Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Cambridge textbook of bioethics

New York: Cambridge University Press (2008)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Moral theory and disaster.Alexandra Smatanová & Viera Bilasová - 2016 - Human Affairs 26 (1):43-51.
    Renewing the deontology tradition of moral obligation requires, especially in relation to catastrophe and disaster, a broader methodological perspective which would enable deontology to transcend its own limits. The demand for pluralistic research approaches brings with challenging requirements that have to be considered when shaping a hybrid moral theory that incorporates a proactive approach. The personalist approach to the individual, based on the principles of integrity, responsibility and solidarity and seeking the wellbeing of a person, may prove inspirational in shaping (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics. Empirical, conceptual and normative constraints.Tomislav Bracanovic - 2011 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (3):229-236.
    In contemporary debates about the nature of bioethics there is a widespread view that bioethical decision making should involve certain knowledge of and respect for cultural diversity of persons to be affected. The aim of this article is to show that this view is untenable and misleading. It is argued that introducing the idea of respect for cultural diversity into bioethics encounters a series of conceptual and empirical constraints. While acknowledging that cultural diversity is something that decision makers in bioethical (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • What makes neuroethics possible?Fernando Vidal - 2019 - History of the Human Sciences 32 (2):32-58.
    Since its emergence in the early 2000s, neuroethics has become a recognized, institutionalized and professionalized field. A central strategy for its successful development has been the claim that it must be an autonomous discipline, distinct in particular from bioethics. Such claim has been justified by the conviction, sustained since the 1990s by the capabilities attributed to neuroimaging technologies, that somehow ‘the mind is the brain’, that the brain sciences can illuminate the full range of human experience and behavior, and that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The right to die: beyond academia.Carole Ramsey - 2016 - Monash Bioethics Review 34 (1):70-87.
    The world’s first legal euthanasia death occurred in the Australian City of Darwin on Sunday 22 September 1996 when Bob Dent ended his life under the Northern Territory’s short-lived Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995. Dent’s death intensified argument about euthanasia in Australia, transforming the debate from a textbook discussion in social ethics into a vigorous and divisive social dispute. The day before he ended his life, Dent dictated a letter, written down by his wife. This description of his (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Charting Moral Psychology’s Significance for Bioethics: Routes to Bioethical Progress, its Limits, and Lessons from Moral Philosophy.Michael Klenk - 2020 - Diametros 17 (64):36-55.
    Empirical moral psychology is sometimes dismissed as normatively insignificant because it plays no decisive role in settling ethical disputes. But that conclusion, even if it is valid for normative ethics, does not extend to bioethics. First, in contrast to normative ethics, bioethics can legitimately proceed from a presupposed moral framework. Within that framework, moral psychology can be shown to play four significant roles: it can improve bioethicists’ understanding of the decision situation, the origin and legitimacy of their moral concepts, efficient (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Theory Without Theories: Well-Being, Ethics, and Medicine.Jennifer Hawkins - 2021 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 46 (6):656-683.
    Medical ethics would be better if people were taught to think more clearly about well-being or the concept of what is good for a person. Yet for a variety of reasons, bioethicists have generally paid little attention to this concept. Here, I argue, first, that focusing on general theories of welfare is not useful for practical medical ethics. I argue, second, for what I call the “theory-without-theories approach” to welfare in practical contexts. The first element of this approach is a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations