From ontological to relational: A scoping review of conceptions of dignity invoked in deliberations on medically assisted death

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Isabelle Martineau, Naïma Hamrouni, Johanne Hébert
{"title":"From ontological to relational: A scoping review of conceptions of dignity invoked in deliberations on medically assisted death","authors":"Isabelle Martineau, Naïma Hamrouni, Johanne Hébert","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01095-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dignity is omnipresent in Western ethics, but it also provokes dissension and controversy. One of the most striking examples is the debate on medically assisted death, where dignity is invoked to support antagonistic positions. While some authors conclude that the concept is useless as an ethical reference, many others invite us to deepen our analysis from a multidimensional perspective, to enrich it and make it useful. This scoping study is intended to provide an overview of the different conceptions of dignity used in the assisted dying debate, to better grasp the multiple facets of the concept. The Joanna Briggs Institute's JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis guided the scoping review. Key words were based on the researchers' expertise and were used to identify relevant literature in French and English. Eleven databases covering the last six decades were consulted. Initially, 2,071 references were found in the databases. After excluding duplicates, screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, and after a specific literature search on the concept of relational dignity, 156 papers were found to match the identified inclusion criteria. The literature highlights the stark confrontation between two dominant conceptions of dignity: ontological and autonomist. However, a lesser-known conceptualization of dignity integrates these two perspectives, underlining the relational and social dimensions of dignity. As a result, dignity emerges as a dynamic, experiential, and dialogical concept, that modulates itself according to circumstances. This raises the possibility of breaking through the binary debate and questioning the current frameworks that define dignity. This multidimensional conceptualization of dignity could lead to a more complete and nuanced understanding of the concept, as well as open richer normative horizons regarding the issue of medically assisted death.","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01095-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dignity is omnipresent in Western ethics, but it also provokes dissension and controversy. One of the most striking examples is the debate on medically assisted death, where dignity is invoked to support antagonistic positions. While some authors conclude that the concept is useless as an ethical reference, many others invite us to deepen our analysis from a multidimensional perspective, to enrich it and make it useful. This scoping study is intended to provide an overview of the different conceptions of dignity used in the assisted dying debate, to better grasp the multiple facets of the concept. The Joanna Briggs Institute's JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis guided the scoping review. Key words were based on the researchers' expertise and were used to identify relevant literature in French and English. Eleven databases covering the last six decades were consulted. Initially, 2,071 references were found in the databases. After excluding duplicates, screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, and after a specific literature search on the concept of relational dignity, 156 papers were found to match the identified inclusion criteria. The literature highlights the stark confrontation between two dominant conceptions of dignity: ontological and autonomist. However, a lesser-known conceptualization of dignity integrates these two perspectives, underlining the relational and social dimensions of dignity. As a result, dignity emerges as a dynamic, experiential, and dialogical concept, that modulates itself according to circumstances. This raises the possibility of breaking through the binary debate and questioning the current frameworks that define dignity. This multidimensional conceptualization of dignity could lead to a more complete and nuanced understanding of the concept, as well as open richer normative horizons regarding the issue of medically assisted death.
从本体论到关系论:对医疗协助死亡审议中援引的尊严概念的范围审查
尊严在西方伦理学中无处不在,但也会引发分歧和争议。最显著的例子之一就是关于医学协助死亡的辩论,在这场辩论中,尊严被用来支持对立的立场。一些作者得出结论认为,尊严概念作为伦理参考毫无用处,但也有许多作者请我们从多维角度深化分析,丰富尊严概念并使其发挥作用。本范围研究旨在概述在协助死亡辩论中使用的不同尊严概念,以便更好地把握这一概念的多个方面。乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)的《JBI 证据综合手册》为此次范围界定研究提供了指导。关键词以研究人员的专业知识为基础,用于确定相关的法文和英文文献。研究人员查阅了涵盖过去六十年的 11 个数据库。最初在数据库中找到了 2,071 篇参考文献。在排除重复文献,筛选标题、摘要和全文,并对关系尊严概念进行专门文献检索后,发现有 156 篇论文符合确定的纳入标准。这些文献强调了两种主流尊严概念之间的尖锐对立:本体论和自主论。然而,一种鲜为人知的尊严概念整合了这两种观点,强调了尊严的关系和社会维度。因此,尊严是一个动态的、经验性的和对话性的概念,会根据具体情况进行调整。这就提出了突破二元辩论的可能性,并对定义尊严的现有框架提出了质疑。这种多维度的尊严概念化可使人们对这一概念有更全面、更细致的理解,并为医学协助死亡问题打开更丰富的规范视野。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信