社会性道德视角下的市场社会道德基础探究--兼析经济学的价值判断

在个体层面上,“利己”与“道德”是人性中的两种德性,二者并不矛盾;在型构社会层面上．为了维系合作秩序的扩展,须构建与市场社会相适应的社会性道德基础。中国的传统社会缺失了社会性道德这一维度,休谟在特定的历史时期所提出的社会性道德论说对于建设中国当下的市场经济有特别的理论借鉴意义。普世性的道德准则是经济学的前提,经济学自身的价值判断准则也同样拒斥不道德的经济行为。“市场经济可以不讲道德”的命题是不成立的。     

Consulting scientist and engineer liability: A survey of relevant law

This paper is a survey of the law in the United States which is applicable to consulting scientists and engineers. Based on the body of law which has developed for the construction industry and professional “advice-givers” such as attorneys, medical doctors and accountants, the paper reviews professional responsibilities in the areas of Common Law Torts. Common Law Contracts, certain U.S. Federal and State Statutes and the protection of sensitive information.     

Natural law and history in Locke's theory of distributive justice

According to the tradition of natural law justice is inherent to, and should always be observed in, all interpersonal relations: the science of natural law is nothing more or less than the expression of such principles of justice. The theoretical peculiarities that crop up regarding the lawfulness of appropriation are determined by the indirect interpersonal relations that take place within the process of appropriation: though appropriation is an action directed not towards another person or his property, but towards tangible external goods, this action may have important consequences for other people. Therefore Locke's theory of appropriation is a theory of justice.Locke's solution is made possible by the methodological improvement which allows a clear separation between the natural law and the historical and empirical conditions of its application: this improvement is a consequence of the distinction between modes and substances established in Locke's Essay.Locke's theory can be considered an extensive re-elaboration, in polemic against Filmer, of the anti-monopolistic principle characteristic of the whole of Scholastic social thought: this principle is intimately connected with the principle of man's natural liberty.Locke maintains a negative and formal conception of justice: justice prohibits interference with others' liberty of appropriation. Alongside the justice is the positive and conditional obligation of charity which prescribes the transfer of some of one's own goods to others who need them in order to survive. But for Locke there are precise limits on the obligation of charity: the application of charity suspends the application of justice only when the immediate physical survival is at stake; in all other cases justice leaves no room for charity.The Lockian negative conception of justice, which allows unlimited liberty of appropriation, is dependent on the empirical and historical condition of the incommensurability of the main resource. The widespread use of money acts as an accelerating element in the process of exhaustion of the incommensurability of land-resources but, at the same time, it renders self-preservation and appropriation almost completely independent of the natural environment. Money creates an infinite number of opportunities for the outlay of labour irrespective of the availability of land, that is, it renders labour the principal resource of the civilized world, and labour is an incommensurable and infinitely reproducible resource. The incommensurability of the labour resource thus supports the Lockian theory of negative distributive justice; but over the Lockian solution already loomed the threatening shadow of pauperism.The subject of this essay is further dealt with in my book on Locke's political and social philosophy Nel crepuscolo della probabilitá, Bibliopolis, Napoli, 1983. There I develop further the interpretation of Locke's theory of justice presented here and analyse his theoretical and historical presuppositions.     

La loi no 2016-87 du 2 février 2016 créant de nouveaux droits en faveur des malades et des personnes en fin de vie : un nouvel équilibre décisionnel ?

Adopted after a tumultuous legislative process, the Act of 2 February 2016 complete the “Leonetti” law of April 22, 2005. Without going to legalize active help to die, this law does include some notable developments. It increases patient autonomy, including the consecration of mandatory advance directives and extends the right to refuse care. It specifies the role of the support person in the decision process and extends the scope of the collegiate procedure. Finally, it recognizes a right to care for the suffering and diversified palliative care modalities, particularly through the introduction of continuous deep sedation until death. Some aspects of the law relating to the mandatory advance directives or the process of sedation are however asked to be specified by regulation.     

Recherche en santé et protection des données personnelles à l’heure du Règlement général relatif à la protection des données

France has a very rich legal framework, which defines the conditions of access and use of health data for scientific research purposes and ensures their protection. Currently, this legal framework is undergoing revision. The European regulation of April 27th 2016 on protection of natural persons in relation to the processing of personal data came into effect in EU member states since 25th May 2018 and substitute a rationale of administrative process for a rationale that empowers the researchers to document and prove compliance with the regulation (“accountability”). This regulation must be coordinated with the other regulation applicable to research in UE and with national law.     

Nanoregulation—Filtering Out the Small Stuff

Whilst there are not yet laws specifically relating to nanotechnology and its products in any country, the technology and its products are not unregulated. Regulatory frameworks created for conventional technologies and products will be expected to apply to nanotechnology and its products. For example, new medicines are regulated in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If a new medicine incorporates nanotechnology, then it should still be regulated as a medicine. However, whether the expectation that pre-existing regulatory frameworks will apply is correct and, if so, whether the application of such frameworks is adequate are important issues to be answered. This paper considers these questions, drawing on lessons learnt from significant regulatory reviews undertaken in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia.

Commodification in law: ideologies,intractabilities, and hyperboles

In this paper I first aim to identify, from a perspective mindful of both analytic and Continental traditions, the central normative issues at stake in the various debates concerning commodification in law. Although there now exists a wealth of thoughtful literature in this area, I often find myself disoriented within the webs of moral criteria used to analyze the increasingly ubiquitous practice of converting legal goods into monetary values. I therefore attempt to distinguish and organize these often conflated conceptual distinctions across several registers of moral analysis. Second, I formulate what I consider the most illuminating questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate commodification in law. Critiques of commodification in law face what I call problems of ideology, intractability, and hyperbole, and identifying these issues helps to explain the momentum of the law and economics movement.

Le risque médico-judiciaire des infections nosocomiales

These last years in France, the term ‘nosocomial infection’ has been replaced by ‘health-care associated infection’, which has a much broader definition. In all cases, the plausibility of the association between infection and the care provided deserved to be rigorously analyzed. To qualify an infection as nosocomial, the expert witness must at the judge's request determine that infection actually occurred within the health facility and is linked to health care. French Public Health Code as well the most recent jurisprudence give currently a rather close definition of nosocomial infection. The principle of faultness liability in the field of nosocomial infection has been enshrined in the law of March 4^th 2002, the most severe situations (death; permanent functional deficit > 25 percent) being compensated by ONIAM, the French national office of compensation for nosocomial infection.