Analysis

Chapter
Part of the Philosophy and Medicine book series (PHME, volume 112)

Abstract

This chapter will first take up a critical revision of some premises endorsed in the course of the debate outlined above. It will then turn to the most recent arguments on the matter and will seek to lay the foundation for a sound ethical and anthropological rationale, justifying the qualified permissibility of employing incompetent subjects in experimentation that, while holding out no immediate benefit to them, redounds to the good of others.

Keywords

Minimal Risk Human Dignity National Commission Parental Authority Presume Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ashley, B. M., and K. D. O’Rourke. 1997. Health Care Ethics: A Theological Analysis (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Friedman Ross, L. 1998. Children, Families, and Health Care Decision Making. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. May, W. E. 2000. Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (1st ed.). Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division.Google Scholar
  4. McCormick, R. A. 1975. “Notes on Moral Theology.” Theological Studies 36:77–129.Google Scholar
  5. O’Rourke, K. D. 2006. “The Embryo as Person.” The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 6(1):241–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ramsey, P. 1976. “The Enforcement of Morals: Nontherapeutic Research on Children.” The Hastings Center Report 6:21–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ramsey, P. 2002. The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bartholome, W. G. 1977a. “Proxy Consent in the Medical Context: The Infant as Person.” In National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Appendix: Research Involving Children. DHEW Publication No. (OS) 77-0005, sec. 3, 23–24. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Holy See. 1983. Charter of the Rights of the Family [On-line] Accessed August 1, 2008. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html
  10. John Paul II. 1982a. Address to a Meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences [On-line] Accessed August 1, 2008. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1982/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19821023_pont-accademia-scienze_en.html
  11. McCormick, R. A. 1981b. “Proxy Consent in the Experimentation Situation.” In How Brave a New World? Dilemmas in Bioethics, 51–71. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dominican College of Philosophy and TheologyKrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations