协助死亡时代的认知谦卑

IF 2.3 3区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Sean Riley
{"title":"协助死亡时代的认知谦卑","authors":"Sean Riley","doi":"10.1002/hast.4960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p><i>The current debate on medical assistance-in-dying (MAID) fails to acknowledge the limitations of empirical data and the influence that cognitive biases exert in interpreting evidence and formulating arguments. This paper examines the evidentiary foundations of the MAID debates by conducting a critical analysis of the methodological approaches to research on MAID. The paper advocates for epistemic humility in this debate, including the acknowledgment of the fallibility of MAID research, the incompleteness of understanding surrounding MAID, and the limited usefulness of empirical facts in determining ethical judgments. These factors cast doubts over the role data can play in shaping MAID discourse. Developing a well-balanced MAID policy necessitates an innovative research framework that not only prioritizes methodological rigor and data integrity but also integrates ethical deliberation with empirical research through a commitment to epistemic humility</i>.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55073,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Center Report","volume":"55 2","pages":"8-14"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4960","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epistemic Humility in the Age of Assisted Dying\",\"authors\":\"Sean Riley\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/hast.4960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p><i>The current debate on medical assistance-in-dying (MAID) fails to acknowledge the limitations of empirical data and the influence that cognitive biases exert in interpreting evidence and formulating arguments. This paper examines the evidentiary foundations of the MAID debates by conducting a critical analysis of the methodological approaches to research on MAID. The paper advocates for epistemic humility in this debate, including the acknowledgment of the fallibility of MAID research, the incompleteness of understanding surrounding MAID, and the limited usefulness of empirical facts in determining ethical judgments. These factors cast doubts over the role data can play in shaping MAID discourse. Developing a well-balanced MAID policy necessitates an innovative research framework that not only prioritizes methodological rigor and data integrity but also integrates ethical deliberation with empirical research through a commitment to epistemic humility</i>.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"volume\":\"55 2\",\"pages\":\"8-14\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hast.4960\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hastings Center Report\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4960\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Center Report","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hast.4960","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

目前关于临终医疗援助(MAID)的辩论未能承认经验数据的局限性以及认知偏见在解释证据和制定论点时施加的影响。本文通过对MAID研究的方法论方法进行批判性分析,考察了MAID辩论的证据基础。本文提倡在这场辩论中认识上的谦卑,包括承认MAID研究的可错性,对MAID的理解的不完整性,以及经验事实在确定伦理判断方面的有限用处。这些因素使人们对数据在塑造MAID话语中的作用产生怀疑。制定一个平衡的MAID政策需要一个创新的研究框架,不仅要优先考虑方法的严谨性和数据的完整性,而且要通过承诺认识谦卑将伦理审议与实证研究结合起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Epistemic Humility in the Age of Assisted Dying

The current debate on medical assistance-in-dying (MAID) fails to acknowledge the limitations of empirical data and the influence that cognitive biases exert in interpreting evidence and formulating arguments. This paper examines the evidentiary foundations of the MAID debates by conducting a critical analysis of the methodological approaches to research on MAID. The paper advocates for epistemic humility in this debate, including the acknowledgment of the fallibility of MAID research, the incompleteness of understanding surrounding MAID, and the limited usefulness of empirical facts in determining ethical judgments. These factors cast doubts over the role data can play in shaping MAID discourse. Developing a well-balanced MAID policy necessitates an innovative research framework that not only prioritizes methodological rigor and data integrity but also integrates ethical deliberation with empirical research through a commitment to epistemic humility.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Hastings Center Report
Hastings Center Report 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Hastings Center Report explores ethical, legal, and social issues in medicine, health care, public health, and the life sciences. Six issues per year offer articles, essays, case studies of bioethical problems, columns on law and policy, caregivers’ stories, peer-reviewed scholarly articles, and book reviews. Authors come from an assortment of professions and academic disciplines and express a range of perspectives and political opinions. The Report’s readership includes physicians, nurses, scholars, administrators, social workers, health lawyers, and others.
×
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