Abstract
The concept of vulnerability and, more specifically, its use in bioethics and in the philosophy of medicine, is at the heart of hotly contested debates. Deemed overly paternalistic, stigmatizing, and conceptually-flawed, and yet still deeply relevant and useful, it has been reworked and complexified in order to offer a more accurate understanding of what it means to be—medically—vulnerable. It is the aim of this chapter to propose an overview of the diverse manners in which vulnerability was conceptualized. Firstly, it will provide a few conceptual clarifications regarding the link between vulnerability and other closely related concepts such as risk and susceptibility. It will then analyze shifting views regarding who is mostly concerned by the concept: is it to be ascribed to specific groups whose ability to make autonomous decisions and to protect their own interests is questioned, to humanity as whole by virtue of being interdependent, needful corporeal beings, or to individuals whose bodies and circumstances vary greatly? Secondly, it will present different views on what exactly vulnerability is: a limitation to one’s autonomy or the complex intertwinement of contextual and individual features? Lastly, this chapter will propose a brief outlook on how the concept of vulnerability can be integrated into a series of questions central to the philosophy of medicine and present two conceptualizations of vulnerabilities that might prove pertinent in this context: Rogers, Mackenzie, and Dodd’s taxonomy of inherent, situational, and pathogenic vulnerabilities and Luna’s layers of vulnerability.
References
Bagnoli C (2016) Vulnerability and the incompleteness of practical reason. In: Strahele C (ed) Vulnerability, autonomy and applied ethics. London, Routledge. pp 13–32
Boldt J (2019) The concept of vulnerability in medical ethics and philosophy. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 14(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-019-0075-6
Dunn MC, Clare ICH, Holland AJ (2008) To empower or to protect? Constructing the “vulnerable adult” in English law and public policy. Leg Stud (Society of Legal Scholars) 28(2):234–253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121X.2008.00085.x
Gilson EC (2014) The ethics of vulnerability: a feminist analysis of social life and practice. 1. Publ. Routledge studies in ethics and moral theory, vol 26. Routledge, New York
Goodin RE (1985) Protecting the vulnerable: a reanalysis of our social responsibilities. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Hoffmaster B (2006) What does vulnerability mean? Hast Cent Rep 36(2):38–45
Hurst S (2016) The Most vulnerable patients in health care. In: Vulnerability, autonomy, and applied ethics. Routledge
Jones JH (1993) Bad Blood. Simon and Schuster
Keller J (1997) Autonomy, Relationality, and feminist ethics. Hypatia 12(2):152–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1527-2001.1997.tb00024.x
Kottow MH (2003) The vulnerable and the susceptible. Bioethics 17(5–6):460–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00361
Lederer S, Davis AB (1995) Subjected to science: human experimentation in America before the second world war. Hist Rev New Books 24(1):13–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/03612759.1995.9949143
Levine C, Faden R, Grady C, Hammerschmidt D, Eckenwiler L, Sugarman J (2004) A response to commentators on “the limitations of ‘vulnerability’ as a protection for human research participants”. Am J Bioeth 4(3):W32–W32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160490508954
Luna F (2009) Elucidating the concept of vulnerability: layers not labels. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 2(1):121–139
MacIntyre A (1999) Dependent rational animals: why human beings need the virtues. Open Court
Mackenzie C (2013) The importance of relational autonomy and capabilities for an ethics of vulnerability. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S (eds) Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0002
Mackenzie C (ed) (2014) Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Studies in feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press, New York
Mackenzie C (2016) Vulnerability, needs and moral obligation’. In: Strahele C (ed) Vulnerability, autonomy and applied ethics. London, Routledge. pp 13–32
Macklin R (2003) Bioethics, vulnerability, and protection. Bioethics 17(5–6):472–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00362
Maillard N (2011) La vulnérabilité: une nouvelle catégorie morale? Le champ éthique 56. Labor et Fides, Genève
Minkler M (1999) Personal responsibility for health? A review of the arguments and the evidence at century’s end. Health Educ Behav 26(1):121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819902600110
Nussbaum MC (2013) Creating capabilities: the human development approach, Reprint edn. An Imprint of Harvard University Press, Belknap Press
O’Neill O (1996) Towards justice and virtue: a constructive account of practical reasoning, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621239
Rogers W (2013) Vulnerability and bioethics. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S (eds) Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0003
Rogers W, Mackenzie C, Dodds S (2012) Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth 5(2):11–38. https://doi.org/10.2979/intjfemappbio.5.2.11
Ruof MC (2004) Vulnerability, vulnerable populations, and policy. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 14(4):411–425. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2004.0044
Scully JL (2013) Disability and vulnerability: on bodies, dependence, and power. In: Mackenzie C, Rogers W, Dodds S (eds) Vulnerability: new essays in ethics and feminist philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.003.0009
ten Have, H (2016) Vulnerability: challenging bioethics. Routledge, London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315624068
United States National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral (1978) The Belmont report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research: appendix. In: Department of Health, education, and welfare. Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, National
Wolff J, de-Shalit A (2007) Disadvantage. Oxford Political Theory Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278268.001.0001
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 Springer Nature B.V.
About this entry
Cite this entry
Tinland, J. (2024). Understanding, Identifying, and Addressing Human Vulnerabilities in Medicine. In: Schramme, T., Walker, M. (eds) Handbook of the Philosophy of Medicine. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_114-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8706-2_114-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8706-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8706-2
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities