Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:51:22.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a Postmodern Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

DAVID GIBSON
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

In this article, postmodernism is presented as posing a challenge to the role of philosophy within bioethics. It is argued that any attempt to develop a postmodern bioethics must respond to arguments concerning power, relational responsibility, and violence. Contemporary work on the topic of relational autonomy and naturalized bioethics is interpreted as engaging with the postmodern challenge. This article proposes that the role of philosophy in bioethics should be not to provide moral guidance but rather to adopt a critical approach to the possible consequences of privileging any position or understanding over others.

Keywords

bioethicspostmodernismpowerviolencerelational autonomyrelational responsibility
Type
Special Section: Philosophical Bioethics—Its State and Future
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 175 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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. Pellegrino, E. Bioethics at century’s turn: Can normative ethics be retrieved? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000;25(6):655–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2. Mackenzie, C, Stoljar, N, eds. Relational Autonomy: Feminist Essays on Autonomy, Agency and the Social Self. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000.Google Scholar

3. Lindemann, H, Verkerk, M, Urban Walker, M, eds. Naturalized Bioethics: Towards Responsible Knowing and Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Lyotard, J-F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Bennington, G, Massumi, B, trans. Jameson, F, foreword. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1984.Google Scholar

5. See note 4, Lyotard 1984, at viii.

6. See note 4, Lyotard 1984, at xxiv.

7. See note 4, Lyotard 1984, at 46.

8. Caputo, J, ed. Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. New York: Fordham University Press; 1997, at 9.Google Scholar

9. See note 8, Caputo 1997, at 13.

10. Merleau-Ponty, M. The Phenomenology of Perception. Smith, C, trans. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul; 1962, at xv.Google Scholar

11. Wood, D. The Step Back: Ethics and Politics after Deconstruction. New York: State University of New York Press; 2005.Google Scholar

12. See note 11, Wood 2005, at 3–4.

13. See note 11, Wood 2005, at 44.

14. See note 11, Wood 2005, at 46.

15. See note 11, Wood 2005, at 47.

16. Foucault, M. The subject and power. Critical Inquiry 1982;8(4):777–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. “Slavery is not a power relationship when man is in chains”; see note 16, Foucault 1982, at 790.

18. See note 16, Foucault 1982, at 793.

19. McNamee, S, Gergen, KJ, eds. Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1999.Google Scholar

20. See note 19, McNamee, Gergen 1999, at 11.

21. See note 19, McNamee, Gergen 1999, at 13.

22. See note 19, McNamee, Gergen 1999, at 15.

23. See note 19, McNamee, Gergen 1999, at 16.

24. Francis, R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013.Google Scholar

25. See note 2, Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000, at 3.

26. Leach Scully J. Moral bodies: Epistemologies of embodiment. In: Lindemann et al. 2008 (see note 3):23–41.

27. See note 26, Leach Scully 2008, at 23.

28. See note 26, Leach Scully 2008, at 24.

29. Lindemann H. Holding on to Edmund: The relational work of identity. In: Lindemann et al. 2008 (see note 3):65–79.

30. Scheman N. Narrative, complexity, and context: Autonomy as an epistemic value. In: Lindemann et al. 2008 (see note 3):106–24.

31. Stoljar N. Autonomy and the feminist intuition. In: Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000 (see note 2):94–111.

32. Benson P. Feeling crazy: Self-worth and the social character of responsibility. In: Mackenzie, Stoljar 2000 (see note 2):72–93.

33. Chambers T. Towards a naturalized bioethics. In: Lindemann et al. 2008 (see note 3):125–40.

34. Feder Kittay E. Ideal theory bioethics and the exclusion of people with severe cognitive disabilities. In: Lindemann et al. 2008 (see note 3):218–39.

35. See note 34, Feder Kittay 2008, at 227–32.

36. Critchley S. Infinitely demanding: Ethics of commitment, politics of resistance. New York: Verso; 2007.