Organ allocation and patient responsibility: Re-examining the concept of responsibility in light of the thought of Emmanuel Levinas.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A persisting, unresolved debate in the bioethics literature was the impetus behind this work. The focus chosen was the need for replacement organs for those whose illnesses appear to be related to addiction to alcohol or tobacco. The initial section thus examines the more factual aspects of both addiction and organ transplantation. The history of organ transplantation is explored, focusing particularly on the attempts to frame criteria for reception of the scarce organs, and the concomitant attempts to increase the supply of donated organs; neither issue has been solved, although there is much research being focused on technical solutions in particular, for those awaiting scarce organs. Within the bioethics literature, the issue of criteria for the reception of scarce organs has tended to be viewed as a question of justice. Thus this work peruses the varying conceptions of justice which appear within that literature, in an attempt to ascertain whether their applications have involved differing results for the population in question. In fact, there appears to be little difference in the outcomes amongst those ascribing to one or other of the meta-ethical theories. In contrast to the extensive treatment of issues of justice within bioethics, the concept of responsibility is largely unexamined. This dearth suggested that an historical perusal of the concept of responsibility within a number of the disciplines to which bioethics turns would be appropriate. In the end, the thought of Emmanuel Levinas appeared to offer the most fruitful approach to the topic under consideration. His work appears to be a profound challenge to rethink our relationships to others, as well as our approach to justice. Central to that thought is what Levinas calls the relationship of the one-for-the-other; the philosopher suggests that a response of profound responsibility for the other before one is called forth by the visage of that "wounded" other. The question of justice does arise for Levinas, since in the eyes of the other before one are all the others; thus needs must be weighed and choices made. The benchmark for this justice, however, is the relationship of the one-for-the-other: real justice implies, not a faceless, objectified totality, but an attention to the needs of all---the very antithesis of the utilitarian approach so prevalent within much of North American bioethics. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».