|
||||
|
||||
How Infectious Diseases Got Left Out - And What this Omission Might Have Meant for BioethicsLeslie P. FrancisUniversity of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law Margaret Pabst BattinUniversity of Utah - Department of Philosophy Jay A. JacobsonUniversity of Utah - School of Medicine Charles B. SmithUniversity of Utah Jeffrey BotkinUniversity of Utah - Pediatric Administration Bioethics, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 307-322, August 2005 Abstract: In this article, we first document the virtually complete absence of infectious disease examples and concerns at the time bioethics emerged as a field. We then argue that this oversight was not benign by considering two central issues in the field, informed consent and distributive justice, and showing how they might have been framed differently had infectiousness been at the forefront of concern. The solution to this omission might be to apply standard approaches in liberal bioethics, such as autonomy and the harm principle, to infectious examples. We argue that this is insufficient, however. Taking infectious disease into account requires understanding the patient as victim and as vector. Infectiousness reminds us that as autonomous agents we are both embodied and vulnerable in our relationships with others. We conclude by applying this reunderstanding of agency to the examples of informed consent and distributive justice in health care.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 16 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: August 27, 2005Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo2 in 2.594 seconds