Bioethics and the Hippocratic oath

Throughout the long centuries of medical activity, the Hippocratic Oath always had a distinguished place and role within the self definition of curative practice: it contains in a condensed form those ethical principles and moral norms that determine the doctors' behavior and their relationships with their patients and colleagues. The Hippocratic Oath is not the only oath but it is surely the best known and most famous one, that contains both timeless and age dependent norms. The ceremonial taking of the Oath is still a symbol of moral commitment for doctors. The millennia long adherence to the Oath perhaps suggests a timeless stature above all changes of society, but tracing its history, it becomes apparent that, though the text remained essentially the same, the interpretation is greatly influenced by the values and norms of the given age. Even so, the Oath's deontological, normative attribute has made it possible to fulfill its morally regulating role both of level of the profession and the individual, up to the middle of the 20. century. Today, however, classic, bipolar medicine has become complex and varied. Medicine and society have both undergone changes. Bioethics has appeared and become widely accepted. All this raises the question whether the Oath is still suitable for a modern statement of the moral identity of medical practitioners. Does it still have a compulsory force beyond keeping the tradition, and can its norms still be realized in practice? Both the study of texts used for the Oath in Hungarian universities, and the international proposal for modernization--together with the arguments that followed--indicate that if the traditional oath wishes to fulfill its function in the age of modern medicine, it has to adhere to the more up-to-date principles of bioethics, that better correlate with today's expectations.     

Bioethics, critical solidarity and organic volunteering

OBJECTIVE: The study proposes "critical solidarity" as a value to be incorporated into the 21st century's bioethics agenda and as an instrument to guide people and associations in volunteer praxis. METHODS: To explain how solidarity materializes itself, the motivations for engaging in volunteer activities in associations that integrate the corps of volunteers of the Instituto Nacional do Cancer [National Cancer Institute] in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, are analyzed. The data for analysis were obtained by applying two instruments. The first one consists of a questionnaire divided into 2 parts: one part identifies the socioeconomic profile, and the other identifies solidarity as a value that motivates volunteer activity. The second instrument comprises of semi structured interviews utilized to collect supplementary data for analysis. RESULTS: The results indicate that volunteering is based on three basic motivations: a) personal motivations related to life as a volunteer, b) motivations resulting from professed beliefs, and c) motivations aroused by the feeling of solidarity. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the incorporation of critical solidarity requires a rupture with the detected model of patronizing volunteering; it implies explicating the common selfish interests that permeate volunteer activities and qualify an organic volunteering, that is, volunteering which is politically aware and committed to responding to the specific demands of the present time.     

Bioethics and toxicology

Human activity, involving nature and environment, alters the ecosystems in which we live; the question is whether this activity can be the source of risk and/or the origin of damages to human health. Risk assessment and risk management, connected with its protection, are not only a scientific and technical problem: hazards are real, but risks are social constructions. The role of toxicologists shows subjective features connected with different affiliations (industry, research, government); thus the assumptions and interpretations of risk assessment need to be integrated with wider psychological, social and political perspectives, in particular with ethical choices and values. Within public health personal subjectivities (genetic, biological and social) an adequate value should be given contrary to an abstract and collective entity which may erase and sacrifice subjectivities in favour of a statistical point of view. Public health should be considered as a whole of individual health conditions with regard to prevention, treatment and care.     

Bioethics,from Stories to History

Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy -     

Bioethics at the Crossroad

Bioethics and its offspring Health-care Ethics have a variety ofuses and obligations among which and perhaps most importantly istheir social obligation. This paper raises questions as toBioethics fulfilling the necessary criteria for a profession,suggests that it can serve as a link between individual andcommunal problems, discusses the task of health-care ethics as well as ways of teaching it, lists some of the obligationsof health-care ethics professionals and discusses the dangers to and failings of these health-care professionals today. Itconcludes that we are at a crossroads in which we must choosebetween our own personal security and comfort and fulfilling our social role.     

On the Nature and Sociology of Bioethics

Much has been written in the last decade about how we should understand the value of the sociology of bioethics. Increasingly the value of the sociology of bioethics is interpreted by its advocates directly in terms of its relationship to bioethics. It is claimed that the sociology of bioethics (and related disciplinary approaches) should be seen as an important component of work in bioethics. In this paper we wish to examine whether, and how, the sociology of bioethics can be defended as a valid and justified research activity, in the context of debates about the nature of bioethics. We begin by presenting and arguing for an account of bioethics that does justice to the content of the field, the range of questions that belong within this field, and the justificatory standards (and methodological orientations) that can provide convincing answers to these questions. We then consider the role of sociology in bioethics and show how and under what conditions it can contribute to answering questions within bioethics. In the final section, we return to the sociology of bioethics to show that it can make only a limited contribution to the field.     

Bioethics and health instruction: issues, questions, and advocacy

The purpose of this article is to define bioethics and illustrate some current bioethical issues facing society today, provide an overview of arguments opposing teaching about bioethics by health educators, describe selected aspects of the who, what and how of the teaching of bioethics, and advocate the teaching of bioethics at all levels of health education curricula. The intent is not to provide conclusive solutions to the many complex issues related to the teaching of bioethics, but rather to discuss some of the issues and stimulate debate.