Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Ernst Schering Research Foundation Workshop Supplement 13 ((3368,volume 13))

  • 569 Accesses

Abstract

In a brief review of the philosophical underpinnings of the ethics in science from Kant’s categorical imperative to Fichte, Professor Poser outlined the main elements of the term “responsibility”, which represents a complex situation. He described responsibility not only as a retrospective term in the sense of being responsible for past actions, but also as a prospective term which is directed into the future. He defined the responsible subject as the actor who in society (and in drug development) is replaced by a system of actors, each of whom takes responsibility according to his degree of involvement. “Informed consent” also turns a study subject into a responsible person, i.e. a carrier of responsibility. Expert panels are also actors in shared responsibility. The current ethical view holds that the activity for which responsibility is taken is governed by the intent of the action. Difficulties arise when unintended and unpredictable consequences of an intended activity occur. This raises questions about what is unpredictable and who is responsible if a consequence is unpredictable. The party to whom responsibility is owed, the object of responsibility, is an historically limited situation. It may be an individual, the law, society, God, future generations, or the totality of reasoning individuals. The reason for the existence of the concept of responsibility, finally, is based on values. These values may be functional, ethical, economic, or they may be based on other principles, such as conscience.

Professor Poser interpreted the Helsinki declaration as an extension of Kant’s principles. The declaration states that the risk taken by a human subject should be in a reasonable relationship to the value of the trial or experiment and that the rights or the human subject to physical integrity must be maintained. He closed by citing the Hippocratic dictum: nihil nocere, bonum facere.

Clearly, these complex philosophical concepts determine how society perceives issues related to drug development and to drug risks and how society reacts both in an ethical and a legal sense.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Sämmtliche Werke, hg. v. I. H. Fichte, Berlin 1845, Nachdruck 1971, Bd. VI, S. 3–35; S. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women. Principal Results From the Woman’s Health Initiative. Randomized Controlled Trial. By Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. In: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) July 17, 2002, Vol. 288, No. 3, p. 321–332. — Sally A. Shumaker and others: Estrogen Plus Progestin and the Incidence of Dementia and Mild Cognitive Impairment in Postmenopausal Women. The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA May 28, 2003, Vol. 289, No. 20, p. 2651–2662. — Stephen R. Rapp and others: Effect of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Global Cognitive Function in Postmenopausal Women. The Women’s Health Initiative Memory Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA May 28, 2003, Vol. 289, No. 20, p. 2663–2672. — Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller and others: Effect of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Stroke in Postmenopausal Women. The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA May 28, 2003, Vol. 289, No. 20, p. 2673–2684. — Rowan T. Chlebowski and others: Influence of Estrogen Plus Progestin on Breast Cancer and Mammography in Healthy Postmenopausal Women. The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Trial. JAMA June 25, 2003, Vol. 289, No. 24, p. 3243–3253. — Valerie Beral u. andere von der Universität Oxford berichten in dem Fachmagazin Lancet über ähnliche Resultate wie die erstgenannten Studien, gewonnen an einer Million Frauen; vgl. Der Tagesspiegel v. 18.08.2003, S. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hans-Martin Sass, „Einleitung“ zu dem von ihm herausgegeben Band Medizin und Ethik, Stuttgart: 1989, S. 10 f.

    Google Scholar 

  4. H. Lenk: Verantwortungsdifferenzierung und Systemkomplexität, in: F. Rapp (Hg.), Technik und Philosophie, Düsseldorf 1990, 194–244, S. 224.

    Google Scholar 

  5. G. Ropohl: Ein systemtheoretisches Beschreibungsmodell des Handelns, in: H. Lenk (Hg.), Handlungstheorien — interdisziplinär, Bd. I, München 1980, S. 323–360.

    Google Scholar 

  6. H. Poser: Probleme der Wissenschaftsethik, in: Chr. Hubig, (Hg.), Verantwortung in Wissenschaft und Technik, Berlin 1990 (TUB Dokumentation Kongresse u. Tagungen H. 54), 11–34, S. 26 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  7. W.Ch. Zimmerli: Wandelt sich die Verantwortung im technischen Wandel? In: H. Lenk, G. Ropohl (Hg.), Technik und Ethik, Stuttgart 1987, 92–111, S. 105.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Technikbewertung — Begriff und Grundlagen. Erläuterungen und Hinweise zur VDI-Richtlinie 3780 (= VDI-Report 15), hrsg. vom VDI, Düsseldorf 1991, S. 78.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Vgl. H. Lübbe: Der Lebenssinn der Industriegesellschaft. Über die moralische Verfassung der wissenschaftlich-technischen Zivilisation, Berlin 1990, S. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  10. H. Jonas: Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Frankfurt 1984. Jonas versteht dies als eine treuhänderische Verantwortung für die uns von Gott überlassene Welt, die es zu schützen und zu bewahren gilt; sein Ziel reicht also weit über die hier formulierte Maxime hinaus.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vgl. Hans-Martin Sass, „Einleitung“ zu dem von ihm herausgegeben Band Medizin und Ethik, Stuttgart 1989, S. 9 f.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zurückforderung der Denkfreiheit (s. Anm. 1). S. 11.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Poser, H. (2006). Issues with the Term “Responsibility”. In: Lewis, M.A., Dietel, M., Scriba, P.C., Raff, W.K. (eds) Biology und Epidemiology of Hormone Replacement Therapy. Ernst Schering Research Foundation Workshop Supplement 13, vol 13. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37861-7_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-37861-7_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-32341-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-37861-7

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics