Uses and abuses of the body in the postmodern era

IF 0.5 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
M. Garasic
{"title":"Uses and abuses of the body in the postmodern era","authors":"M. Garasic","doi":"10.1075/pc.23.3.13gar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper will focus on two controversial cases relating to the [mis]use of the notion of autonomy in situations of life and death. While in one case the patient’s will to die was not respected, in the other there was no attempt to save the life of the individual. I have chosen to put these two specific cases in parallel for the fact that in both instances the presence of some kind of mental impairment is not given at all. Yet, in both situations there is substantial reference to some type of temporary competence -as this is the key element that, allegedly, should function as decisive to assess the moral and legal justification behind the decision to enforce -or not- medical treatment upon the protagonists of these two very sad stories. Following on from the objective of this paper thus, the contraposition of these two cases will provide us with a vivid image of the practical implications of using the notion of autonomy (here presented under the form of a more psychiatric-oriented term: competence) in an inconsistent manner within the Western world (US and EU). Raising many doubts over its appropriateness.","PeriodicalId":45741,"journal":{"name":"Pragmatics & Cognition","volume":"23 1","pages":"516-527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/pc.23.3.13gar","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pragmatics & Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.23.3.13gar","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper will focus on two controversial cases relating to the [mis]use of the notion of autonomy in situations of life and death. While in one case the patient’s will to die was not respected, in the other there was no attempt to save the life of the individual. I have chosen to put these two specific cases in parallel for the fact that in both instances the presence of some kind of mental impairment is not given at all. Yet, in both situations there is substantial reference to some type of temporary competence -as this is the key element that, allegedly, should function as decisive to assess the moral and legal justification behind the decision to enforce -or not- medical treatment upon the protagonists of these two very sad stories. Following on from the objective of this paper thus, the contraposition of these two cases will provide us with a vivid image of the practical implications of using the notion of autonomy (here presented under the form of a more psychiatric-oriented term: competence) in an inconsistent manner within the Western world (US and EU). Raising many doubts over its appropriateness.
后现代时代对身体的使用和滥用
本文将集中讨论两个有争议的案例,涉及在生死情况下[错误地]使用自主概念。在一种情况下,病人的死亡意愿没有得到尊重,而在另一种情况下,没有人试图挽救病人的生命。我之所以选择把这两个具体的案例放在一起,是因为在这两个案例中,根本没有给出存在某种精神障碍的证据。然而,在这两种情况下,都大量提到某种类型的临时能力,因为这是一个关键因素,据称,在评估决定是否对这两个非常悲伤的故事的主角实施医疗的道德和法律理由方面,应该起决定性的作用。因此,从本文的目标出发,这两个案例的对比将为我们提供一个生动的形象,说明在西方世界(美国和欧盟)以一种不一致的方式使用自治概念(在这里以一个更精神病学导向的术语:能力的形式呈现)的实际含义。对其适当性提出了许多质疑。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
×
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