patients after intervention (follow-up and care, control of disease course).The evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of cure and care.The respect of medical, cultural and social ethics as well as of patient values, preferences, and expectations.Empathy.
There’s No Harm in Talking: Re-Establishing the Relationship Between Theological and Secular Bioethics
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2020
Michael McCarthy, Mary Homan, Michael Rozier
Despite the religious and secular silos that have developed within bioethics, dialogue around questions of inequality and injustice provide a fruitful starting point for reestablishing a public and pluralistic dialogue. A Christian anthropological vision of the human person centered on an understanding of human dignity, sin, and the common good provide a unique perspective to pursue the social ethics concerns raised by many secular bioethicists. While our approach to theological bioethics does not solve the problems within clinical care, biomedical research, and public health ethics, it does lay important ground work for collaborative dialogue on seemingly intractable issues. If we can find common ground in agreeing that the world is not as it should be, there is no harm in talking about how to make it better.
“‘There’s No Harm in Talking’…True…But It Depends on How We Talk and What We Then Do”
Published in The American Journal of Bioethics, 2020
There are several features of their argument I find attractive for the work of bioethics. First is the focus on attending to structural inequalities that produce negative health care access and health outcomes. This is in keeping with more sustained attention to thinking carefully about the social determinants of health and how best to address health concerns (Smith 2019; Vigen 2011). Moreover, their focus on those at the margins of society, the most vulnerable among us is right headed. This is a hallmark of liberation theology and social ethics (Farmer and Gutiérrez 2013; Martins 2020). Further is the authors’ suggestion that theological anthropology, in keeping with the insights from feminist philosophy and womanist ethics, help ground the deeply embodied aspect of human dignity (Townes 1998).
Heidegger and human occupation: An existential perspective
Published in Journal of Occupational Science, 2023
Nadine Larivière, Jacques Quintin
Many research questions investigated through occupational science originated in the occupational therapy profession, which was founded at the beginning of the 20th century and supported by physicians who promoted the humanistic principles of moral treatment (Gordon, 2009). Within this vision of treatment of serious mental health disorders, people were encouraged to engage in occupations for therapeutic purposes (Gordon, 2009). From the very beginning of its existence and in the decades that followed, medicine influenced the profession to be rooted in science in order to demonstrate, among other things, that occupation produces curative benefits. At the same time, reflection on the notion of human occupation influenced the founders of the occupational therapy profession to draw inspiration from the active philosophers of their time. Examples include Darwin’s theory of the evolution of species and its implications for understanding human nature and its relationship to adaptation to the environment through occupation (Wilcock, 2006) and several notions promoted by pragmatic philosophers such as William James, Jane Addams, and James Dewey, including having a holistic vision of human beings (Morrison, 2016). Another example is viewing occupation as a vehicle for social integration for anyone experiencing health or social disruption (Reed, 2019). More recently, some of these pragmatist philosophers have been revisited to deepen the study of human occupation. Examples include transactional analysis between individuals, their occupations, and their environment in context (Kuo, 2011; Margot-Cattin, 2018), or social perspectives to occupation, such as social justice and social ethics questions (Morrison, 2016).