Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 343–352 | Cite as

Technological paternalism: On how medicine has reformed ethics and how technology can refine moral theory

Article

Abstract

The objective of this article is to investigate ethical aspects of technology through the moral term “paternalism”. The field of investigation is medicine. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, “paternalism” has gained moral relevance through modern medicine, where physicians have been accused of behaving paternalistic and threatening patients’ autonomy. Secondly, medicine is a brilliant area to scrutinise the evaluative aspects of technology. It is argued that paternalism is a morally relevant term for the ethics of technology, but that its traditional conception is not adequate to address the challenges of modern technology. A modification towards a “technological paternalism” is necessary. That is, “technological paternalism” is a fruitful term in the ethics of technology. Moreover, it is suited to point out the deficiencies of the traditional concept of paternalism and to reform and vitalise the conception of paternalism in ethics in order to handle the challenges of technology.

Keywords

paternalism technology ethics medicine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Childress, J.F. (1982) Who should decide? Paternalism in health care. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofmann, B. (2001) The Technological Invention of Disease. J Med Ethics: Medical Humanities 27: 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toulmin S (1986). How Medicine Saved the Life of Ethics. In: DeMarco, Fox RM eds., New Directions in Ethics: The Challenge of Applied Ethics, Routledge and Keagan Paul, New York: 265–81.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nordenfelt, L. (1991) Hälsa och värde. [Health and worth], Thales, Stockholm: 17.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wolf, S., Berle, B.B. (1981) The Technological Imperative in Medicine, Plenum Press, London and New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Emanuel, E.J., Emanuel, L.L. (1992) Four models of the physician-patient relationship, JAMA 267 (16): 2224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cassell EJ (1991). The nature of suffering and the goals of medicine, Oxford University Press, New York: p. 92.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Falkum, E., Førde, R. (2001) Paternalism, patient autonomy, and moral deliberation in the physician-patient relationship. Attitudes among Norwegian physicians. Soc Sci Med 52(2): 239–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reiser, S.J. (1978) Medicine and the Reign of Technology. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, E.S., Welch, H.G. (1999) Avoiding the Unintended Consequences of Growth in Medical Care. JAMA 281: 446–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davidson, S.N. (1995) Technological Cancer: Its Causes and Treatment. Healthcare Forum J 38: 52–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jennett, B. (1994) Medical Technology, Social and Health Care Issues, in Gillon, R. (ed.). Principles of Health Care Ethics. John Wiley & Sons, New York: 861–872.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Helman, C.G. (1985) Disease and pseudo-disease: A case history of pseudo-angina, in: Hahn RA, Gines AD (eds.) Physicians of Western medicine. Anthropological Approaches to Theory and Practice. D.Reidel Publishing Company, Dortrecht.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dworkin, G. (1992) Paternalism. Encyclopaedia of Ethics. Garland, London: 940.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beauchamp, T.L. (1995) Paternalism, in: Reich, W.T. Encyclopaedia of Bioethics. Simon & Schuster, London: 1914.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kant, I. (1974) [1793] On the Old Saw: That May Be Right in Theory But It Won’t Work in Practice. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mill, J.S. (1978) [1859] On liberty. Hackett, Indianapolis, Ind.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Feinberg, J. (1986) Harm to self. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feinberg, J. (1971) Legal Paternalism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 1: 113.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Häyry, H. (1998) Paternalism. Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics. Academic Press, New York: Volume 3: 453.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Häyry, H. (1991) The Limits of Medical Paternalism. Routledge, New York.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ellul J. (1964) The Technological Society. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winner, L. (1977) Autonomous Technology. MIT Press, Cambridge Ma.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cassell EJ (1993): The Sourcer’s Broom. Medicine’s Rampant Technology. Hastings Center Report 23; (6): 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hofmann, B (2002). The myth of technology in health care. Science and Engineering Ethics 8(1): 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for medical ethicsUniversity of OsloNorway
  2. 2.University College of GjøvikGjøvikNorway

Personalised recommendations