生物医学决策中的死亡推理

Jeremy Weissman
{"title":"生物医学决策中的死亡推理","authors":"Jeremy Weissman","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhac009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Depending on our mode of reasoning-moral, prudential, instrumental, empirical, dialectical, and so on-we may come to vastly different conclusions on the nature of death and the appropriate orientation toward matters such as euthanasia or procuring organs from brain-dead patients. These differing orientations have resulted in some of the most enduring conflicts in biomedical decision-making with roots in the earliest strands of philosophical discourse. Through continually grappling with questions over matters of death, we continually step closer to clarity, even if certainty on these matters remains necessarily as elusive as death itself.</p>","PeriodicalId":188122,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of medicine and philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"331-344"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reasoning about Death in Biomedical Decision-Making.\",\"authors\":\"Jeremy Weissman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jmp/jhac009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Depending on our mode of reasoning-moral, prudential, instrumental, empirical, dialectical, and so on-we may come to vastly different conclusions on the nature of death and the appropriate orientation toward matters such as euthanasia or procuring organs from brain-dead patients. These differing orientations have resulted in some of the most enduring conflicts in biomedical decision-making with roots in the earliest strands of philosophical discourse. Through continually grappling with questions over matters of death, we continually step closer to clarity, even if certainty on these matters remains necessarily as elusive as death itself.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":188122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of medicine and philosophy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"331-344\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of medicine and philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhac009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of medicine and philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhac009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

根据我们的推理模式——道德的、谨慎的、工具的、经验的、辩证的等等——我们可能会在死亡的本质上得出截然不同的结论,以及在安乐死或从脑死亡病人身上获取器官等问题上的适当方向。这些不同的取向导致了生物医学决策中一些最持久的冲突,这些冲突源于哲学话语的最早部分。通过不断地与死亡问题作斗争,我们不断地向清晰迈进,即使这些问题的确定性仍然必然像死亡本身一样难以捉摸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasoning about Death in Biomedical Decision-Making.

Depending on our mode of reasoning-moral, prudential, instrumental, empirical, dialectical, and so on-we may come to vastly different conclusions on the nature of death and the appropriate orientation toward matters such as euthanasia or procuring organs from brain-dead patients. These differing orientations have resulted in some of the most enduring conflicts in biomedical decision-making with roots in the earliest strands of philosophical discourse. Through continually grappling with questions over matters of death, we continually step closer to clarity, even if certainty on these matters remains necessarily as elusive as death itself.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信