Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:42:00.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vulnerability

A Key Principle for Global Bioethics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

Abstract:

Collating the concepts of vulnerability through five regional perspectives on bioethics from the United States, Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia, this article proposes a means of integration between the different approaches in order to seek a theoretical and normative basis for the field of global bioethics. It argues that only through opening continuous, critical, and self-critical dialogue within the international bioethical community will it be possible to achieve a sufficiently global understanding of vulnerability that is capable of identifying the means needed for addressing the conditions that leave certain groups and individuals more susceptible to “wounding” than others.

Type
Special Section: Responsibility, Vulnerability, Dignity, and Humanity
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Jonsen, AR. The Birth of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1998.Google ScholarPubMed

2. Garret, JR, Jotterand, F, Ralson, DC, eds. The Development of Bioethics in the United States. New York/London: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Myser, C, ed. Bioethics around the Globe. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Holm, S, Williams-Jones, B. Global bioethics—myth or reality? BMC Medical Ethics 2006;7:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

5. Wolinsky, H. Bioethics goes global: A growing coalition of scientists, ethicists and wealthy benefactors is turning its attention to global health problems. EMBO Reports 2007;8(6):534–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Ten Have, H, Gordijn, B, eds. Handbook of Global Bioethics. New York: Springer; 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Takala, T. What is wrong with global bioethics? On the limitations of the four principles approach. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2001;10(1):72–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Marshall, P, Koenig, B. Accounting for culture in a globalized bioethics. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2004;32(2):252–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Engelhardt, HT, ed. Global Bioethics: The Collapse of Consensus. Salem, MA: M&M Scrivener Press; 2006.Google Scholar

10. Solbakk, JH. The principle of respect for human vulnerability and global bioethics. In: Chadwick, R, ten Have, H, Meslin, E, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Health Care Ethics: Core and Emerging Issues. Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/Washington, DC: SAGE; 2011:228–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Ten Have, H. Vulnerability—a challenge to contemporary bioethics. In: Porto, D, Schlemper, B, Martins, GZ, Cunha, T, Hellmann, F, eds. Bioética: Saúde, Pesquisa Educação. Brasília: CFM/SBB; 2014:3748.Google Scholar

12. Vulnerability, n. Oxford Dictionaries Online. London: Oxford University Press; 2014; available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vulnerable?q=vulnerability (last accessed 2 Feb 2015).

13. International Monetary Fund (IMF). Debt and Reserve-Related Indicators of External Vulnerability. Washington, DC: IMF; 2000; available at http://www.imf.org/external/np/pdr/debtres (last accessed 14 Aug 2014).

14. Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). What Is Vulnerability? What Is Resilience? Information Pamphlet. Fiji: SOPAC; 2002; available at http://www.vulnerabilityindex.net/Files/Vulnerability%20Pamphlet.pdf (last accessed 2 Feb 2015).

15. Schroeder, D, Gefenas, E. Vulnerability: Too vague and too broad? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2009;18(2):113–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. Rogers, W, Mackenzie, CA, Dodds, SM. Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2013;5(2):1138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Selleti, JC, Garrafa, V. As Raízes Cristãs da Autonomia. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes; 2005.Google Scholar

18. United States of America, Belmont Report. The Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research; 1978; available at http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html (last accessed 2 Jul 2014).

19. See note 18, Belmont Report 1978, at Part C: Applications C. 3.

20. See note 18, Belmont Report 1978, at Part C: Applications C. 3.

21. Hurst, SA. Vulnerability in research and health care; describing the elephant in the room? Bioethics 2008;22(4):191202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

22. Levine, C, Faden, RR, Grady, CD, Hammerschmidt, LE, Sugarman, J. The limitations of “vulnerability” as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 2004;4(3):44–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

23. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 7th ed.New York: Oxford; 2013, at 268.Google Scholar

24. Macklin, R. A global ethics approach to vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2012;4(2):6481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. Harvey, JC. André Hellegers, the Kennedy Institute, and the Development of Bioethics: The American-European Connection. In: Garret, JR, Jotterand, F, Ralson, DC, eds. The Development of Bioethics in the United States. New York/London: Springer; 2013:3754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26. Rendtorff, JD. Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability—towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2002;5(3):235–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. Andorno, R. Human dignity and human rights as a common ground for a global bioethics. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2009 Jun;34(3):223–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

28. Annas, GJ. Human rights and American bioethics: Resistance is futile. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2010;19(1):133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Patrão-Neves, MC. Sentidos da vulnerabilidade: característica, condição, princípio. Revista Brasileira de Bioética 2007;2(2):157–72.Google Scholar

30. See note 10, Solbakk 2011, at 228–38.

31. Solbakk, JH. Vulnerabilidad: ¿un principio fútil o útil en la ética de la asistencia sanitaria? Revista Redbioética/UNESCO 2011;2(3):89101.Google Scholar

32. See note 26, Rendtorff 2002, at 235–44.

33. See note 10, Solbakk 2011, at 228–38.

34. See note 11, ten Have 2014, at 48.

35. Mainetti, JA. The discourses of bioethics in Latin America. In: Pessini, L, de Barchifontaine, CP, Stepke, FL, eds. Ibero-American Bioethics: History and Perspectives. New York/London: Springer; 2010:21–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36. See note 35, Mainetti 2010, at 25.

37. Tealdi, JC, ed. Diccionario latinoamericano de bioética. Bogotá: UNESCO/Red Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Bioética/Universidad Nacional de Colombia; 2008:28.Google Scholar

38. Garrafa, V, Prado, MM. Tentativas de mudanças na Declaração de Helsinki: fundamentalismo econômico, imperialismo ético e controle social. Cad Saude Publica 2001;17:1489–96, at 1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

39. See note 38, Garrafa, Prado 2001, at 1491.

40. Schramm, FR. A Saúde é um direito ou um dever? Autocrítica da saúde pública. Revista Brasileira Bioética 2006;2(2):187200.Google Scholar

41. Kottow, MH. Vulnerability: What kind of principle is it? Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2004;7:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Lorenzo C. La vulnerabilité sociale en recherche clinique en Amérique Latine: Une étude du potentiel de protection conféré par les documents normatifs de la région [doctoral thesis]. Sherbrooke: Université de Sherbrooke; 2006.

43. Lorenzo, C, Garrafa, V, Solbakk, JH, Vidal, S. Hidden risks associated with clinical trials in developing countries. Journal of Medical Ethics 2010;36(2):111–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

44. Do Nascimento WF. Por uma vida descolonizada: diálogos entre a bioética de intervenção e os estudos sobre a colonialidade [doctoral thesis]. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília; 2010.

45. Do Nascimento, WF, Martorell, LB. The intervention bioethics in decolonial contexts. Revista Bioética 2013;21(3):423–31, at 425.Google Scholar

46. Gbadegesin, S. Bioethics and culture: An African perspective. Bioethics 1993;7(2/3):257–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

47. Tangwa, GB. The HIV/AIDS pandemic, African traditional values and the search for a vaccine in Africa. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2002;27(2):217–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

48. Murove, FM. African bioethics: An exploratory discourse. Journal for the Study of Religion 2005;18(1):1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49. Mbũgua, K. Is there an African bioethics? Eubios Journal of Asian and International Bioethics 2009;19(1):35.Google Scholar

50. Behrens, KG. Towards an indigenous African bioethics. African Journal of Bioethics and Law 2013;6(1):32–5.Google Scholar

51. Agulanna, C. The requirement of informed consent research ethics. European Journal of Scientific Research 2010;44(2):204–19.Google Scholar

52. Metz, T. African and Western moral theories in context. Developing World Bioethics 2010;10(1):4958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

53. See note 49, Mbũgua 2009, at 3–5.

54. See note 48, Murove 2005, at 16.36.

55. See note 50, Behrens 2013, at 32–5.

56. See note 50, Behrens 2013, at 34.

57. See note 46, Gbadegesin 1993, at 257–62.

58. Carvalho C. A importância da Bioética na África Lusófona: Perspectivas de contribuições do Brasil e Portugal. VI Encontro Luso-Brasileiro de Bioética e I Encontro Lusófono de Bioética, Salvador/BA, Brasil; 2010.

59. Langlois, A. The UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights: Perspectives from Kenya and South Africa. Health Care Analysis 2008;16:3951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

60. Yu, K. The alleged Asian values and their implications for bioethics. In: Song, SY, Koo, YM, Macer, DRJ, eds. Asian Bioethics in the 21th Century. Christchurch, New Zealand: Eubios Ethics Institute; 2003:232–7.Google Scholar

61. Bagheri, A. The impact of the UNESCO declaration in Asian and global bioethics. Asian Bioethics Review 2011;3(2):5264.Google Scholar

62. Sakamoto, H. Toward a new “global bioethics.” Bioethics 1999;13:191–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

63. Tai, MC, Lin, CS. Developing a culturally relevant bioethics for Asian people. Journal of Medical Ethics 2001;27:51–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

64. Pembroke, N. Life-threatening illness, hope, and spiritual meaning-making: Buddhist and Christian perspectives. EJAIB 2009;19(1):2731.Google Scholar

65. See note 64, Pembroke 2009, at 27–31.

66. See note 62, Sakamoto 1999.

67. See note 62, Sakamoto

68. See note 63, Tai, Lin 2001, at 51–4.

69. Akabayashi, A, Kodama, S, Slingsby, BT. Is Asian bioethics really the solution? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2008;17(3):270–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

70. Hongladarom, S. Universalism and particularism debate in “Asian bioethics.” Asian Bioethics Review 2008;Inaugural Edition:114.Google Scholar

71. De Castro, L. Is there an Asian bioethics? Bioethics 1999;13:227–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

72. Shiva V. Bioethics: A Third World issue. Food and Community Fellows 2000 July 6; available at http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/shiva.html (last accessed 8 Feb 2015).

73. UNESCO. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. 2015 Oct 19; available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/ (last accessed 8 Feb 2015).

74. See note 31, Solbakk 2011, at 98.

75. See note 11, ten Have 2014, at 46–8.

76. See note 49, Mbũgua 2009, at 4.