Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Warum die Bioethik ein Konzept von Vulnerabilität benötigt

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Medizinethik

Part of the book series: Grundlagentexte zur Angewandten Ethik ((GAE))

Zusammenfassung

Wendy Rogers ist Professorin für klinische Ethik und Catriona Mackenzie ist Professorin für Philosophie. Beide lehren an der Macquarie University in Sydney, Australien. Susan Dodds ist Professorin für Philosophie an der La Trobe University in Melbourne, Australien. Alle drei befassen sich seit Jahren intensiv mit feministischer Theorie, angewandter und biomedizinischer Ethik sowie mit Moralphilosophie.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  • Agich, G. J. (1990): Reassessing autonomy in long-term care. Hastings Center Report 20(6), S. 12 – 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • AIDA, Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association/Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, UNSW (2010): Health impact assessment of the Northern Territory emergency response. Canberra: Australian Indigenous Doctors’ Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J./Honneth, A. (2005): Autonomy, vulnerability, recognition, and justice. In: J. Christman/J. Anderson (Hrsg.): Autonomy and the challenges to liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, S. 127 – 149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Australian Human Rights Commission (1997): Bringing them home: Report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baume, F. (1998): The new public health: An Australian perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayer, R./Fairchild, A. L. (2004): Genesis of public health ethics. Bioethics 18(6), S. 473 – 492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baylis, F./Kenny, N./Sherwin, S. (2008): A relational account of public health ethics. Public Health Ethics 1(3), S. 196 – 209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, D. E./Steinbock, B. (1999): New ethics for the public’s health. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bielby, P. (2008): Competence and vulnerability in biomedical research. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, D. (2002a): Health resource allocation for vulnerable populations. In: M. Danis/C. Clancy/L. R. Churchill (Hrsg.): Ethical Dimensions of health policy. New York: Oxford University Press, S. 283 – 309.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2002b): Priority to the worse off in health-care resource allocation. In: R. Rhodes/M. P. Battin/A. Silvers (Hrsg.): Medicine and social justice: Essays on the distribution of health care. New York: Oxford University Press, S. 362 – 372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodds, S. (2007): Depending on care: Recognition of vulnerability. Bioethics 21(9), S. 500 – 510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn, M. C./Clare, I. C. H./Holland, A. J. (2008): To empower or to protect ? Constructing the ‚vulnerable adult‘ in English law and public policy. Legal Studies 28(2), S. 234 – 253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Northern Territory National Emergency Response and Other Measures) Act (2007), Commonwealth of Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, M. A. (2008): The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 1(20), S. 1 – 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flaskerud, J. H./Winslow, B. J. (1998): Conceptualizing vulnerable populations’ healthrelated research. Nursing Research 47(2), S. 69 – 78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (1989): Struggle over needs. In: N. Fraser (Hrsg.): Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, S. 161 – 190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1985): Protecting the vulnerable. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, A. (2008): The individualist model of autonomy and the challenge of disability. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 5(2/3), S. 193 – 207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmaster, B. (2006): What does vulnerability mean ? Hastings Center Report 36(2), S. 38 – 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, S. A. (2008): Vulnerability in research and health care. Describing the elephant in the room ? Bioethics 22(4), S. 191 – 202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, B. et al. (2003): Ethics and public health: Model curriculum. New York: Hastings Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, K. (2003): Seven vulnerabilities in the pediatric research subject. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24(2), S. 107 – 120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F. (1999): Love’s labour: Essays on women, equality and dependency. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kittay, E. F./Jennings, B./Wasunna, A. A. (2005): Dependency, difference and the global ethics of longterm care. The Journal of Political Philosophy 13(4), S. 443 – 469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine C. et al. and the Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. (2004): The limitations of ‚vulnerability‘ as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics 4(3), S. 44 – 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna, F. (2009): Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: Layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1), S. 121 – 139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyerly, A. D./Little, M. O./Faden, R. (2008): The second wave: Toward responsible inclusion of pregnant women in research. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1(2), S. 5 – 22.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A. (1999): Dependent rational animals: Why human beings need the virtues. Chicago: Open Court (auf Deutsch erschienen unter dem Titel Die Anerkennung der Abhängigkeit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, C./Stoljar, N. (Hrsg.) (2000): Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency and the social self. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R. (2003): Bioethics, vulnerability and protection. Bioethics 17, S. 472 – 486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, D. T. (1989): Self, society and personal choice. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NCPHS – National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioural Research (1979): Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. U. S. Government Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickel, P. J. (2006): Vulnerable populations in research: The case of the seriously ill. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 27, S. 245 – 264.

    Google Scholar 

  • NTER – Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board (2008): Northern Territory emergency response: Report of the NTER review board. Canberra: Government of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act (2007), Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2000): Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2011): Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (teilweise auf Deutsch erschienen unter dem Titel Fähigkeiten schaffen).

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (2005): Need, humiliation and independence. In: S. Reader (Hrsg.): The philosophy of need. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, S. 73 – 97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, M./Faden, R. (2006): Social justice: The moral foundations of health and health policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Productivity Commission (2011): Disability care and support. Report no. 54. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racial Discrimination Act (1975), Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reader, S. (Hrsg.) (2005): The philosophy of need. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2006): Does a basic needs approach need capabilities ? Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3), S. 337 – 350.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2007): Needs and moral necessity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff, J. D. (2002): 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 5, S. 235 – 244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricoeur, P. (2007): Autonomy and vulnerability. In: Reflections on the just (übers. v. Dave Pellauer). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, S. 72 – 90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W. A. (2006): Feminism and public health ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 32, S. 351 – 354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, W./Ballantyne, A. J. (2008): Special populations: Vulnerability and protection. RECIIS: Electronic Journal of Communication, Information and Innovation in Health 2 (Supplement 1), S. S30 – S40.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2009): Justice in health research: What is the role of evidence-based medicine ? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 52(2), S. 188 – 202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, D./Gefenas, E. (2009): Vulnerability: Too vague and too broad ? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 18, S. 113 – 121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellman, D. (2005): Towards an understanding of nursing as a response to human vulnerability. Nursing Philosophy 6, S. 2 – 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1992): Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2009): The idea of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (auf Deutsch erschienen unter dem Titel Die Idee der Gerechtigkeit).

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act (2007), Commonwealth of Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiers, J. (2000): New perspectives on vulnerability using emic and etic approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing 31(3), S. 715 – 721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. C. et al. (2002): A code of ethics for public health. American Journal of Public Health 92(7), S. 1057 – 1059.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, B. S. (2006): Vulnerability and human rights. University Park: Penn State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. U. (1998): Moral understandings: A feminist study of ethics. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, D. (1991): Claims of need. In: Needs, values, truth. Oxford: Blackwell, S. 1 – 57.

    Google Scholar 

  • — (2005): An idea we cannot do without. In: S. Reader (Hrsg.): The philosophy of need. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, S. 25 – 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wild, R./Anderson, P. (2007): Ampe akelyernemane meke mekarle: ‚Little children are sacred.‘ Report of the Northern Territory board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. Darwin: Northern Territory Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, A. W. (1995): Exploitation. Social Philosophy and Policy 12, S. 136 – 158.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney, Australien

    Wendy Rogers, Catriona Mackenzie & Susan Dodds

Authors
  1. Wendy Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catriona Mackenzie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan Dodds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Nikola Biller-Andorno

  2. Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte, Universität Zürich, Klinische Ethik, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Settimio Monteverde

  3. Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte, Universität Zürich, Klinische Ethik, Universitätsspital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Tanja Krones

  4. Institut für Biomedizinische Ethik und Medizingeschichte, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Tobias Eichinger

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C., Dodds, S. (2021). Warum die Bioethik ein Konzept von Vulnerabilität benötigt. In: Biller-Andorno, N., Monteverde, S., Krones, T., Eichinger, T. (eds) Medizinethik. Grundlagentexte zur Angewandten Ethik. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27696-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27696-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-27695-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-27696-6

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation