This paper analysed the nature of autonomy, in particular respect for autonomy in medical ethics/bioethics in Japan. We have undertaken a literature survey in Japanese and English and begin with the historical background and explanation of the Japanese wordJiritsu (autonomy). We go on to identify patterns of meaning that researchers use in medical ethics / bioethics discussions in Japan, namely, Beauchamp and Childress’s individual autonomy, relational autonomy, and O’Neill’s principled autonomy as the three major ways that autonomy is understood. We (...) examine papers discussing these interpretations. We propose using the term ‘a form of autonomy’ first used by Edmund Pellegrino in 1992 and examine the nature of ‘a form of autonomy.’ We finally conclude that the crux of what Pellegrino calls ‘something close to autonomy,’ or ‘a form of autonomy' might best be understood as the minimization of physician paternalism and the maximization of respect for patient preference. Simultaneously, we introduce a family-facilitated approach to informed consent and respond to criticism by Laura Sullivan. Finally, we discuss cross-cultural approaches and global bioethics. Furthermore, we use the term ‘Bioethics across the Globe’ instead of ‘Global Bioethics’, calling for international scholars to write works to provide an in-depth understanding of each country. We conclude that deep understanding of others is pivotal for dialogue to be of value. We hope this article will deepen the reader’s understanding of Japan and will contribute to the progress of bioethics worldwide. (shrink)

Belief in human exceptionalism—the idea that humans are not bound by the same evolutionary constraints and biophysical limitations as other organisms—is rampant in society. To ignore human nature in favor of such a constructivist perspective is foolhardy because it compromises prospects for achieving sustainability. Human activity already exceeds Earth's long-term carrying-capacity, yet many governments and ordinary citizens alike are focused on fostering a new round of material growth. Few academics pay more than lip service to the causal drivers behind such (...) unsustainable behavior. In particular, the sociological model for dealing with overshoot focuses on the shortcomings of social institutions, effectively decoupling the problem from H.sapiens' innate expansionist tendencies and such instinctive drives as competition for social status, mates, territory, and other resources. Understanding human unsustainability depends as much on insights from the behavioral and biological sciences as from the social sciences. Merging bioevolutionary, psychological, and sociological explanations into a unified framework is an essential step in moderating human consumption. Humanity is now dangerously close to global collapse; as academics we have the obligation to investigate humanity's unsustainability conundrum through an interdisciplinary lens and apply our new understanding to solving global and local problems before solutions become moot. (shrink)

This article introduces one type of comprehensive complex systems model to explain why humanity continues to be frustrated by its lack of progress toward sustainability. Human overconsumption has now raised concern over the depletion of resources and environmental decay to critical levels that threaten the integrity of the human species, the planet's biodiversity and the global ecosystem in general. The focus on biopsychosocial explanations of human unsustainability is framed to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving towards a global bioethics. (...) This framework relies on three essential elements: the first concerns the notion that human overconsumption behavior is principally driven by an unconscious set of evolutionary predispositions to survive and prosper; the second element focuses on our unique psychological make-up, which at its core is universal and naturally selected over a geologic period that spans at least the 200–250 million-year natural history of mammals; the third component of the biopsychosocial model is the human evolutionary predisposition to seek out and participate in social behavior. This third element is selected because of the reciprocal benefits of cooperating with others for the purpose of enhancing everyone's survival. These three components have an evolved interrelationship and interdependence from which the full complement of human behavior emerges. Moreover, these three factors constitute the root causes of human overconsumption behavior and the basis for our unsustainable nature. This article argues that the biopsychosocial explanation of human unsustainability can adequately characterize virtually any kind of human and social phenomena that involve the exploitation of resources. Examples, such as the origins and effects of media and advertising, politics, education and religion on overconsumption, are discussed. The final section attempts to demonstrate that a comprehensive approach that unifies biological, psychological and social parameters toward solving the human unsustainability problem can be achieved. (shrink)

Millions of people in various parts of the world and within each country are presently surviving in categories described as “mere”, “miserable”, “idealistic”, “irresponsible”, and “acceptable”. The term “acceptable survival” is proposed as a bioethical goal of global survival, looking beyond the 21st century to the year 3000 and beyond. The frequently used alternative term is “sustainable development”, but in most contexts this is an economic concept and does not imply any moral or ethical constraints, except where these are spelled (...) out. Acceptable survival, broadly defined, means acceptable to a universal sense of what is morally right and good and what will continue in the long term. The expanding dominant, but irresponsible, world culture is not an acceptable type of development because it cannot survive in the long term. [M&GS 1995:185–191]. (shrink)