The Troublesome Concept of the Person

In today'sbioethical debates, the concept of the person plays a major role. However, it does not hold this role justly. The purpose of this paper is to argue that the concept of the person is unsuited to be a central concept in bioethical debates, because its use is connected with serious problems. First, the concept is superfluous. Secondly, it is a confusing concept and it lacks pragmatic use. Thirdly, its use leads to simplifications. Finally, the concept can easily be used as a cover-up concept. Therefore, it is argued that relinquishing the concept of the person could enhance the clarity and quality of bioethical debate. Moreover, the historic origin of much of the present confusion surrounding the concept of the person is clarified. It is demonstrated that three influences resulting from Locke'sideas on the person and personal identity can be determined as contributing factors to the confusion and controversy within the present bioethical debates centering around the person.     

Adolescent decision-making: Giving weight to age-specific values

Adults who give proxy consent for medical treatment for adolescents must decide how much weight to give to adolescents' own preferences. There is evidence that some adolescents choose treatments different from what adults see as most reasonable. It is argued that adolescents choose according to age-specific values, i.e. values they hold, as adolescents, and which fulfil important developmental needs. Because not fulfilling these needs may do serious psychological damage, it is urged that proxies give weight to these values, up to the limit where it would endanger or profoundly limit future life.A very brief version of this article has been published as Chapter 3 of Forman EN, Ladd RE.Ethical Dilemmas in Pediatrics: A Case Study Approach. New York: Springer-Verlag. 1991, reprinted by University Press of America, 1995.     

Nihilism,Relativism, and Engelhardt

This paper is a critical analysis of Tristram Engelhardt's attempts to avoid unrestricted nihilism and relativism. The focus of attention is his recent book, The Foundations of Bioethics (Oxford University Press, 1996). No substantive or content-full bioethics (e.g., that of Roman Catholicism or the Samurai) has an intersubjectively verifiable and universally binding foundation, Engelhardt thinks, for unaided secular reason cannot show that any particular substantive morality (or moral code) is correct. He thus seems to be committed to either nihilism or relativism. The first is the view that there is not even one true or valid moral code, and the second is the view that there is a plurality of true or valid moral codes. However, Engelhardt rejects both nihilism and relativism, at least in unrestricted form. Strictly speaking, he himself is a universalist, someone who believes that there is a single true moral code. Two argumentative strategies are employed by him to fend off unconstrained nihilism and relativism. The first argues that although all attempts to establish a content-full morality on the basis of secular reason fail, secular reason can still establish a content-less, purely procedural morality. Although not content-full and incapable of providing positive direction in life, much less a meaning of life, such a morality does limit the range of relativism and nihilism. The second argues that there is a single true, content-full morality. Grace and revelation, however, are needed to make it available to us; secular reason alone is not up to the task. This second line of argument is not pursued in The Foundations at any length, but it does crop up at times, and if it is sound, nihilism and relativism can be much more thoroughly routed than the first line of argument has it.Engelhardt's position and argumentative strategies are exposed at length and accorded a detailed critical examination. In the end, it is concluded that neither strategy will do, and that Engelhardt is probably committed to some form of relativism.     

关于“代孕爸爸”事件的生命伦理与法律问题思考

全球首位“代孕爸爸”托马斯·比提的高调出现,带来了一场激烈的关于生命伦理与法律的大讨论。变性人的婚姻、生育及代孕问题让我们不得不对变性手术、人工辅助生殖技术以及代孕技术这些新兴生命技术进行再思考。我们不仅要肯定新兴生命技术的合理性,也要防止其所产生的潜在负面影响。合理利用新兴生命技术,客观地分析该事件并制定相应的法规是避免出现伦理道德和社会混乱的有效途径。     

人类基因组计划——《中国医学伦理学辞典》条目选载之一

人类基因组计划（HGP）主要包括：遗传图谱的建立;物理图谱的建立;DNA顺序测定;基因的识别;人类基因组多样性计划;模式生物体基因组比较研究及相关的社会、法律和伦理问题的研究等。人类基因组研究的伦理问题有：基因研究和人类的尊严、遗传信息的陷私权及获知权、组图谱的信息使用与人的社会权利、基因组信息对个人的影响、资源的专利与资源争夺、基因决定论还是非决定论、基因组研究成果应用的不可预测性等,这些问题若处理不当有可能会导致严重的后果。     

BIOTECHNOTHEOLOGY AND DEMYTHOLOGIZATION OF STEM‐CELL RESEARCH

Biotechnology deals not only with new types of therapies for preventing and curing diseases but also with the creation of new technologies for the production of human flesh. Its ultimate aim is to create a new human body, a new person. Biotechnology wears the cloak not only of a new scientific paradigm but also of a kind of messianic religion. To develop new therapies, to destroy illnesses, to transform the human body into a nonmortal one—these are some of the promises it makes. In time, many of these promises will undoubtedly prove to be illusory, but they will nevertheless continue to have a significant impact on the way people think. Through a process that I call biotechnotheological analysis I show that biotechnology could eventually become not only a type of secular religion but even a type of mythic para‐Christian religion, one that incorporates the two most significant processes at work in every mythical religion: the process of mimesis and the ritual of the scapegoat. The essay is an attempt to understand biotechnological achievements, especially in stem‐cell research, in this new biotechnotheological way.     

How Christian Norms Can Have an Impact on Bioethics in a Pluralist and Democratic Europe: A Scandinavian Perspective

This article assesses the similarity and difference betweenthe Western European style of doing bioethics and the Scandinavianone. First, it reviews the introductory article by the editor,C. Delkeskamp-Hayes in the first issue of Christian Bioethics(2008), devoted to the possibility of a specifically Christianbioethics in Europe. Second, it analyses bioethics debates inScandinavian today. In light of Delkeskamp-Hayes' article, themain similarity is that both regions are facing secularizationas a threat to basic Christian values, for example, to the Christianview of the sanctity and dignity of the human life. But theScandinavian tends to reduce Christian bioethics to Luther'sconcept of the worldly kingdom, supposed to foster a dialoguebetween Christians and non-Christians on controversial ethicalissues. Despite the positive value of the dialogue, this strategyrenders Christian ethics powerless. Third, from an evangelicaltheological standpoint, it proposes some strategies for enhancingthe influence of Christian commitments on bioethical laws andpolicies.     

The Communication and Bioethical Training (CoBiT) Program for assisting dialysis decision-making in Spanish ACKD units

Healthcare professionals currently working in Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease (ACKD) units must cope with difficult situations regarding assisting patients with the dialysis decision-making process, and they are often untrained for these conversations. Although we have evidence from the literature that these skills can be learned, few professionals feel confident in this area. A Communication and Bioethical Training (CoBiT) Program for ACKD staff (physicians, nurses and allied health professionals) was developed to improve their ability and self-confidence in conducting these conversations. A four-stage study was conducted: (1) development of the CoBiT program, beginning with the creation of an interdisciplinary focus group (N = 10); (2) design of a questionnaire to assess self-confidence based on the areas identified by the focus group. The face validity of the instrument was tested using an inter-judge methodology (N = 6); (3) design of the format and contents of the program; (4) piloting the program. Thirty-six health professionals took an 8-h workshop based on role-playing methodology. Participants assessed their self-confidence in their communication skills before and after the program using self-report measures. The results show that after the program, participants reported significantly higher levels of self-confidence measured with a five-point Likert scale (p < 0.001). Participants felt that communication with colleagues of other professions significantly increased after the workshop (p = 0.004). The CoBiT program improves ACKD Unit healthcare professionals’ self-confidence in their ability to perform a specific communication task.     

植入前组织配型孕育“救星同胞”的伦理思考

应用植入前遗传学诊断技术在胚胎植入母体子宫前,对人类白细胞组织相容性抗原配型检测,选择与现存患儿相同HLA配型的胚胎进行受孕,孕育一个组织配型相同的脐带血干细胞供者。在某种意义上说,该项技术的应用是创造人来获得移植组织,由此引发系列伦理争议。讨论孕育"救星同胞"这一医学实践内在需要的伦理规范。     

Why ecumenism fails: taking theological differences seriously.

Contemporary Christians are separated by foundationally disparate understandings of Christianity itself. Christians do not share one theology, much less a common understanding of the significance of sin, suffering, disease, and death. These foundational disagreements not only stand as impediments to an intellectually defensible ecumenism, but they also form the underpinnings of major disputes in the culture wars, particularly as these are expressed in healthcare. There is not one Christian bioethics of sin, suffering, sickness, and death. In this article, the character of the moral-theological visions separating the various Christianities and thus their bioethics is examined. Particular emphasis is placed on the differences that set contemporary Western theology at odds with the theology of the Christianity of the first millennium. As is shown, the ground for this gulf lies in the divide between traditional and post-traditional views of the appropriate role of philosophy in theology, a difference rooted in disparate understandings of the meaning of church and of the meaning of the logos, the Son of God.