Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics

Living Edition
| Editors: Henk ten Have

Censorship

Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05544-2_73-1
  • 139 Downloads

Abstract

The communication of information is central to many issues in global bioethics and so the justification for censorship is a key concern. This entry describes prudential and epistemic frameworks for the justification of censorship and explores their utility in light of prominent controversies in global bioethics.

Keywords

Censorship Free speech Autonomy Paternalism 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Aikin, K. J., Swasy, J. L., & Braman, A. C. (2004). Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promotion of prescription drugs-summary of FDA survey research results. Food and Drug Administration Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommunicationsResearch/UCM152860.pdf
  2. Biegler, P., & Vargas, P. (2013). Ban the sunset? Nonpropositional content and regulation of pharmaceutical advertising. American Journal of Bioethics, 13(5), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, A. E. (1978). Medical paternalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 7(4), 370–390.Google Scholar
  4. Food and Drug Administration. (2007). Improving public health through human drugs: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/WhatWeDo/UCM121704.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  5. Gilbert, D. T. (1991). How mental systems believe. American Psychologist, 46(2), 107–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilbody, S., Wilson, P., & Watt, I. (2005). Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: A systematic review. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(4), 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. I. (1991). Epistemic paternalism: Communication control in law and society. The Journal of Philosophy, 88(3), 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. I., & Cox, J. C. (1996). Speech, truth, and the free market for ideas. Legal Theory, 2, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Health Care Complaints Commission. (2014). Public statement – Warning about the Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, Inc. http://www.hccc.nsw.gov.au/Hearings---decisions/Public-statements-and-warnings/Public-statement---warning-about-the-Australian-Vaccination-skeptics-Network--Inc---AVN----formerly-known-as-Australian-Vaccination-Network-Inc-. Accessed 30 Oct 2014
  10. Herfst, S., Schrauwen, E. J., Linster, M., Chutinimitkul, S., de Wit, E., Munster, V. J., … Fouchier, R. A. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science, 336(6088), 1534–1541.Google Scholar
  11. Kaptchuk, T. J., Friedlander, E., Kelley, J. M., Sanchez, M. N., Kokkotou, E., Singer, J. P., … Lembo, A. J. (2010). Placebos without deception: A randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLoS One, 5(12), e15591.Google Scholar
  12. Mill, J. (2012). On Liberty. Simon and Brown. www.simonandbrown.com
  13. Pellegrino, E. D., & Thomasma, D. C. (1988). For the patient’s good: The restoration of beneficence in health care. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Scanlon, T. (1972). A theory of freedom of expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(2), 204–226.Google Scholar
  16. Ventola, C. L. (2011). Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: Therapeutic or toxic? Pharmacy & Therapeutics, 36(10), 669–684.Google Scholar
  17. Yang, J. (2013). Mutant virus sparks bioethics debate. Toronto Star. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/02/10/mutant_virus_sparks_bioethics_debate.html. Accessed 30 Oct 2014.

Further Readings

  1. Greene, J. A., & Herzberg, D. (2010). Hidden in plain sight marketing prescription drugs to consumers in the twentieth century. American Journal of Public Health, 100(5), 793–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Selgelid, M. (2007). A tale of two studies: Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Human BioethicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia