The mentality of dieability/killability: Reflections on the special issue on law, medicine, and bioethics.

IF 1 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Thomas Teo
{"title":"The mentality of dieability/killability: Reflections on the special issue on law, medicine, and bioethics.","authors":"Thomas Teo","doi":"10.1037/teo0000205","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This commentary discusses the Special Issue on Law, Medicine, and Bioethics: Role of Interdisciplinary Leadership in Influencing Health and Public Health Policy and Democratic Systems of Governance from the perspective of the concept of killability/dieability. Killability refers to the idea that the other can be killed as an active doing, whereas dieability means that certain people can be left to die, although their death could be prevented. Killability and dieability overlap and can be observed as mentalities not only in authoritarian regimes but also in existing liberal democracies. The four articles are analyzed within the framework of killability/dieability, and it is suggested that the special issue is paradigmatic for how philosophical-psychological studies should expand their traditional boundaries by incorporating reflections from a variety of academic disciplines and practices. Public Significance Statement This comment asks the public to consider the degree to which \"we\" have accepted dieability and killability of people in our societies. It is suggested that the public and professionals should look at human existential crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, migration, increasing inequality, wars, and climate change through this concept pair.","PeriodicalId":17332,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/teo0000205","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This commentary discusses the Special Issue on Law, Medicine, and Bioethics: Role of Interdisciplinary Leadership in Influencing Health and Public Health Policy and Democratic Systems of Governance from the perspective of the concept of killability/dieability. Killability refers to the idea that the other can be killed as an active doing, whereas dieability means that certain people can be left to die, although their death could be prevented. Killability and dieability overlap and can be observed as mentalities not only in authoritarian regimes but also in existing liberal democracies. The four articles are analyzed within the framework of killability/dieability, and it is suggested that the special issue is paradigmatic for how philosophical-psychological studies should expand their traditional boundaries by incorporating reflections from a variety of academic disciplines and practices. Public Significance Statement This comment asks the public to consider the degree to which "we" have accepted dieability and killability of people in our societies. It is suggested that the public and professionals should look at human existential crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health, migration, increasing inequality, wars, and climate change through this concept pair.
可死性/可杀性的心理:关于法律、医学和生命伦理的特殊问题的思考。
这篇评论从可杀性/可死性概念的角度讨论了法律、医学和生物伦理学特刊:跨学科领导在影响卫生和公共卫生政策和民主治理制度中的作用。可杀性指的是另一个人可以作为一种主动行为而被杀死,而可死性则意味着某些人可以任其自生自灭,尽管他们的死亡是可以避免的。可杀性和可死性是重叠的,不仅在专制政权中,而且在现有的自由民主国家中,都可以观察到这是一种心态。这四篇文章在“可杀性/可死性”的框架内进行了分析,并建议该特刊是哲学心理学研究如何通过整合各种学科和实践的反思来扩展其传统边界的范例。这个评论要求公众考虑“我们”在多大程度上接受了我们社会中人的可死性和可杀性。建议公众和专业人士通过这对概念来看待COVID-19大流行、心理健康、移民、不平等加剧、战争、气候变化等人类生存危机。
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
2.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
20
×
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