亲属容隐根据并确认伦理权利——基于亲属容隐对伦理和法律关系两难之解

亲属容隐作为正式制度,依法追究一定违法犯罪嫌疑人,以维护法律关系和公共秩序;同时自上而下赋予嫌疑人的亲属以豁免权,保证其豁免举证义务,悉心敦睦伦理。从而对伦理和法律关系,解两难,达两全。自上而下赋权,则基于并落实伦理权利,即伦理本体内生的对世权,是从和渗透态伦理对应的实体态伦理内、外不同权利义务分化、转移,自下而上内生并落实的对世权,类似于民法物权,不同于自然权利、法律权利、道德权利。     

亲属容隐的合法性与合理性

面对伦理和法律、维护伦理和遵守法律之间的两难,亲属容隐,是中华伦理、中华法系提供的两全之道。其实质的合法性、合理性,不仅在中国古代家庭本位的社会是充足的,而且至今仍然是明显的。     

把握中华伦理文明新形态的必要维度

中华伦理文明新形态是对应人类文明新形态而提出的一个全新概念，我们可以从四个重要维度对其进行把握：中华伦理文明新形态是人类伦理文明发展新形态中的当代中国形态；它要对中国社会发展中的重大伦理问题进行新探索；它在中国式现代化建设实践中生成；它体现着中国特色社会主义的发展本质，具有普遍性与特殊性相统一的生成特征。     

高技术的伦理中道

高技术难题的解决 ,必须向传统的中道哲学寻求伦理智慧。中道不仅在世界文明体系中具有一定普适性的形上智慧 ,而且它是应对重大社会历史变革的智慧 ,尤其是应对那些潜在巨大文明风险的变革中的两难选择的文化智慧。高技术伦理的辩证结构是 :伦理理智 ;伦理意志 ;伦理精神。社会文明生态的合理性 ,是伦理理智的中道 ;技术冲动力与伦理冲动力的合理“冲动体系”或“合力”,是伦理意志的中道 ;而“新人文主义伦理精神”,则是高技术伦理精神的中道     

关于知情同意的伦理与法律意义之辨析

尊重和自主是知情同意的伦理底线,行善是知情同意的伦理基础。知情同意并不是评判医疗行为是否符合伦理的金标准。伦理上的知情同意与法律上的知情同意,既有区别又相互联系,德法并济是有效履行知情同意的前提。     

亲属容隐制度的伦理意蕴解读

亲属客隐制度是我国传统社会中一项重要的法律制度,这一制度与当代西方国家立法确认的亲属拒证权有着诸多相通之处.亲属容隐制度通过赋予血缘亲情一定的自由空间,将一定范围内的法律权力授权给家庭,合理解决了行为人道德义务与法律义务的冲突,体现了法律对人性的关怀,维护了社会的秩序和统治者政权的稳定.我国的证据立法应当在继承、改造亲属容隐制度的基础上,构建当代中国的亲属拒证权.     

荀子的家庭伦理思想研究

荀子的家庭伦理思想吸纳了先秦儒家伦理中许多合理内容 ,特别是发展了孔孟的家庭伦理思想 ,具有系统性、科学性和可操作性等特点 ,是我国伦理史上一宗宝贵遗产。他关于赡养老人、教育子女以及家庭成员间道德权利与义务的思想极具现代价值。     

关于知情同意的伦理与法律意义之辨析

尊重和自主是知情同意的伦理底线,行善是知情同意的伦理基础.知情同意并不是评判医疗行为是否符合伦理的金标准.伦理上的知情同意与法律上的知情同意,既有区别又相互联系,德法并济是有效履行知情同意的前提.     

医疗知情同意的法伦理思考

医疗知情同意是一项伦理原则,也是一项法律原则.虽然不同视角下的医疗知情同意具有相对不同的要求,但两者在本质上是一致的.尊重患者的知情同意权是患者和社会对医方所提出的要求,也是医方应尽的法律和伦理义务.因此,从法伦理视角审视知情同意原则,以凸显其丰富的内涵及其情、理、法的融合与统一.     

形式、目的和强制——康德划分法哲学和伦理学的根据

康德在《道德形而上学奠基》中认为,义务的根据不在于行为的目的而只在于其 准则的普遍性形式,但他在《道德形而上学》中又认为,行为准则的普遍性形式只是法权 义务的根据,而伦理义务中的德性义务的根据不仅包含行为准则的形式,还包含行为的质料 ,即同时是义务的目的。这两部著作并不矛盾,因为义务的不同根据处于康德义务体系从抽 象 到具体的不同层次。行为准则的形式性条件是定义一般义务的充要根据,同时也是确定法权 义务是义务的充要根据,因为法权义务取决于保障外在自由的彼此共存的普遍形式。形式性 条件也是规定伦理义务中的德性义务是义务的充要根据,但在此之上还需要附加上质料性条 件以便将之与法权义务区分开来,因为履行德性义务的强制的唯一来源是自我强制,而这种 强制预设同时是义务的目的。     

道德哲学建基在错误之上吗？

责任或义务是伦理学中最基本的概念。它是客观的、绝对自明的,因而是不可定义的、无需推理的。人们既不能从别的非伦理的事实或非伦理的属性中推出义务,也不能把它归约为任何其它伦理属性。以往的各种伦理理论的错误在于用一些其它伦理属性来规定责任,从而使其丧失了绝对客观的和自明的意义,其结果是使伦理学长期陷入困境之中。     

From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor-patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee’s threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.     

Strict Confidentiality: An Alternative to Pre’s “Limited Confidentiality” Doctrine

In “Advisory Opinion on Confidentiality, Its Limits and Duties to Others” the Canadian Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics (PRE) articulates a rationale for a priori limitations to research confidentiality, based largely on putative legal duties to violate confidentiality in certain circumstances. We argue that PRE promotes a “Law of the Land” doctrine of research ethics that is but one approach to resolving potential conflicts between law and research ethics. PRE emphasises risks that have never materialized, and ignores jurisprudence on challenges to research confidentiality. When we examine what the courts have actually done with research-based claims of privilege, we find they clearly recognize and affirm researchers’ ethical obligations to maintain strict confidentiality and protect research participants. Ironically, the one exception – where the court ordered that information be disclosed – occurred precisely because the researchers had limited confidentiality. The passive approach PRE espouses leaves vital questions about what protecting confidentiality to the “full extent possible in law” means, and leaves the impression that academics should accept whatever limitations the courts may impose without participating in the courtroom dialogue determining where those limits are drawn. In contrast, we believe confidentiality is so important to the protection of research participants and the integrity of the research enterprise that it is worth fighting for. The “ethics-first” doctrine of “strict confidentiality” we describe adheres to the social sciences’ and humanities’ longstanding commitment to research confidentiality and duty to the research participant.     

正义的战争与战争的正义——关于战争伦理的反思

战争可以定义为两个或两个以上的国家间的有组织的政治暴力。根据战争的目的、过程和结果,战争伦理大致包括“战争权利伦理”、“战争行为伦理”和“战争责任伦理”三个方面。在战争伦理中最重要的是所谓“正义”问题。“正义”与“非正义”这对概念并非规定战争的客观性质,而是一种煽动人们拥战或反战热情的主观态度和伦理立场的表达。     

Applying Virtue to Ethics

Virtue ethics is sometimes taken to be incapable of providing guidance for an individual's actions, as some other ethical theories do. I show how virtue ethics does provide guidance for action, and also meet the objection that, while it may account for what we ought to do, it cannot account for the force of duty and obligation.     

Limits to Confidentiality in U.S. Army Treatment Settings

A number of reports detail ethical concerns of behavioral health providers in the U.S. Military regarding limited confidentiality. This article provides a review of limits to confidentiality in behavioral health settings as outlined by U.S. Army regulations and Department of Defense directives. Specific limits are discussed under seven categories, including: medical treatment and oversight, command notification, threats to safety, public health purposes, judicial or administrative proceedings, law enforcement investigation, and specialized personnel programs. Specific attention is given to war crimes reporting, special duty, and command involvement. Lessons learned for best practice across service branches are provided as a collaborative model for resolving perceived conflict between the APA Ethics Code and military regulations.     

法制环境下的现代医学--一个必须面对的新问题

法制社会强调医疗行为的合法性.强调现代医学的法制环境主要目的是规范医疗行为,合法行医,和谐医患关系和防止医学科学技术的异化造成伦理和社会危机.法制医学对医务人员的责任要求包括:强制责任(救治责任)、民事责任、刑事责任、诉讼的举证责任和医疗免责条件.     

Ethics, Law and Legislation: The Institutionalisation of Moral Reflection

This paper describes the different dimensions of the relation between moral reflection and legislative processes. It discusses some examples of the institutionalisation of moral reflection. It is argued that the relation between ethics and law is still an actual and relevant question. Ethics also has to reflect on its own role in political life. The paper defends the relevance of a theological perspective on the relation between law and ethics. In the last part it is argued that the modality of relation between ethics and law depends on the specific character of social domain.     

Ethics in the Teaching of Mental Health Professionals

Summary

It is the position of the authors that mental health professionals-in-training must be well versed in the ethical/legal matters of clinical practice. Indeed, most graduate programs in the field of mental health require formal training in Ethics. The California School of Professional Psychology (Alliant International University) San Diego campus has developed a model that requires (a) an ethics course integrated with the student's on-campus supervision in the Fall and Spring semesters at the practicum level, focusing on the American Psychological Association's Ethics Code (2002) and California's Licensing Laws; and (b) an advanced ethics course (in the fourth year of training) that focuses on the integration of ethical and legal issues in clinical practice and providing a knowledge base of sound ethical judgment. Syllabi for these two courses are included.     

The Complexity of Justice - A Challenge to the 21st Century

The author discusses two questions, the relation between liberalism and democracy, and the relation between ethics, morality and law. As to the first question, she argues that neither liberalism nor democracy are merely formal. Roughly spoken, it can be said that liberalism stands for negative liberties, whereas democracy stands for positive ones. She observes a non-contingent tension between the ethos of liberalism (personal freedom) and the ethos of democracy (equality; majority rule). It is the task of morality to maintain and restore the balance between these two kinds of ethos. As to the second question, she is worried about the balance between law (legal regulation), ethics, and morality. On the one hand, abolishing legal regulations would amount to abolishing the freedom of the moderns. On the other hand, the substitution of legal regulations for ethical regulations would lead to a similar result: the end of the freedom of the moderns through the homogenisation of life. In the former case, personal support, charity, magnanimity, and caring would get lost, while in the latter there would be no escape from community pressure towards uniformity.