Abstract
This essay roughly sketches two major conceptions of autonomy in contemporary bioethics that promote the resourcification of human body parts: (1) a narrow conception of autonomy as self-determination; and (2) the conception of autonomy as dissociated from human dignity. In this paper I will argue that, on the one hand, these two conceptions are very different from that found in the modern European tradition of philosophical inquiry, because bioethics has concentrated on an external account of patient’s self-determination and on dissociating dignity from internal human nature. However, on the other hand, they are consistent with more recent European philosophy. In this more recent tradition, human dignity has gradually been dissociated from contextual values, and human subjectivity has been dissociated from objectivity and absolutized as never to be objectified. In the concluding part, I will give a speculative sketch in which Kant’s internal inquiry of maxim of ends, causality and end, and dignity as irreplaceability is recombined with bioethics’ externalized one and used to support an extended human resourcification.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
K. Bayertz (1995) ArticleTitle‘Die Idee der Menschenwürde, Probleme und Paradoxien’ Archiv für Rechts-und Sozialphilosophie 81 IssueID4 465–481
T.L. Beauchamp J.F. Childress (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics Oxford University Press New York
N. Daniels (1985) Just Health Care Cambridge University Press New York 2
J. Duffin (1999) History of Medicine: A Scandalously Short Introduction University of Toronto Press Toronto 171
M. Heidegger (1962) ‘Question Concerning Technology’ W. Lovitt (Eds) 1977, Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays Harper and Row New York 3–35
R. Howard J. Najarian (1978) ‘Organ Transplantation: Medical Perspective’ W.T. Reich (Eds) Encyclopedia of Bioethics Free Press New York 1160
Kant I.: 1781, Critique of Pure Reason: in P. Guyer and A.E. Wood (eds.), 1998, New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 224.
I. Kant (1785) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals M.J. Gregor (Eds) 1996, Practical Philosophy Cambridge University Press New York 37–108
Kant I.: 1788, Critique of Practical Reason, in: M. Gregor (ed.), 1996, op.cit. pp. 133–271.
Kant I.: 1790, Critique of the Power of Judgment, in: P. Guyer and E. Matthews ed., 2000, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 244–245.
I. Kant (1797) ‘The Metaphysics of Morals’ M. Gregor (Eds) 1996, Practical Philosophy Cambridge University Press New York 353–603
M. Morioka (2001) ArticleTitle‘Reconsidering Brain Death–A Lesson from Japan’s Fifteen Years of Experience -’ Hastings Center Report 31 IssueID4 41–46 Occurrence Handle12945466
J.A. Simpson E.S.C. Weiner (Eds) (1989) The Oxford English Dictionary EditionNumber2 Clarendon Press Oxford 28
G.E Pence (2003) Classic Cases in Medical Ethics: Accounts of Cases That Have Shaped Medical Ethics, with Philosophical, Legal, and Historical Backgrounds McGraw-Hill New York
J.D. Rendtorff (2002) ArticleTitle‘Basic ethical principles in European bioethics and biolaw: Autonomy, dignity, integrity and vulnerability–Towards a foundation of bioethics and biolaw’, Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 5 235–244 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1021132602330
B. Secker (1999) ArticleTitle‘The Appearance of Kant’s Deontology in Contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of Patient Autonomy in Bioethics’ Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24 IssueID1 43–66 Occurrence Handle10.1076/jmep.24.1.43.2544 Occurrence Handle10223442
The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (U.S.A.): 1979, The Belmont Report–Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miyasaka, M. Resourcifying human bodies – Kant and bioethics. Med Health Care Philos 8, 19–27 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-0103-8
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-005-0103-8