The concept of vulnerability in medical ethics and philosophy.

Clinical research Ethics Healthcare Hermeneutics Phenomenology Philosophy Vulnerability

Journal

Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM
ISSN: 1747-5341
Titre abrégé: Philos Ethics Humanit Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258058

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 04 2019
Historique:
received: 02 01 2019
accepted: 21 03 2019
entrez: 13 4 2019
pubmed: 13 4 2019
medline: 3 3 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Healthcare is permeated by phenomena of vulnerability and their ethical significance. Nonetheless, application of this concept in healthcare ethics today is largely confined to clinical research. Approaches that further elaborate the concept in order to make it suitable for healthcare as a whole thus deserve renewed attention. Conceptual analysis. Taking up the task to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole involves two challenges. Firstly, starting from the concept as it used in research ethics, a more detailed characterization and systematization of the different realms of human abilities and the various ways in which these realms contain vulnerability is to be established. Secondly, at the same time, the sought-after concept of vulnerability should avoid picturing the relation between healthcare recipient and provider as a relation between a dependent individual in need and another individual capable of providing all the help necessary. An adequate concept of vulnerability should enable one to understand when and in which respects care providers may be vulnerable as well. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to meet both of these challenges. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole. They come with a price, though. While the ethical role of vulnerability in medical ethics usually is to signify states of affairs that are to be diminished or overcome, philosophical accounts introduce forms of vulnerability that are regarded as valuable. Further analyzing and systematizing forms and degrees of vulnerability thus comprises the task to distinguish between amounts and types of vulnerability that can count as valuable, and amounts and types of vulnerability that are to be alleviated.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Healthcare is permeated by phenomena of vulnerability and their ethical significance. Nonetheless, application of this concept in healthcare ethics today is largely confined to clinical research. Approaches that further elaborate the concept in order to make it suitable for healthcare as a whole thus deserve renewed attention.
METHODS
Conceptual analysis.
RESULTS
Taking up the task to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole involves two challenges. Firstly, starting from the concept as it used in research ethics, a more detailed characterization and systematization of the different realms of human abilities and the various ways in which these realms contain vulnerability is to be established. Secondly, at the same time, the sought-after concept of vulnerability should avoid picturing the relation between healthcare recipient and provider as a relation between a dependent individual in need and another individual capable of providing all the help necessary. An adequate concept of vulnerability should enable one to understand when and in which respects care providers may be vulnerable as well. Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to meet both of these challenges.
CONCLUSIONS
Philosophical accounts of vulnerability can help to make the concept of vulnerability suitable for healthcare ethics as a whole. They come with a price, though. While the ethical role of vulnerability in medical ethics usually is to signify states of affairs that are to be diminished or overcome, philosophical accounts introduce forms of vulnerability that are regarded as valuable. Further analyzing and systematizing forms and degrees of vulnerability thus comprises the task to distinguish between amounts and types of vulnerability that can count as valuable, and amounts and types of vulnerability that are to be alleviated.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30975177
doi: 10.1186/s13010-019-0075-6
pii: 10.1186/s13010-019-0075-6
pmc: PMC6458617
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

6

Références

Bioethics. 2003 Oct;17(5-6):472-86
pubmed: 14959716
Hastings Cent Rep. 2006 Mar-Apr;36(2):38-45
pubmed: 16604897
Bioethics. 2008 May;22(4):191-202
pubmed: 18405317
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2018 Jul 4;13(1):8
pubmed: 29973289

Auteurs

Joachim Boldt (J)

Department of Medical Ethics and the History of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. boldt@egm.uni-freiburg.de.

Articles similaires

Humans Medical Futility Turkey Qualitative Research Terminal Care
Humans Resilience, Psychological Rhode Island Biomedical Research Stress, Psychological
United States Periodicals as Topic Cross-Sectional Studies Humans Biomedical Research
Humans Africa South of the Sahara Neoplasms Biomedical Research Male

Classifications MeSH