CHRISTIANITY AND POSSIBILITY: ON KEARNEY'S THE GOD WHO MAY BE

Abstract: This essay interprets and responds to Richard Kearney's metaphysics of possibility and hermeneutics of religion against the background of Nietzsche's proclamation of the death of God and the theodicy problem. Kearney's work is thus read as an interesting but ultimately problematic attempt to preserve or perhaps reinstate religious thought after the modern critique of idols. In addition, his positions are compared and contrasted with some of authors with whom he seems to be in limited agreement (for example, Plotinus, Hillesum) as well as some with whom he clearly breaks (for example, Girard, Sölle).     

精神疾病诊断:科学的判断?伦理的判断?

自精神病学纳入医学的范畴之后,精神疾病的诊断因为其所声称的科学手段而被认为是科学的判断.20世纪中叶开始的反精神病学运动全面否定其科学性,认为精神疾病的诊断是单纯的伦理价值判断.两种观点都显得过于极端.精神疾病的特殊性决定了精神疾病的诊断是科学判断基础上的伦理判断.其中科学的判断不是决定性的,而是基础性的.决定性的是伦理的判断,只是这种伦理判断必须建立在科学判断的基础之上而已.     

论卫生改革的改革

首先讨论我国卫生改革的评价问题,指出对改革的评价表面上似乎是个事实判断,但实际上是个价值判断,并列举数据说明改革引起的不公正后果。其次指出我国的卫生改革一开始就缺乏伦理基准,并详细论述了应该具有的伦理基准是什么。最后讨论了市场在医疗卫生事业的作用,以及对卫生改革的改革建议。     

公共卫生的责任主体缺位是众多医学伦理问题产生的根源

我国的卫生、医疗服务系统近年来产生了大量严重的伦理问题,引起了国内外广泛的关注。通过对大量材料的归类、分析,找出我国众多严重伦理问题产生的主要根源是公共卫生责任主体的缺位。解决的主要措施是:加快卫生母法的建立;政府对“公共性”卫生服务责任到位,扭转卫生工作严重的市场化和趋利化倾向;彻底改变医疗费用的“后付制”和“第三方付费制”,实行政府正向投入;改变当前在疾病预防和初级卫生保健投入方面过于细化的分级财政体制;制止药品广告和虚假的医疗广告;加大控制政府公立医院建设的成本和降低医院运行费用的工作,严格收费价格纪律等。     

人类干细胞之伦理原则与监管政策（上）

本文分两大部分。第一部分从干细胞的功能、来源与社会争议性3种角度划分了人类干细胞的种类,并讨论与人类干细胞研究及临床应用相关的9条伦理原则,特别强调了西方国家对胚胎捐赠在知情同意方面的伦理耍求。第二部分讨论了制定监管人类干细胞研究的3个原则,并简单地介绍了在英美各国监管的情况,其中较详细地评论了英国的种种立法过程、设立的法定机构和执行的种种政策与机制,作为在我国讨论类似政策参考之用。     

生命伦理之争的文化视角——以安乐死和人工流产为例

从文化的角度看,生命伦理之争是文化之争。也就是说,生命伦理之争的背后是不同文化传统之间、同一文化内部不同派别之间、对同一经典的不同诠释之间的争论。然而,东西方文化之间,以及同一文化内部各派别之间也并非完全不可通约,未来生命伦理学的发展必须保持其普世性和多元性之间的张力。     

患者知情同意权实现的伦理思考与法律保护

随着医学科学的发展,患者的知情同意已是医学实践的一个基本伦理观念和原则,但是,它的实现不仅需要道德规范的约束,而且还需要法律的保护.     

医院的社会责任：伦理学视角

讨论了评价医院管理行动的伦理框架,严峻的卫生形势,医院的社会责任,其中着重讨论参与全面建设小康社会;向社会提供公平的卫生保健服务;重建医患信托关系以及调整与企业关系防止利益冲突。     

论英美医事法立法体系

我国现阶段的有关医疗方面的法律、法规,在整个医疗卫生活动中起到了规范和制约的作用,但仍不完善。了解国外医事立法的历史和现状,有利于我国医事立法工作的开展。从英美法系医事立法出发,对英美法系的医事立法进行讲解和论述,从而起到借鉴的作用。     

How does evidence-based practice in psychology work? – As an ethical demarcation

Evidence-based practice in psychology (EBPP) is ordinarily understood to demarcate between legitimate and illegitimate psychotherapy practice, based upon the epistemic demarcation distinguishing scientific from non-scientific knowledge. EBPP emphasizes the value of effective and efficient interventions identified through randomized controlled trials and cost-benefit analyses. Basing the template for choice of action or strategy on randomized controlled trials and cost-benefit analyses create a deceptive appearance of ethical neutrality. However, there is an implicit ethical demarcation at work in EBPP, which favors a non-articulated specific position in normative ethics. More particularly, evidence-based practice in psychology is structured according to a utilitarian framework, severely limiting the kinds of ethical perspectives available to assess psychotherapy practice. The latter point is illustrated through a new mode of delivering psychotherapy services called “Internet-based guided self-help” (IBGSH). In EBPP the only relevant ethical question is to what extent any intervention, such as IBGSH, is effective and efficient. Some of the limiting effects of the ethical, utilitarian, demarcation are showcased by presenting three alternative ethical perspectives by which psychotherapy practice in general and IBGSH in particular can be analyzed. The analysis concludes that EBPP is not suited to ethically regulate the practice of psychotherapy.