The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation

This article analyses the problem formulation regarding new technologies and their ethical and legal limits. Therefore, in first place it assesses the contributions of two of the most important contemporary jus-philosophers on the topic, Jürgen Habermas and Ronald Dworkin, and a possible dialog of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor Principal: Neves Pinto, Gerson
Formato: Artículo (Article)
Lenguaje:Español (Spanish)
Publicado: Universidad Militar Nueva Granada 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:http://hdl.handle.net/10654/33496
id ir-10654-33496
recordtype dspace
institution Universidad Militar Nueva Granada
collection DSpace
language Español (Spanish)
topic Ethics
bioethics
genetics
contingency
principles
Ética
bioética
genética
contingencia
principios
Ética
Bioética
Genética
Contingência
Princípios
spellingShingle Ethics
bioethics
genetics
contingency
principles
Ética
bioética
genética
contingencia
principios
Ética
Bioética
Genética
Contingência
Princípios
Neves Pinto, Gerson
The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
description This article analyses the problem formulation regarding new technologies and their ethical and legal limits. Therefore, in first place it assesses the contributions of two of the most important contemporary jus-philosophers on the topic, Jürgen Habermas and Ronald Dworkin, and a possible dialog of these two with the one who was one of the founders of the classical ethics, Aristotle. Subsequently, it tries to answer the question of how can we understand the idea that Dworkin called “moral dislocation” between chance and choice or what Habermas called “expanded contingency”? Finally, it discusses how the Aristotelian distinction between technical and ethical-moral deliberation can collaborate to form a better understanding of the issues concerning the decisions and choices to make by moral agents (such as patients, family members or judges) and the type of technical deliberation done by the doctor and the healthcare professional.
format Artículo (Article)
author Neves Pinto, Gerson
author_facet Neves Pinto, Gerson
author_sort Neves Pinto, Gerson
title The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
title_short The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
title_full The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
title_fullStr The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
title_full_unstemmed The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
title_sort deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation
publisher Universidad Militar Nueva Granada
publishDate 2014
url http://hdl.handle.net/10654/33496
_version_ 1712101885391929344
spelling ir-10654-334962020-01-08T19:13:47Z The deliberation methods involved in bioethics: the technical and the ethical-moral deliberation Las formas de deliberación envueltas en la bioética: la deliberación técnica y la ético-moral Os métodos de deliberação envolvidos em bioética: a técnica ea deliberação ético-moral Neves Pinto, Gerson Ethics bioethics genetics contingency principles Ética bioética genética contingencia principios Ética Bioética Genética Contingência Princípios This article analyses the problem formulation regarding new technologies and their ethical and legal limits. Therefore, in first place it assesses the contributions of two of the most important contemporary jus-philosophers on the topic, Jürgen Habermas and Ronald Dworkin, and a possible dialog of these two with the one who was one of the founders of the classical ethics, Aristotle. Subsequently, it tries to answer the question of how can we understand the idea that Dworkin called “moral dislocation” between chance and choice or what Habermas called “expanded contingency”? Finally, it discusses how the Aristotelian distinction between technical and ethical-moral deliberation can collaborate to form a better understanding of the issues concerning the decisions and choices to make by moral agents (such as patients, family members or judges) and the type of technical deliberation done by the doctor and the healthcare professional. En este artículo, se analiza la formulación del problema acerca de las nuevas tecnologías y de sus límites éticos y jurídicos. Por lo tanto, en un primer momento se evalúan las contribuciones de dos de los más importantes jus-filósofos contemporáneos sobre el tema, Jürgen Habermas y Ronald Dworkin, y un posible diálogo de estos dos últimos con aquél que fue uno de los fundadores de la ética clásica, Aristóteles. Posteriormente, intentamos responder a la cuestión de ¿cómo podríamos comprender esa idea que Dworkin denomina «dislocamiento moral» entre el azar y elección o como lo denomina Habermas la «ampliación de contingencia»? Finalmente, se analiza cómo la distinción aristotélica entre deliberación técnica y la deliberación ético-moral puede colaborar para una mejor comprensión de las cuestiones acerca de las decisiones y elecciones a hacer por los agentes morales (como pacientes, familiares o jueces) y el tipo de deliberación técnica hecha por el médico y el profesional sanitario. Este artigo analisa a formulação de problema em relação a novas tecnologias e seus limites éticos e legais. Portanto, em primeiro lugar, avalia as contribuições de dois dos mais importantes contemporânea jus-filósofos sobre o tema, Jürgen Habermas e Ronald Dworkin, e um possível diálogo desses dois com aquele que foi um dos fundadores da ética clássica, Aristóteles. Posteriormente, ele tenta responder à questão de como podemos entender a idéia de que Dworkin chamou de “deslocamento moral” entre o acaso ea escolha ou o que Habermas chamou de “contingência expandido”? Finalmente, discute-se como a distinção aristotélica entre técnica e deliberação éticomoral pode colaborar para formar uma melhor compreensão das questões relacionadas com as decisões e escolhas a fazer pelos agentes morais (como pacientes, familiares ou juízes) eo tipo de técnica deliberação feito pelo médico eo profissional de saúde 2014-06-14 2020-01-08T19:13:47Z 2020-01-08T19:13:47Z info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/dere/article/view/780 10.18359/dere.780 http://hdl.handle.net/10654/33496 spa https://revistas.unimilitar.edu.co/index.php/dere/article/view/780/532 /*ref*/Aristóteles. (2002). Ética a Nicómaco. 8 ed. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales. Aristóteles (1997), Éthique à Eudème, traduction de Vianney Décarie, Paris, Editorial: Librairie Philosophique Vrin. Aristóteles. (1973). Mouvement des animaux, texte établi et traduit par P. Louis. Paris : Les Belles Lettres. Ballesteros, J. (2001). Manual de bioética. Barcelona: Editorial Ariel S.A. Beauchamp, T & Childress, J., (1.979). Principio de Ética Médica. USA: Masson. Descartes, R. (1952). Discours de la méthode, 6ème partie, Œuvres et Lettres. Paris : Gallimard. Dworkin, R. (2003). Virtud soberana. Barcelona: Paidós. Engelhardt, T. (2003). Pluralismo moral e metafísico. Repensar a santidade da vida e da dignidade humanas. InGarrafa, V. & Pessini, L. (Org.). Bioética: poder e injustiça. São Paulo: Loyola. Habermas, J. (2002). El futuro de la naturaleza humana. ¿Hacia una eugenesia liberal? Barcelona: Paidós. Labarriere, J. L. (2005). La condition animale: études sur Aristote et les stoïciens. Louvain-LaNeuve :Éditions Peeters. Legendre, P. (1985). L’inestimable objet de la transgression, étude sur le principe généalogique en Occident. Paris : Fayard. Leibniz, G. (1981). Monadología. Traducción Velarde, J. Oviedo: Pentalfa Ediciones. Rott, P. (1979). Bioethics and society. Constructing the Ethical enterprise. Miami: SL Olaf College, University of Miami. Sandel, M. (2013). Contra A Perfeição - Ética na Era da Engenharia Genética. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro, Zingano, M. (2007). Estudos de Ética Antiga. São Paulo: Discurso Editorial. Informe BELMONT (1979). Principio y guías éticos para la protección de los sujetos humanos de investigación. Comisión na cio nal para la protección de los sujetos hu manos de investigación biomédica y del comportamiento. USA: Observatori de ética i dret. Parccientific de Barcelona. Derechos de autor 2016 Prolegómenos https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 application/pdf Universidad Militar Nueva Granada Prolegómenos; Vol. 17 Núm. 33 (2014); 15-26 1909-7727 0121-182X
score 12,131701