• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Impure bioethics: Social and policy studies of bioethics regarding stem cell research in the United States and South Korea.
【24h】

Impure bioethics: Social and policy studies of bioethics regarding stem cell research in the United States and South Korea.

机译：不纯生物伦理学：在美国和韩国进行的有关干细胞研究的生物伦理学社会政策研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This study is a progressive challenge to American bioethics. The main theme of this study is that bioethics is inherently social. At the theoretical level, this study explores three boundaries of American bioethics: ethics vs. society, ethics vs. political activism, and scientific knowledge vs. society. I define American bioethics as pure bioethics. Pure bioethics designates scientism in ethical reasoning and bioethicists' belief in pure science. I also develop a model of meta-ethics which I call impure bioethics, multilateral credibility struggles among bioethicists. Impure bioethics is not an alternative to pure bioethics, but designates a social context of pure bioethics. I strongly propose sociological, anthropological, and feminist reflexivity as a way to overcome pure bioethics that decontextualizes morality from social contexts and that conceals the political partisanship of American bioethics.; At the empirical level, pure bioethics is prevalent in American bioethics, when ethical analysis is preoccupied with (1) the triumph of micro-ethics such as the "moral status decision" over macro-ethics such as social justice; (2) the rationalist analysis of biological facts as innocent of society and culture in micro-ethics; and (3) lack of reasoning on distributive, recognition, and productive justice in macro-ethics. As for impure bioethics, both liberal and conservative bioethicists create scientific "fact" claims with either embryology or developmental biology, as well as employ technological justifications by downplaying or emphasizing the medical potential of human embryonic and adult stem cells in order to defend their ethical and political claims. Both camps of bioethicists engaged themselves deeply with partisan politics.; By contrast, pure bioethics is not yet pervasive in Korean academic bioethics, given that political activists, sociologists and historians of science, and religion-affiliates play major roles in bioethics communities. As for public bioethics, the Korean Bioethics Advisory Commission hijacked a public ethical debate into the government by employing many opinion leaders, and because lay citizens paid little attention to bioethics. However, there is no evidence involving the rationalization of the public bioethical debate toward a thinner debate. Hwang's scandals paved the way for improving the system of micro-ethics such as informed consent and research integrity, but eclipsed the "macro-ethical" debate concerning the relationship between medical inequality and technological innovation.
机译：这项研究对美国的生物伦理学提出了挑战。这项研究的主题是生物伦理学本质上是社会。在理论层面上，这项研究探索了美国生物伦理学的三个边界：伦理学与社会，伦理学与政治行动主义以及科学知识与社会。我将美国生物伦理学定义为纯生物伦理学。纯粹的生物伦理学指的是伦理推理中的科学主义，而指的是生物伦理学家对纯科学的信仰。我还建立了元伦理学模型，我将其称为不纯净的生物伦理学，即生物伦理学家之间的多边信誉之争。不纯净的生物伦理学不是纯生物伦理学的替代品，而是指定了纯生物伦理学的社会背景。我强烈建议社会学，人类学和女权主义反思，作为一种克服纯生物伦理学的方式，这种纯生物伦理学使道德与社会背景脱钩，并掩盖了美国生物伦理学的政治党派性。在经验层面上，纯生物伦理学在美国的生物伦理学中很普遍，这是因为伦理学分析主要集中在以下方面：（1）微观伦理学的胜利，例如“道德地位决定”战胜了社会正义等宏观伦理学； （2）对微观事实中作为社会和文化无辜的生物学事实的理性主义分析； （3）缺乏对宏观伦理中的分配，承认和生产正义的推理。至于不纯正的生物伦理学，自由主义和保守主义生物伦理学家都通过胚胎学或发育生物学来提出科学的“事实”主张，并通过淡化或强调人类胚胎和成体干细胞的医学潜力来运用技术论据来捍卫其伦理和道德。政治主张。这两个生物伦理主义者阵营都深深地参与了党派政治。相比之下，考虑到政治活动家，社会学家和科学史学家以及宗教人士在生物伦理学界扮演着重要角色，纯生物伦理学尚未在韩国学术生物伦理学中普及。至于公共生物伦理学，韩国生物伦理学咨询委员会雇用了许多意见领袖，这是因为政府外行公民很少关注生物伦理学，从而将公共伦理学辩论劫入政府。但是，没有证据表明将公共生物伦理学辩论合理化以进行更薄的辩论。 Hwang的丑闻为改善微观伦理学体系（例如知情同意和研究完整性）铺平了道路，但使有关医疗不平等与技术创新之间关系的“宏观伦理学”辩论黯然失色。

著录项

  • 作者

    Kim, Eun-Sung.;

  • 作者单位

    Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.;

  • 授予单位 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.;
  • 学科 Political Science General.; Sociology General.; Sociology Public and Social Welfare.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2006
  • 页码 286 p.
  • 总页数 286
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 政治理论;社会学;社会福利、社会救济、社会保障;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号