Family as First Bulwark for the Vulnerable: Confucian Perspectives on the Anthropology and Ethics of Human Vulnerability

Chapter
Part of the Advancing Global Bioethics book series (AGBIO, volume 2)

Abstract

The “Proposed outline for a report on respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity”, which tries to interpret the principle of human vulnerability, begins with the following observations.

Keywords

Advance Directive Advance Care Planning Filial Piety Confucian Ethic Hospital Authority 
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.

Bibliography

  1. Arblaster, A. 1984. The rise and decline of western liberalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Brazier, M., and M. Lobjoit. 1991. Protecting the vulnerable: Autonomy and consent in health care. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, F. 1991. Dependency revisited: The limits of autonomy in medical ethics. In Protecting the vulnerable: Autonomy and consent in health care, eds. M. Brazier and M. Lobjoit, 101–112. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Chan, J. 2002. Moral autonomy, civil liberties, and confucianism. Philosophy East and West 52 (3): 281–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan, M. M. 2004. Sharing death and dying: Advance directives, autonomy and the family. Bioethics 18 (2): 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dworking, R. 1994. Life’s dominion. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  7. Enegelhardt, J. r., and H. Tristram. 2000. The foundations of Christian bioethics. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  8. Fan, R. 1997. Self-determination vs. family-determination: Two incommensurable principles of autonomy. Bioethics 11 (3–4): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feinberg, J. 1986. Harm to self. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Freedman, B. 1999. Duty and healing: Foundations of a Jewish bioethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Hardwing, J. 1990. What about the family? The Hastings Center Report 20 (2): 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hsieh, Y. 謝幼偉. 1973. A critique of Mill’s “On Liberty” (“穆勒“論自由”的批判). (Papers in Chinese philosophy (中國哲學論文集)). Taipei: Hua Kang Publishers.Google Scholar
  13. International Bioethics Committee (IBC). 2009. Working document on the principle of respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  14. International Bioethics Committee (IBC). 2011. Report of IBC on the principle of respect for human vulnerability and personal integrity. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.Google Scholar
  15. Jin, Y. 金耀基. 1992. Individual and group in confucian thought (Rujiao xueshuo zhong de geti he qunti, 儒教學說中的個體和群體). (Chinese society and culture (中國社會與文化)). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. King, Hsiao. 1966. The sacred books of China: The texts of confucianism (trans: Legge, J.). vol. 3, ed. F. M. Müller. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
  17. Kotalik, J. 2011. Examining the suitability of the principle of subsidiarity for bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (4): 371–390.Google Scholar
  18. Lo, P. C. 2010. Euthanasia and assisted suicide from confucian moral perspectives. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 9 (1): 53–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynn, J. 1991. Why I don’t have a living will. Journal of Law, Medicine & Health Care 19 (1–2): 101–104.Google Scholar
  20. Macintyre, A. 1981. After virtue: A study in moral theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  21. Munro, D. J. 1985. Individualism and holism: Studies in confucian and Taoist values. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nelson, J. Lindemann. 1992. Taking families seriously. The Hastings Center Report 22 (4): 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson, H. L., and J. Lindemann Nelson. 2004. Family and family medicine. In Encyclopedia of bioethics. 3rd ed., ed. S. G. Post. New York: Thomson-Gale.Google Scholar
  24. Rhoden, N. K. 1988. Litigating life and death. Harvard Law Review 102 (2): 375–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandel, M. J. 1982. Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tu, W. M. 1984. Confucian ethics today: The Singapore challenge. Singapore: Curriculum Development Institute of Singapore and Federal Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Working Group on Clinical Ethics of the Hospital Authority Clinical Ethics Committee (Working Group HA). 2002. HA guidelines on life-sustaining treatment in the terminally Ill. Hong Kong. http://www.ha.org.hk/haho/ho/cc/clinicalethicreport_eng_graphic.pdf. Accessed on 14 Sept 2011.
  28. Zhongfang, Y. 楊 中 芳. 1993. Are chinese really “Collectivists”? (中 國 人 真 是 ‘集 體 主 義’ 的 嗎). In Chinese values: Perspectives from social sciences (中國 人 的 價 值 觀 社 會 科 學 觀 點), ed. Y. Kuo-shu (楊 國 樞). Taipei: Wreath Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Applied EthicsHong Kong Baptist UniversityHong KongPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations