著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.16-30, 2001-10-20 (Released:2018-02-01)

---

In the argument of bioethics, more often in the public argument than in the academic one, the concept of "Dignity" has been used as a protector of a human's irreplaceable value. For example, "Dignity of Life", "Human Dignity", " Dignity of Individual", and "Death with Dignity". But in many cases, the various terms of "Dignity" are ambiguous and at times oppose one another. One main reason for this is that the word "Life" has various meanings. In Japanese, at least four words, "seimei", "seikatsu", "jinsei", and "inochi" (each has rather different implications) are equivalents to the word "life". In this paper, I have reflected on the concept of "Dignity" in Human Life in some topics of bioethics, classifying the meaning of "Life" in each case. The concept of "Dignity" has a rather ambivalent character. On the one hand, it works as a protector of a human's irreplaceble life in various dimensions, such as fundamental "seimei", individual personal "jinsei", or the interrelational "inochi". But on the other hand, it can be exclusive priciple that devalue certain forms of human life as unworthy of human dignity and so cut off the possibility of encounter and self-awareness of "inochi-beings" in advance. Today, we cannot be too cautious of the danger when the exclusive principle of the concept of "Dignity" prevails and suppresses the quest for Dignity itself.

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

京都大学文学研究科宗教学専修

雑誌

宗教学研究室紀要 (ISSN:18801900)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.7, pp.28-42, 2010-12-03

---

本稿は、ウィリアム・R.ラフルーア氏が2009年2月21日に京都大学で行った講演、‘Peripheralized in America: Hans Jonas as Philosopher and Bioethicist'「アメリカにおける周縁的地位―哲学者および生命倫理学者としてのハンス・ヨナス―」(以下「講演」と略記)において、コメンテータの一人を務めた筆者のコメントを中心に文章化したものである。本号にはラフルーア氏の講演原稿全文が掲載されているので、コメントの対象となった氏の講演内容についての記述、要約は必要最小限にとどめ、筆者が講演当日に用意したメモに基づいて、コメント内容を文章化した。したがって、本稿は当日のコメントそのものの再現ではないが、筆者の提示している論点は基本的に当日のそれと同じである。ただし、バイオエシックス(生命倫理学)の歴史やこの分野でのヨナスの論考に不慣れな読者のために、若干の補足説明を加えた。また、提示した論点の相互関係についての記述には、当日のコメントでは触れなかったが、後になって筆者が気づいた点がいくらか含まれていること、コメントの最後でラフルーア氏に問いかけた問い(現代の生命倫理の議論においてヨナスのような声がどのように生かされうるか)についての筆者自身の考えを、本稿の末尾で述べさせていただいたことをお断りしておく。

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

科学技術社会論学会

雑誌

科学技術社会論研究 (ISSN:13475843)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.19, pp.22-31, 2021-05-20 (Released:2022-05-21)

参考文献数

8

著者

安藤 泰至 清水 哲郎

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.36, pp.77-79, 2018 (Released:2022-07-20)

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.29, pp.85-86, 2011-09-30 (Released:2018-02-01)

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

日本医学哲学・倫理学会

雑誌

医学哲学 医学倫理 (ISSN:02896427)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.23, pp.77-86, 2005-10-26 (Released:2018-02-01)

---

The purpose of this paper is to give a new perspective to human illness. A good deal of discussion has been held on the difference between "illness" and "disease", especially from the viewpoints of medical anthropology and medicine for total health. However, no perspective yet adequately describes and appreciates "illness" as a complete experience forming part of human life. One problem with developing such a perspective is the concept of "illness" itself. It is well known that we sometimes achieve mental or spiritual growth through our experience of illness. But we usually say we "grow through our struggle with illness", instead of saying we "grow through our illness". When we use the first expression, illness is considered something to be overcome. But illness has another aspect, which Gabriel Marcel called "mystere", in contrast to "probleme". "Probleme" is that which we can analyze, answer to, and take measures to deal with from outside. In contrast, we can only "live" mystere by ourselves, and in mystere, questing itself is at the same time a kind of answer to it. So, as we can learn from Buddhism, we must view illness as an essential human life-experience having a secret treasure. A second problem concerns the limitation of the frameworks of medical professions that use the term "illness". From the perspective set out above, these frameworks are too narrow to fully describe and appreciate our experiences of illness. In other words, these frameworks tend to reduce the "mystere" of illness to the "probleme" of it. We must therefore focus carefully on the narratives of patients who live their own mystere of illness and endeavor to understand them from the viewpoint of "wisdom of illness", which means going beyond the framework offered by medical professionalism.

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.31, pp.1-17, 2014-03-31 (Released:2019-08-08)

---

The field called ‘bioethics’ emerged in 1960s as a response to the new ethical problems given rise to by advances in medical technology. Though such medical technology has made us possible to control our life and enlarge our choice, it also has imposed us to question the essence of human existence: What is life, what is death, what are human beings? The mainstream of bioethics as a discipline, however, has been committed to check ethical problems in advance and has functioned as a complementary to the social acceptance of new medical technologies, instead of considering critically and reflectively the system of biomedical manipulation of human life from religious perspective in wider sense. In this paper I will examine how deeply bioethical problems are involved in the fundamental questions of ‘inochi’ (life and death) through comprehensive analysis of some major topics of bioethics, assisted reproductive technology, prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, euthanasia or death with dignity, and organ transplantation from brain death donors. It would reveal how the seemingly new problems caused by a huge development in medical science and technology are rooted in the more fundamental questions of ‘inochi’ that has been addressed by religion and philosophy through the ages.

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.28, pp.51-58, 2011 (Released:2019-09-18)

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.25, pp.37-53, 2008 (Released:2019-09-18)

---

The first purpose of this article is to articulate some different approaches on the issue of “Religion and Bioethics”, and to clarify the relationship between them. Roughly classified, there are three different approaches to the issue : discussions on bioethics based on the specific religious viewpoints, discussions on the influence of religious tradition to the bioethical debate in each society, and discussions on the possibility of spiritual bioethics without resorting to any specific religion. There are some different meanings or dimensions in both the words “religion” and “bioethics”, and it is why there are such different approaches to “Religion and Bioethics”, focusing on the different dimensions of this theme. Secondly, we want to examine the relationship between religious traditions and scientific technology and reject the over-simplified idea of religion as a “brake” which stops the development of science and technology. It is necessary to distinguish between the problems that we can address within the limit of secular ethics, and the problems in which we need to refer to religious or spiritual viewpoints. The most important role of religion is to propose such questions often tended to be ignored in secular bioethics, rather than to give an absolute answer to them.

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

宗教哲学会

雑誌

宗教哲学研究 (ISSN:02897105)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.13, pp.59-76, 1996 (Released:2019-03-20)

---

Sigmund Freud often compared the work of psychoanalysis to that of archeology. He was fully aware of the coessentiality between his aspiration for the investigation into the depth of psyche and his personal addiction to archeology. In this paper we grasp Freud’s hermeneutics as an “archeology”, so the comparison of psychoanalysis to archeology turns out to be essential rather than expedient for him. The work of psychoanalysis consists in the retroaction to the traumatic event that caused the present symptom and the re-experience of it under the more developed and more matured system of psyche. This work makes one’s bygone the past in the full sense, and enables one’s present life sound. When we read his writings about religion, especially Totem and Tabu (1913) and Moses and Monotheism (1939), from this point of view, we can find why and how Freud analysed his own cultural and religious tradition, and mourned for its loss by means of the reconstruction of the “historical truth” from the damaged stories.

著者

田坂 さつき 島薗 進 一ノ瀬 正樹 石井 哲也 香川 知晶 土井 健司 安藤 泰至 松原 洋子 柳原 良江 鈴木 晶子 横山 広美

出版者

立正大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2019-04-01

---

本研究は、日本学術会議第24期連携会員哲学委員会「いのちと心を考える」分科会委員のうち9名が参画し、同分科会委員長田坂さつきを研究代表者とする。本研究には、政府が主催する会議などの委員を歴任した宗教学者島薗進、倫理学者香川知晶に加えて、医学・医療領域の提言のまとめ役でもあり、ゲノム編集による生物医学研究の黎明期から先導的に発言してきた石井哲也も参画している。医学・医療領域におけるゲノム編集に関する提言に対して、哲学・倫理の観点からゲノム編集の倫理規範の構築を目指す提言を作成し、ゲノム編集の法規制の根拠となる倫理的論拠を構築することを目指す。

著者

安藤 泰至

出版者

日本宗教学会

雑誌

宗教研究 (ISSN:03873293)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.80, no.2, pp.293-312, 2006

---

現代において「スピリチュアリティ」という語は、分野によっていくつかの異なった意味、文脈において用いられている。それらを性急に標準化しようとしたり、特定の分野における定義を固定化したりすることは、この概念がもっている豊かな可能性を損なってしまいかねない。ここではむしろ、この概念に見られるさまざまな二重性こそが、この語が用いられるそれぞれ異なった文脈における共通の背景を浮かび上がらせてくることに注目し、「スピリチュアリティ」という概念を「時代のことば」にしているそうした状況を、それぞれの理論的・実践的課題に即した形で受け取りなおすことによって、各々のスピリチュアリティ概念やその理解が内側から開かれていく可能性を探ってみたい。そのためには、「スピリチュアリティ」という概念を用いる各々の専門職や学問・実践領域の間の越境によって、特定の領域の中に閉じられがちな(異なった)スピリチュアリティ概念やその理解を、生死をめぐる具体的な課題の中で突き合わせる必要があろう。