Статья 'Делиберативная модель биоэтики: гуманитарная конвергенция или социальная технология для либеральных сообществ? ' - журнал 'Философия и культура' - NotaBene.ru
по
Journal Menu
> Issues > Rubrics > About journal > Authors > About the Journal > Requirements for publication > Editorial board > Peer-review process > Policy of publication. Aims & Scope. > Article retraction > Ethics > Online First Pre-Publication > Copyright & Licensing Policy > Digital archiving policy > Open Access Policy > Article Processing Charge > Article Identification Policy > Plagiarism check policy > Editorial collegium
Journals in science databases
About the Journal

MAIN PAGE > Back to contents
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:

Делиберативная модель биоэтики: гуманитарная конвергенция или социальная технология для либеральных сообществ?

Lanovsky Mikhail Feliksovich

Educator, the department of Philosophy and Sociology, Russian State University of Physical Education, Sports, Youth and Tourism

115582, Russia, Moscow, Orekhovyi Bulvar 10-2

lanomf@mail.ru
Other publications by this author
 

 

DOI:

10.7256/2454-0757.2016.2.17219

Received:

07-12-2015


Published:

17-03-2016


Abstract: This article is dedicated to the examination of the modern bioethics from the perspective of its methodology and public practice. The author briefly describes the history of emergence of bioethics and gives characteristic to its current state. Initially, bioethics was forming as an area of knowledge tightly linked to the academic philosophy, philosophy of medicine and natural science, and in addition to that based on the practices of discussion. However, in the last two decades bioethics is substantially growing under the influence of new actors – socio-political and economic structures. The discussion processes become a dominant way of solution of the acute problems of biomedicine, being realized among broadest audience. The author illustrates how the socio-political procedure of deliberation becomes a methodology of the modern bioethics and supersedes its philosophical concept.  At the same time, two modi of deliberation established within the socio-political sphere, are suggested for the interpretation of the processes in the modern bioethics: “democratic deliberation” and “authoritarian deliberation”. The author demonstrates what flaws are hidden in the “democratic deliberation” and the ideology of consensus, promoted in bioethics.


References
1. Abelson, Julia; Blacksher, Erika A.; Li, Kathy K.; Boesveld, Sarah E.; and Goold, Susan D. (2013) Public Deliberation in Health Policy and Bioethics: Mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field// Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article5. URL: http//www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss1/art5 (data obrashcheniya:25.05.2015)
2. Baogang He and Mark E. Warren (2011). Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in the Chinese Political Development// Perspectives on Politics, 9, pp. 269-289 URL: http://journals.cambrige.org/article_S1537592711000892 (data obrashcheniya: 06.06.2015)
3. Khabermas Yu. Tekhnicheskii progress i sotsial'nyi zhiznennyi mir/ Khabermas Yu. Tekhnika i nauka kak «ideologiya». M.: Praksis, 2007. S. 126.
4. A companion to bioethics/edited by Helga Khuse and Peter Singer. – 2nd ed. 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. P. 3.
5. Tsit. po: Bioetika. Voprosy i otvety. M.: Izdatel'stvo Progress-Traditsiya, 2005. S. 5.
6. Tishchenko P.D. Bio-vlast' v epokhu biotekhnologii. M.: IFRAN, 2001. S. 126.
7. Progress in Bioethics: science, policy and politics/ ed. by Jonathan D. Moreno and Sam Berger. London: MIT press, 2012. P. 219.
8. Kurlenkova A.S. Meditsinskaya antropologiya i bioetika v SShA i Rossii: istoriograficheskii i sotsiokul'turnyi analiz. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchenoi stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk. M., 2013. S. 122.
9. Griffin Trotter. Bioethics and Deliberative Democracy: Five Warnings from Hobbes. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 2006, 31, p. 238.
10. Khabermas Yu. Otnosheniya mezhdu sistemoi i zhiznennym mirom v usloviyakh pozdnego kapitalizma// THESIS, 1993, VYP. 2. S. 128.
11. Tishchenko P.D. Ugroza mnozhestvennosti i ideya gumanitarnoi ekspertizy//Bioetika i gumanitarnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 2. M.: IFRAN, 2008. S. 112.
12. Savvina O.V. Eticheskie problemy klonirovaniya cheloveka i zhivotnykh // Psikhologiya i Psikhotekhnika. - 2015. - 3. - C. 304 - 312. DOI: 10.7256/2070-8955.2015.3.14456.
Link to this article

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.


Other our sites:
Official Website of NOTA BENE / Aurora Group s.r.o.