心理咨询保密豁免规则的立法构建

《中华人民共和国精神卫生法》首次对心理咨询人员的保密义务做出原则性规定,与《中华人民共和国民法典》等法律规范形成了框架,但实践要求下保密豁免情形尚未形成系统性规则。基于隐私权保护和专业信任关系,探讨心理咨询保密义务的来源,提出遵循来访者对隐私的自我决定和“权益位阶理论”下保密豁免的正当性。明确心理咨询人员在涉及公共安全等利益时负有配合调查义务,面临自然人生命健康可能遭受非法侵害时的预警和保护义务以及针对未成年人和成年心智障碍者的强制报告义务,以期促进保障隐私权益和周全更优位利益的平衡。

     

浅析脑胶质瘤临床试验中知情同意的问题

通过对医院目前开展的脑胶质瘤临床试验知情同意过程中的观察,综合科室脑胶质瘤临床试验的开展情况,针对不同类型脑胶质瘤病人尤其是功能区受损以及伴有认知功能受限的病人,分析签署知情同意过程中存在的问题,经探讨并提出整改及解决办法。通过规范的签署知情同意,针对病情不同的脑胶质瘤受试者采取个体化签署知情同意,充分尊重受试者意愿,保证临床试验顺利进行,使受试者权益得到充分保障,促进临床试验规范、安全、有序的开展。

     

医院的教学任务与患者隐私权的保护

医院在教学中,常会侵害患者的隐私权。实践中,要调和医院的教学任务与患者隐私权保护之间的矛盾,医院应该事先取得患者的同意,在诊疗与教学过程中,尊重患者,增强相互间的信任,同时还可以用“标准化病人”和“模拟化临床教学”的方式给实习生提供实习机会。而解决该问题,最终还得依靠立法的不断完善,以对此提供充分的法律保障。     

知情同意的意义（上）——生物库伦理学该如何理解参与者观点

解释了在进入参与生物库的门户时参与者的角色。三项实证研究对生物库参与者在生物库知情同意程序的观点进行了审慎评估和讨论。这些研究表明,对知情同意伦理要求方面,参与者的观点是带有广泛不同见解的异质组而不是同质组;需要理解在招募中捐赠者的实际情境和在这些情境下他们的感觉;许多参与者可能并不按知情同意概念所期待的方式理解参与行为;知情同意的程序对很多人而言仍然是很重要的,其灵活性也证明可以满足那些非正统的参与者的某些期望。提出通过全新的视角审视患者参与的伦理学。     

Low-literates’ support needs for societal participation learning: Empirical grounding of theory- and model-based design

Specialized learning support software can address the low societal participation of low-literate Dutch citizens. We use the situated Cognitive Engineering method to iteratively create a design specification for the envisioned system VESSEL: a Virtual Environment to Support the Societal participation Education of Low-literates. An initial high-level specification for this system is refined by incorporating the societal participation experiences of low-literate citizens into the design. In two series of user studies, the participant workshop and cultural probe methods were used with 23 low-literate participants. The Grounded Theory method was used to process the rich user data from these studies into the Societal Participation Experience of Low-Literates (SPELL) model. Using this experience model, the existing VESSEL specification was refined: requirements were empirically situated in the daily practice of low-literate societal participation, and new claims were written to explicate the learning effectiveness of the proposed VESSEL system. In conclusion, this study provides a comprehensive, theoretically and empirically grounded set of requirements and claims for the proposed VESSEL system, as well as the underlying SPELL model, which captures the societal participation experiences of low-literates citizens. The research methods used in this study are shown to be effective for requirements engineering with low-literate users.     

Communication Rights in a Divided World

This article explores the implications of advances in communication technology for communication rights and the political, economic, and cultural challenges at global, national, and local levels. It argues that digital transformation cannot be left to market forces or to a benign vision of a world in which all governments are sufficiently liberal minded to permit dissent and peaceful revolution. Rather, digital transformation needs to be driven by the needs of peoples and communities who help construct communication and information ecosystems that are firmly rooted in principles of justice, freedom, equality, and mutual solidarity. To that extent, people and communities must be enabled to reach their own consensuses around their needs and what should be done, and they must be regularly and constructively consulted by those charged with implementing, regulating, and monitoring such ecosystems.     

A Response to “Participation: A Religious Worldview” by James M. Gustafson

This response offers an interpretation of James Gustafson's “Participation: A Religious Worldview,” which thinks with Gustafson on the theme of “participation,” while highlighting points where my own thoughts diverge from his. The essay begins by drawing the reader's attention to Gustafson's style, arguing that the simple elegance of his writing constitutes part of his larger claim about the need to remove ourselves from the center of our thought. Next, the essay analyzes Gustafson's use of “participation” by putting it in context and connecting it with his broader methodology. Finally, I draw the reader's attention to important loci in the text in order to show how Gustafson's essay helps address various extant misinterpretations of his thought but also to point to ways in which my “thinking with” Gustafson leads me to think otherwise than he does.     

Book Discussion Section: COMPARATIVE ETHICS,ISLAM, AND HUMAN RIGHTS: Internal Pluralism and the Possible Development of Tradition

Dialogue with three major Muslim authors shows that Islam can take a positive stance toward human rights while also presenting differing interpretations of the meaning and scope of rights. Because of their subordination of norms reached through reason to those drawn from faith, as well as negative experiences of the impact of Western colonization of parts of the Muslim world, Abul A‘la Maududi and Sayyid Qutb place significant restrictions on rights of conscience. 'Abdolkarim Soroush's positive support for the role of reason in Islamic faith and his less‐negative assessment of the West lead him to more vigorous support for the human rights agenda. This study raises the question of whether the humility needed in comparative ethics and the respect for others at the root of human rights are necessarily linked.     

History, Human Rights, and Globalization

An illustrative comparison of human rights in 1948 and the contemporary period, attempting to gauge the impact of globalization on changes in the content of human rights (e.g., collective rights, women's rights, right to a healthy environment), major abusers and guarantors of human rights (e.g., state actors, transnational corporations, social movements), and alternative justifications of human rights (e.g., pragmatic agreement, moral intuitionism, overlapping consensus, cross‐cultural dialogue).     

THE SCIENTIST AS STATESMAN: BIOLOGISTS AND THIRD WORLD HEALTH

One of the most threatening problems the world faces is the growing poverty crisis and the related human rights inequalities and the spread of diseases in underprivileged areas. Human rights and relief organizations try hard to contain the devastation of these interconnected difficulties. What is the role of the biomedical scientist in this endeavor? The challenges that biomedical scientists face in their research lead us to question whether scientists can go beyond the time‐consuming realm of experimental investigation and engage the issues of society in a more public way. I suggest how the scientist's role can be expanded in our complex and precarious world, introducing the idea of the modern biomedical researcher as scientist, scholar‐philosopher, and statesman for the scientific community and the larger human rights community. I provide examples of where the scientist can interface with human rights organizations, medical doctors, political and civic leaders, and the science‐religion dialogue. My argument reveals the emerging role of the biomedical scientist as one of public service in addition to and beyond the realm of the experimental investigator. This role, however, is formidable, and I list some of the obstacles it entails.