活着的生命伦理,理论和儿童对心脏手术的同意

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Clinical Ethics Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-07 DOI:10.1177/14777509221091086
Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Nathalie Dedieu, Martin J Elliott, Jonathan Montgomery, Hugo Wellesley
{"title":"活着的生命伦理,理论和儿童对心脏手术的同意","authors":"Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Nathalie Dedieu, Martin J Elliott, Jonathan Montgomery, Hugo Wellesley","doi":"10.1177/14777509221091086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights.</p>","PeriodicalId":53540,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654030/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Living bioethics, theories and children's consent to heart surgery.\",\"authors\":\"Priscilla Alderson, Deborah Bowman, Joe Brierley, Nathalie Dedieu, Martin J Elliott, Jonathan Montgomery, Hugo Wellesley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14777509221091086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53540,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10654030/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509221091086\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/4/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14777509221091086","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这项分析是关于实用的生命伦理学,以及法律、伦理学和社会学如何理解和尊重儿童同意或拒绝选择性心脏手术。分析其基本理论和影响,将法律生命伦理学与生活生命伦理学进行对比。深入的哲学分析比较了实证主义、解释主义、批判理论和功能主义的社会科学传统,并将其应用于生物伦理学和儿童时期,以考察如何鼓励或劝阻活的生物伦理学。举例说明来自伦敦两个儿科心脏科的研究访谈和观察。这篇论文是一系列关于多学科心脏团队成员在准备和支持家庭知情同意手术时如何为复杂的护理马赛克做出贡献的论文之一。正义、关爱和尊重儿童及其同意的生命伦理取决于理论和实践、背景和关系。这些都可能被看不见的影响所破坏:以成年人为中心的伦理史;发展心理学理论;需要同意才能被定义为成人合同的法律和财务压力;医疗保健的管理系统和日常程序可能会恐吓家人和工作人员;社会不平等。临床伦理学文献中的主流理论与临床实践中的生命伦理学有着显著的不同。我们的目标是促进提高尊重儿童的生物伦理标准,并展示美德和女权主义伦理、儿童研究和儿童权利的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Living bioethics, theories and children's consent to heart surgery.

Background: This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children's consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families' informed consent to surgery.

Results: The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices.

Conclusion: We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children's rights.

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
Clinical Ethics
Clinical Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
×
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