著者
江口 聡
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.28, pp.19-28, 2010-09-24 (Released:2018-02-01)

After briefly reviewing the philosophical controversy on abortion, I will introduce Don Marquis' "future-like-ours" argument and its various critiques. Marquis insists that (1) it is seriously immoral to kill us because killing deprives us of our valuable futures, and (2) a human fetus has a future like ours, therefore (3) it is seriously immoral to kill a human fetus. His argument is very simple but plausible, and not easy to rebut. Possible objections to his argument are (1) an objection from negligence of the women's viewpoint, (2) a ruductio ad absurdum objection from contraception, (3) an objection from metaethical analysis of "loss" and "deprivation", (4) an objection from personal identity and non-similarity of a fetus and us, and (5) a metaethical objection from relation of value and desire. I argue that objection (5), which relies on the desire account of value, is most powerful, if we are to account for modifications and qualifications of "desire", such that desire should be interpreted as "dispositional desire" and desires should be "rational and well-informed". But these objections also have a significant burden of philosophical justification.
著者
加藤 穣
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.33, pp.41-51, 2015-09-30 (Released:2018-02-01)

The objective of this paper is to discuss the reasons that some individuals in the United States refuse to be vaccinated, focusing on those reasons usually described as "conscientious." This paper discusses current compulsory vaccination practices and the most common categories of reasons objectors in the United States give for refusing vaccinations (on medical, religious, or philosophical grounds, the latter two of which are often described as conscientious reasons). Possible ways to handle refusals are examined from the perspectives of the three categories of refusals mentioned above, the particularities of vaccination within biomedical ethics, and public health ethics discussions. Although refusals based on divergent perceptions of risk are commonly classified as refusals for philosophical (personal) reasons, objectors in this category are trying to present medical reasons, which do not convince experts. Even if experts try to persuade the public by presenting scientific evidence, there remain fundamental difficulties in convincing objectors. Refusals for religious reasons are to a certain extent established historically, but few major religious groups nowadays explicitly refuse vaccinations per se. Refusals in this category are not necessarily plainly "religious." Certain refusals on religious grounds, including those based on repugnance for the use of components derived from aborted fetuses, can be avoided by technological advances in the medical field. Refusals based on philosophical reasons should be handled in more sensitive, individualized ways than they are now. The inquiry ventured in this paper is important for Japanese society in that it deals with general questions surrounding the contradictions between the autonomy principle, which is paramount in biomedical ethics, and the compulsory schema of public health policy, and asks whether and how the different qualities or characters of decisions regarding health care and public health should be translated into practice.
著者
加藤 穣
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.33, pp.41-51, 2015

The objective of this paper is to discuss the reasons that some individuals in the United States refuse to be vaccinated, focusing on those reasons usually described as "conscientious." This paper discusses current compulsory vaccination practices and the most common categories of reasons objectors in the United States give for refusing vaccinations (on medical, religious, or philosophical grounds, the latter two of which are often described as conscientious reasons). Possible ways to handle refusals are examined from the perspectives of the three categories of refusals mentioned above, the particularities of vaccination within biomedical ethics, and public health ethics discussions. Although refusals based on divergent perceptions of risk are commonly classified as refusals for philosophical (personal) reasons, objectors in this category are trying to present medical reasons, which do not convince experts. Even if experts try to persuade the public by presenting scientific evidence, there remain fundamental difficulties in convincing objectors. Refusals for religious reasons are to a certain extent established historically, but few major religious groups nowadays explicitly refuse vaccinations per se. Refusals in this category are not necessarily plainly "religious." Certain refusals on religious grounds, including those based on repugnance for the use of components derived from aborted fetuses, can be avoided by technological advances in the medical field. Refusals based on philosophical reasons should be handled in more sensitive, individualized ways than they are now. The inquiry ventured in this paper is important for Japanese society in that it deals with general questions surrounding the contradictions between the autonomy principle, which is paramount in biomedical ethics, and the compulsory schema of public health policy, and asks whether and how the different qualities or characters of decisions regarding health care and public health should be translated into practice.
著者
金谷 光子 尾曽 直美
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.22, pp.93-102, 2004

Because there may be limitations in the scientific method of discovering and treating patients' "problems," the narrative approach has become increasingly important. These limitations have been pointed out by scholars from various fields. Hermeneutic view point has it that clinical knowledge is mostly based on the doctor's assumption and differs greatly from the world in which the patients live their lives. What should those in the nursing profession choose as a means of understanding patients? There is a Social Constructionist view that understanding is obtained through "language." When the sick patient tells about the world in which he/she lives in certain words, he/she has decided not to tell in other words. Then the patient's world appears before us as he/she tells. The patient organizes his/her world through telling as well. After over three years of interviewing with Ms. K, who was stuck with her mal-treating mother, we verified what telling brought to her, and how it was connected with understanding herself. Listening to Ms. K's narrative was linked to understanding her world in which she lived her life. It also brought a certain order to her confused history. As a result, her regrettable past came to have possibility for the future, altering her mentality so much as to make it possible for her to say "I have done my best" and "I have been living so well."
著者
菅原 潤
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.24, pp.21-30, 2006-10-24 (Released:2018-02-01)

The German philosopher Juergen Habermas, who emphasizes the significance of communicative rationality in constructing social theories, has recently made active proposals in bioethics. To the extent that he insists on duties analogous to moral ones with regard to the moral status of animals, he remains in step with the opinions of some English-speaking ethical theorists. Indeed his acceptance of communications between men and other animals is consistent in part with the position of Peter Singer, who represents such opinions and objects to differentiating between humans and animals with reference to moral duties. However, Habermas fears that valuing various lives only for their sensible capacities, regardless of special differences, might result in assignment of priority to the lives of healthy higher animals over those of handicapped babies, and therefore maintains that we are after all different from the other animals in moral status. This conclusion by Habermas is built on the philosophical edifice of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, the author of the Dialectic of enlightenment, in accordance with the idea that we should not instrumentalize the living activities of humen beings. This is why he insists that research in reproductive medicine should be carefully considered. Accordingly, his attitude toward bioethics results in a kind of anthropocentrism, though we must not overlook the need for expansion of communicative relasions between humans and other animal species. The opinions of Habermas on bioethics have affected the ethics of nature, as outlined by Angelika Krebs and Martin Seel under the influence of Frankfurt School in the contemporary Germany.
著者
上野 哲
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.22, pp.1-6, 2004-10-18 (Released:2018-02-01)

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to making a better life in leprosariums by providing viewpoints to change leprosariums as isolation hospitals into communities of living. Although it is very hard for many residents who are advanced age and without any relatives to go off of leprosariums, the court found the isolation policy for recoverists of leprosy illegality in May 2001. Leprosariums are obliged to change, for example, homes for the aged. What I do not try to do here is to impeach someone. I make proposals, however, based on the interview to the Niirada branch school of Oku senior high school students in the Nagashima-aiseien leprosarium. The subjects of the interview meet the following two requirements: firstly they have been expected a remarkable activity out of leprosariums from their boyhood; and, secondly, they live in leprosariums again at present after the living out of leprosariums. As a consequence of the analysis, I propose attaching importance to the high regard for resident's self respect under the isolation policy and the understanding of the human relations in leprosariums, in addition to the request for substantial medical service, to better the present condition of leprosariums.
著者
児玉 正幸
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.21, pp.167-175, 2003

The medical staff of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Kagoshima University was considering plans to conduct clinical trials to test the embryos of Duchenne muscular dystrophy patients, but they were unable to gain approval from the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Groups and organizations that support the handicapped pointed out that there are problems with trying to make life and death decisions based on such tests. They argued that such testing implies a desire to lower the level of social services for the handicapped and to inflame the public's prejudices. In other words, the tests are considered as another example of discrimination towards families with a history of genetic disease, in the tradition of discrimination in jobs and marriage. However, as long as the freedom of the clients (the parents of the unborn child) for whom the tests are conducted is preserved, and their right to decide what to do with the results is protected, this reproduction medical technology does not threaten the constitutional rights of the handicapped, as provided in Articles 13, 14, and 25 of the Japanese Constitution. Allowing parents to decide whether to give birth to a handicapped child is not inconsistent with a policy aimed at improving welfare services.
著者
新山 喜嗣
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.33, pp.30-40, 2015-09-30 (Released:2018-02-01)

We are afraid that our non-existence continues forever after our death. Lucretius spoke on this fear, stating, "Because no one fears the eternal nonentity which is in front of our birth, it isn't also necessary to fear the eternal nonentity in our after death," as a way to convince people to be rid of this fear. This statement is called Lucretius' "symmetry argument". Yet despite this, almost all modern debaters have insisted that the relation between pre-birth non-existence and post-mortem non-existence is asymmetrical. The main purpose of this article concerns the following two points about this statement of asymmetry; namely, that this statement is premised on a specific view of metaphysics and that the meaning of the claim of asymmetry must be examined from a viewpoint of metaphysics as it relates to time and the world. In this study, I first pointed out that the opinion of debaters included the assumption that we ourselves could identify non-existence. Next, I pointed out that the disputants would actually be insisting that the dead continue to exist in some form. Third, I examined which specific theories on time from twentieth-century analytic philosophy suited the disputants' opinion, and found that no ideas on time were entirely consistent with their view. Lastly, I examined non-existence before birth and non-existence post-mortem from a viewpoint of the possible worlds semantics of analytic philosophy. From this, both non-existences are located in their own possible worlds, and in addition to this, there is the real world in which the subject is alive. My examination concluded that there is a difference in existence qualification between a possible world and the real world, but that there was no such difference between two possible worlds. This suggests that the relationship between pre-birth non-existence and post-mortem non-existence is neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical.
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
村岡 潔
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.166-178, 2001-10-20 (Released:2018-02-01)

We usually take it for granted that an event that some people fall ill has no connection with another event that the others can keep healthy, because we generally judge the matter from an atomistic or individualistic daily life standpoint. Many people believe that the main cause of illness is their bad lifestyle such as drinking, smoking or working too much so that the sick only have themselves to blame. This popular idea is called "victim-blaming ideology." However, from a macroscopic mass standpoint, we can find that healthy people are dependent upon the sick. That is, for people to be healthy there must be people who are sick instead of the healthy. This paper is an introduction to this paradoxical idea. First, I reconsidered the social function of the medical diagnosis of an illness and found it is to divide all the members of a society into two groups : one that is ill and the other that is not (that is., healthy). This means that the healthy cannot be healthy without the sick unfortunately being sick instead. This substitution is a kind of altruism. "Ri-tagyo", a Buddhist encouragement of altruism also supports this idea. Secondly, some epidemiological statistics also support this altruistic relationship. Finally, we concluded that sick people are neither useless nor a nuisance, but they play a great role in society because of their being-ill altruism. Healthy people, therefore, must show extreme kindness to those who are sick. This act of kindness may be an ethical origin of clinical medicine.