No description available.

<p>The intimate connection between autonomy and decision-making in applied health care, especially in various kinds of consent and refusal has taken center stage in medical ethics since the Salgo decision in 1957. Prior to that time, the physician’s supposedly moral duty to provide appropriate medical care typically surpassed the legal obligation to respect patient’s autonomy. The Salgo decision concluded that physicians have a legal duty to provide facts necessary for the patient to make an informed decision. "The doctor knows best" long ago was replaced with "The doctor proposes; the patient disposes." There is no legal obligation for the patient’s choice to be palatable to anyone, other than that patient himself/herself. Although Beauchamp and Childress justified the obligation to solicit decisions from patients and potential research subjects by the principle of respect for autonomy, they however, acknowledged that the principle’s precise demands remain unsettled and open to interpretations and specification. This thesis addresses a current debate in the bioethical community on the four-principle approach. Using Tom Beauchamp and James Childress as case study, to discuss mainly the principle of respect for autonomy, I go on to explain their central arguments concerning this principle in relation to decision making in health care ethics. Rather than focus on their respective weaknesses, which many theorist and health care professionals do, I emphasis instead on the contribution the principle of respect for autonomy can make in the process of ethical decision making in health care situation.</p>

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 298-319). Also available on microfiche.

The intimate connection between autonomy and decision-making in applied health care, especially in various kinds of consent and refusal has taken center stage in medical ethics since the Salgo decision in 1957. Prior to that time, the physician’s supposedly moral duty to provide appropriate medical care typically surpassed the legal obligation to respect patient’s autonomy. The Salgo decision concluded that physicians have a legal duty to provide facts necessary for the patient to make an informed decision. "The doctor knows best" long ago was replaced with "The doctor proposes; the patient disposes." There is no legal obligation for the patient’s choice to be palatable to anyone, other than that patient himself/herself. Although Beauchamp and Childress justified the obligation to solicit decisions from patients and potential research subjects by the principle of respect for autonomy, they however, acknowledged that the principle’s precise demands remain unsettled and open to interpretations and specification. This thesis addresses a current debate in the bioethical community on the four-principle approach. Using Tom Beauchamp and James Childress as case study, to discuss mainly the principle of respect for autonomy, I go on to explain their central arguments concerning this principle in relation to decision making in health care ethics. Rather than focus on their respective weaknesses, which many theorist and health care professionals do, I emphasis instead on the contribution the principle of respect for autonomy can make in the process of ethical decision making in health care situation.

The investigator undertook a study to determine the validity of the Brace Football Achievement Tests as a measure of real playing ability of individual members of the 1948 football squads of the high schools of Quanah and Childress, Texas.

No description available.

Bioethics deals with the ethical problems arising from the developments in life sciences and biotechnologies. Western autonomy-based philosophical framework has dominated the approach of mainstream Bioethics. Yet, many of the assumptions implicit in the Western framework that makes claim to universal validity may not be shared by non-western cultures. Moral pluralism poses a challenge to a common bioethics. Pluralism is understood as a descriptive term, which refers to the existence of different outlooks - moral or religious in a given society. It is simply another word for diversity. Within most western societies, the principle of autonomy sometimes implies that every person has an atomistic right to self-determination. In most African culture, however, the person is viewed as a relational self, one whom social relationships and inter-dependence rather than individualism provide the basis for moral decisions. Through a critical analysis of the Principles of Biomedical Ethics by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress; the Foundations of Bioethics by H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.; and the Morality of Pluralism by John Kekes, the author addresses two challenges. The first one concerns the possibility and desirability of a common bioethical framework in a society with a diversity of moral visions. The second deals with what could be the contribution of African thought, philosophy, and culture to such a project. By exploring some of the worldviews of the Igbo of South-eastern Nigeria, the author shows that different cultures have different significances in bioethical analysis. He argues that an acceptable bioethical framework should be sensitive to the cultural realities of the people where it is employed and contextual in its application. At the same time, it should take account of the common morality feature of human experience. He formulates three prima facie common morality principles as meeting the challenge of Bioethics within the African context.

<p>Bioethics deals with the ethical problems arising from the developments in life sciences and biotechnologies. Western autonomy-based philosophical framework has dominated the approach of mainstream Bioethics. Yet, many of the assumptions implicit in the Western framework that makes claim to universal validity may not be shared by non-western cultures. Moral pluralism poses a challenge to a common bioethics. Pluralism is understood as a descriptive term, which refers to the existence of different outlooks - moral or religious in a given society. It is simply another word for diversity.</p><p>Within most western societies, the principle of autonomy sometimes implies that every person has an atomistic right to self-determination. In most African culture, however, the person is viewed as a relational self, one whom social relationships and inter-dependence rather than individualism provide the basis for moral decisions. </p><p>Through a critical analysis of the <i>Principles of Biomedical Ethics</i> by Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress; the <i>Foundations of Bioethics</i> by H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr.; and the <i>Morality of Pluralism</i> by John Kekes, the author addresses two challenges. The first one concerns the possibility and desirability of a common bioethical framework in a society with a diversity of moral visions. The second deals with what could be the contribution of African thought, philosophy, and culture to such a project. </p><p>By exploring some of the worldviews of the Igbo of South-eastern Nigeria, the author shows that different cultures have different significances in bioethical analysis. He argues that an acceptable bioethical framework should be sensitive to the cultural realities of the people where it is employed and contextual in its application. At the same time, it should take account of the common morality feature of human experience. He formulates three prima facie common morality principles as meeting the challenge of Bioethics within the African context.</p>

Acceso restringido a texto completo / Memoria (licenciado en ciencias jurídicas y sociales)