How "moral" are the principles of biomedical ethics?--a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis.
How "moral" are the principles of biomedical ethics?--a cross-domain evaluation of the common morality hypothesis.
复制标题
生物医学伦理学的原则如何“道德”？ - 对共同道德假设的跨域评估。
DOI：
10.1186/1472-6939-15-47
复制
发表时间：
2014-06-17
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Tanner C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christen M;Ineichen C;Tanner C
生物医学伦理学的原则--自主、非伤害、仁慈和公正--对于构建医学伦理问题以及向医学生和专业人员教授伦理学具有重要的典范意义。为了强调这一意义，汤姆·L·比彻姆和詹姆斯·F·柴尔德里斯将这些原则建立在共同道德的基础上，即这些原则代表了所有致力于道德的人所共有的基本道德价值观，因此植根于人类的道德心理。我们经验性地调查了这些原则与其他道德和非道德价值观的关系，这些价值观为医学提供了方向。作为比较，我们对商业和金融领域进行了类似的分析。我们评估了14个与医学相关的价值观(N1 = 317，学生和专业人士)和14个与商业和金融相关的价值观(N1 = 247，学生和专业人士)的“道德”感知程度。评级是从四个方面进行的，旨在描述道德的不同方面。我们发现，与其他价值观相比，与原则相关的价值观在表征道德的几个维度上得到了较低的评分。通过使用聚类和网络分析方法来解释我们的发现，我们认为这些原则可以被理解为与医学伦理困境的道德和非道德方面相联系的“桥梁价值”。我们还发现，社会领域(医学与商业和金融)影响价值观的道德感知程度。我们的结果与比彻姆和齐尔德里斯的共同道德假设相冲突，该假说意味着这些原则的高道德评级与领域无关。我们的发现支持了其他学者的建议，即生物医学伦理原则主要用作经过深思熟虑的理由的工具，但缺乏普遍的“共同道德”。我们认为，在医学上教授和讨论这些原则的具体方式--即通过提到需要平衡原则的冲突--可能部分解释了为什么与其他道德价值观相比，这些原则的“道德”程度较低。
The principles of biomedical ethics – autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice – are of paradigmatic importance for framing ethical problems in medicine and for teaching ethics to medical students and professionals. In order to underline this significance, Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress base the principles in the common morality, i.e. they claim that the principles represent basic moral values shared by all persons committed to morality and are thus grounded in human moral psychology. We empirically investigated the relationship of the principles to other moral and non-moral values that provide orientations in medicine. By way of comparison, we performed a similar analysis for the business & finance domain. We evaluated the perceived degree of “morality” of 14 values relevant to medicine (n1 = 317, students and professionals) and 14 values relevant to business & finance (n2 = 247, students and professionals). Ratings were made along four dimensions intended to characterize different aspects of morality. We found that compared to other values, the principles-related values received lower ratings across several dimensions that characterize morality. By interpreting our finding using a clustering and a network analysis approach, we suggest that the principles can be understood as “bridge values” that are connected both to moral and non-moral aspects of ethical dilemmas in medicine. We also found that the social domain (medicine vs. business & finance) influences the degree of perceived morality of values. Our results are in conflict with the common morality hypothesis of Beauchamp and Childress, which would imply domain-independent high morality ratings of the principles. Our findings support the suggestions by other scholars that the principles of biomedical ethics serve primarily as instruments in deliberated justifications, but lack grounding in a universal “common morality”. We propose that the specific manner in which the principles are taught and discussed in medicine – namely by referring to conflicts requiring a balancing of principles – may partly explain why the degree of perceived “morality” of the principles is lower compared to other moral values.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Luo, Qian;Nakic, Marina;Blair, R. James R.
通讯作者：
Blair, R. James R.
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Muirhead, William
通讯作者：
Muirhead, William
DOI：
10.1007/978-3-319-01369-5_6
发表时间：
2014-01-01
期刊：
EMPIRICALLY INFORMED ETHICS: MORALITY BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS
影响因子：
--
作者：
Prinz, Jesse J.
通讯作者：
Prinz, Jesse J.
影响因子：
1.4
作者：
Hine, Kristen
通讯作者：
Hine, Kristen
影响因子：
4.1
作者：
Campbell, AV
通讯作者：
Campbell, AV