Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs
Switch to: References

Add citations

You mustlogin to add citations.
  1. Differences from somewhere: The normativity of whiteness in bioethics in the united states.Catherine Myser -2003 -American Journal of Bioethics 3 (2):1 – 11.
    I argue that there has been inadequate attention to and questioning of the dominance and normativity of whiteness in the cultural construction of bioethics in the United States. Therefore we risk reproducing white privilege and white supremacy in its theory, method, and practices. To make my argument, I define whiteness and trace its broader social and legal history in the United States. I then begin to mark whiteness in U.S. bioethics, recasting Renee Fox's sociological marking of its American-ness as an (...) important initial marking of its whiteness/WASP ethos. Furthermore, I consider the attempts of social scientists to highlight sociocultural diversity as a corrective in U.S. bioethics. I argue that because they fail to problematize white dominance and normativity and the white-other dualism when they describe the standpoints of African-American, Asian-American, and Native-American others, their work merely inoculates difference and creates or maintains minoritized spaces. Accordingly, the dominant white center of mainstream U.S. bioethics must be problematized and displaced for diversity research to make a difference. In conclusion, I give several examples of how we might advance the recommended endeavor of exploring our own ethnicity, class, and other social positioning and norms operating in U.S. bioethics, briefly highlighting "white talk" as one challenge. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  • Distrust and patients in intercultural healthcare: A qualitative interview study.Lise-Merete Alpers -2018 -Nursing Ethics 25 (3):313-323.
    Background: The importance of trust between patients and healthcare personnel is emphasised in nurses’ and physicians’ ethical codes. Trust is crucial for an effective healthcare personnel–patient relationship and thus for treatment and treatment outcomes. Cultural and linguistic differences may make building a trusting and positive relationship with ethnic minority patients particularly challenging. Although there is a great deal of research on cultural competence, there is a conspicuous lack of focus on the concepts of trust and distrust concerning ethnic minority patients, (...) particularly in relation to the concept of ‘othering’. Aim: To study which factors help build trust or create distrust in encounters between healthcare professionals and hospitalised ethnic minority patients, as well as study the dynamic complexities inherent within the process of ‘othering’. Research design: Qualitative design, in-depth interviews and hermeneutic analysis. Participants and research context: The interviewees were 10 immigrant patients (six women and four men – eight Asians, two Africans – ages 32–85 years) recruited from a south-eastern Norwegian hospital. Ethical considerations: Study approval was obtained from the hospital’s Privacy Ombudsman for Research and the hospital’s leadership. Participation was voluntary and participants signed an informed consent form. Conclusion: Distrust and othering may be caused by differences in belief systems, values, perceptions, expectations, and style of expression and behaviour. Othering is a reciprocal phenomenon in minority ethnic patient–healthcare personnel encounters, and it influences trust building negatively. Besides demonstrating general professional skill and competence, healthcare personnel require cultural competence to create trust. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • From the local to the global: Bioethics and the concept of culture.Leigh Turner -2005 -Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 30 (3):305 – 320.
    Cultural models of health, illness, and moral reasoning are receiving increasing attention in bioethics scholarship. Drawing upon research tools from medical and cultural anthropology, numerous researchers explore cultural variations in attitudes toward truth telling, informed consent, pain relief, and planning for end-of-life care. However, culture should not simply be equated with ethnicity. Rather, the concept of culture can serve as an heuristic device at various levels of analysis. In addition to considering how participation in particular ethnic groups and religious traditions (...) can shape moral reasoning, bioethicists need to consider processes of socialization into professional cultures, organizational cultures, national civic culture, and transnational culture. From the local world of the community clinic or oncology unit to the transnational workings of human rights agencies, attentiveness to the concept of culture can illuminate how patients, family members, and health care providers interpret illness, healing, and moral obligations. (shrink)
    Direct download(8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  • An Intercultural Nursing Perspective on Autonomy.Ingrid Hanssen -2004 -Nursing Ethics 11 (1):28-41.
    This article is based on an empirical study regarding ethical challenges in intercultural nursing. The focus is on autonomy and disclosure. Autonomy is a human capacity that has become an important ethical principle in nursing. Although the relationship between autonomy and patients’ possibly harmful choices is discussed, the focus is on ‘forced’ autonomy. Nurses seem to equate respect with autonomy; it seems to be hard to cope with the fact that there are patients who voluntarily undergo treatment but who actively (...) participate neither in the treatment offered nor in making choices regarding that treatment. Nurses’ demand for patients to be autonomous may in some cases jeopardize the respect, integrity and human worth that the ethical principle of autonomy is meant to ensure. Even though respect for a person’s autonomy is also respect for the person, one’s respect for the person in question should not depend on his or her capacity or aptitude to act autonomously. Is autonomy necessarily a universal ethical principle? This article negates this question and, through the issues of culture, individualism versus collectivism, first- and second- order autonomy, communication and the use of family interpreters, and respect, an attempt is made to explain why. (shrink)
    Direct download(2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • From human ability to ethical principle: An intercultural perspective on autonomy.Ingrid Hanssen -2005 -Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 7 (3):269-279.
    Based on an empirical study regarding ethical challenges within intercultural health care, the focus of this article is upon autonomy and disclosure, discussed in light of philosophy and anthropology. What are the consequences for patients if the patients’ right to be autonomous and to participate in treatment and care decisions by health care workers is interpreted as an obligation to participate? To force a person to make independent choices who is socio-culturally unprepared to do so, may violate his/her integrity. This (...) may in turn jeopardise the respect, integrity and human worth the principle of autonomy was meant to ensure, and if so, may damage any relationship of trust that may exist between patient and health care worker. There is necessarily a link between autonomy and disclosure. Western disclosure practices may make the relationship between patients and health care workers difficult -- even distrustful. To confront a patient with a very serious diagnosis may be seen not only as a tactless action, but also an unforgivable one. Hence, among many ethnic groups it is a family member’s duty to shield patients from bad or disquieting news, e.g., a cancer diagnosis. If a family member is used to interpret in such situations, will the information given equal the information communicated by that interpreter? Even though respect for a person’s autonomy is part of the respect for a person, one’s respect for the person in question should not depend on his/her ability or aptitude to act autonomously. (shrink)
    Direct download(3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Minority Populations and Advance Directives: Insights from a Focus Group Methodology.Joshua M. Hauser,Sharon F. Kleefield,Troyen A. Brennan &Ruth L. Fischbach -1997 -Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (1):58-71.
    Numerous studies have shown almost uniformly positive opinions among patients and physicians regarding theconceptof advance directives (either a healthcare proxy or living will). Several of these studies have also shown that the actual use of advance directives is significantly lower than this enthusiasm would suggest, but they have not explained the apparent discordance. Nor have researchers explained why members of minority groups are much less likely to complete advance directives than are white patients. In this study, we used a focus (...) group methodology to examine the ways in which diverse populations of patients view the medical, philosophical, and practical issues surrounding advance directives. We were motivated by the significantly lower prevalence of advance directives among African-American and Hispanic patients at one urban teaching hospital (18% for Caucasians, 4% for African-Americans, and 2% for Hispanics). Our premise was that African-American and Hispanic populations, who have had higher rates of morbidity and mortality across numerous disease categories, and historically have had limited access to care and opportunities to discuss health concerns, may be more suspicious about the right of autonomy that an advance directive is designed to ensure. (shrink)
    Direct download(6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Bioethics in a Multicultural World: Medicine and Morality in Pluralistic Settings. [REVIEW]Leigh Turner -2003 -Health Care Analysis 11 (2):99-117.
    Current approaches in bioethics largely overlook the multicultural social environment within which most contemporary ethical issues unfold. For example, principlists argue that the common morality of society supports four basic ethical principles. These principles, and the common morality more generally, are supposed to be a matter of shared common sense. Defenders of case-based approaches to moral reasoning similarly assume that moral reasoning proceeds on the basis of common moral intuitions. Both of these approaches fail to recognize the existence of multiple (...) cultural and religious traditions in contemporary multicultural societies. In multicultural settings, patients and their families bring many different cultural models of morality, health, illness, healing, and kinship to clinical encounters. Religious convictions and cultural norms play significant roles in the framing of moral issues. At present, mainstream bioethics fails to attend to the particular moral worlds of patients and their family members. A more anthropologically informed understanding of the ethical issues that emerge within health care facilities will need to better recognize the role of culture and religion in shaping modes of moral deliberation. (shrink)
    Direct download(4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  

  • [8]ページ先頭

    ©2009-2025 Movatter.jp