Bioethics Open Research最新文献

筛选

英文中文

Challenging the role of resilience and vulnerability in narratives of well-being 质疑复原力和脆弱性在福祉叙事中的作用

Bioethics Open Research Pub Date : 2024-02-16 DOI: 10.12688/bioethopenres.17498.1

Petra Brown, T. Browne

{"title":"Challenging the role of resilience and vulnerability in narratives of well-being","authors":"Petra Brown, T. Browne","doi":"10.12688/bioethopenres.17498.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17498.1","url":null,"abstract":"We analyse prevailing discourse on resilience and vulnerability amid the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on well-being. This involves a critical review of the Australian Governmental National Mental Health and Wellbeing Pandemic Response Plan, and the enforced lockdown of inner-Melbourne public housing tours by the Victorian Government. We explore these issues within the framework of neoliberal processes that responsibilise individuals for their own well-being. We suggest that Contemporary forms of discourse on resilience are actually unable to address the core issue they seek to confront; vulnerability. We argue that locating responsibility for resilience and well-being with individuals may well exacerbate their vulnerability and ignores any sense of collective responsibility for the well-being of marginalised groups. We propose that the connection between vulnerability and well-being is a moral concern that should be incorporated into political agendas and policies. These should affirm collective responsibility for well-being. Drawing on relational autonomy theorists, we assert that vulnerability is intrinsic to human flourishing, shaped by relational dynamics. Instead of using vulnerability as a tool to justify neoliberal agendas, we advocate for a transformation in our shared narrative of well-being. This shift should focus on embracing vulnerability as an integral part of well-being in relationships, rather than fixating on resilience and well-being as an individual responsibility.","PeriodicalId":238268,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics Open Research","volume":"37 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139961851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

An alternative focus on data in the neurorights discussion – Lessons from Brazil 另一种关注神经权利讨论中的数据的方法——巴西的经验教训

Bioethics Open Research Pub Date : 2023-08-10 DOI: 10.12688/bioethopenres.17480.1

Stephen Rainey, Pedro Dalese

引用次数: 0

Argument analysis of the ethical claims made by the pharmaceutical industry regarding drug pricing 制药行业关于药品定价的伦理主张的论证分析

Bioethics Open Research Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI: 10.12688/bioethopenres.17473.1

Sarah Kim, P. Nathanson, C. Feudtner

{"title":"Argument analysis of the ethical claims made by the pharmaceutical industry regarding drug pricing","authors":"Sarah Kim, P. Nathanson, C. Feudtner","doi":"10.12688/bioethopenres.17473.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.12688/bioethopenres.17473.1","url":null,"abstract":"Background: Extreme pharmaceutical prices in the United States, their causes, and their ethical implications have been the subject of extensive research and criticism. What has often been overlooked, however, is that the pharmaceutical industry itself often uses ethics language and concepts when offering explanations for their prices, a framing that has not yet been adequately assessed in the context of industry actions. Methods: We conducted an argument analysis of publicly available pharmaceutical industry reports and U.S. Congressional testimony to extract commonly occurring claims regarding their pricing. Results: Starting with the argument that drug research and development are costly, the claims and justifications made in these reports and testimony often invoke common ethical concepts such as benefit, harm, fairness, and autonomy. The arguments and associated rhetoric are, however, often self-contradictory or poorly reflected in the reality of pharmaceutical companies’ actions and experiences in the marketplace. Conclusions: By delineating companies’ public-facing ethics language and identifying hypocritical discrepancies between industry rhetoric and actions.","PeriodicalId":238268,"journal":{"name":"Bioethics Open Research","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117089524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0