La responsabilidad: un principio para retomar en la reflexión bioética

Juan Pablo Zapata-Ospina

doi:10.17533/udea.iatreia.30

Authors

Juan Pablo Zapata-Ospina University of Antioquia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1815-5583

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iatreia.30

Keywords:

education, ethics research, ethical review, principle-based ethics, social responsibility

Abstract

Science and its arm, technology, may focus on an anthropocentric logic if they insist on satisfying only human needs at the expense of the mastery (or destruction) of nature and coexisting species. It is also possible that they serve to economic and political powers and investigate only under a logic focused on profit. Within this panorama, a call is made to an act of conscience for the proposal of the German philosopher Hans Jonas on responsibility principle, which claims for a reflection beyond the immediate relations, including nature, animals and future generations in the formulation of a new ethics that should be taught and practiced from the academy.

|Abstract

= 1155 veces | PDF (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 417 veces| | HTML (ESPAÑOL (ESPAÑA))

= 14 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Juan Pablo Zapata-Ospina, University of Antioquia

Doctor and surgeon, specialist in Psychiatry. Master in Clinical Epidemiology. Occasional teacher. Institute of Medical Research. School of Medicine.

References

(1.) Lolas F, Quezada A, Rodríguez E. Investigación en salud. Dimensión ética. Acta bioeth. 2006;12(2):257-8.

(2.) Schick K, Toth N. The origin of the Genie. En: Lightman A, Sarewitz D, Desser C, editores. Living with the Genie: essays on technology and the quest for human mastery. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2003. p. 23-34.

(3.) Suazo M. La bioética en el desarrollo científico tecnológico del área de la salud: enfermería y ética del cuidado. Cienc Soc. 2001;XXVI(1):7-15.

(4.) Ladrière J. Del sentido de la bioética. Acta Bioeth. 2000;VI(2):197–218.

(5.) Bunge M. Ciencia y Desarrollo. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Siglo Veinte; 1980. 176 p.

(6.) Willmott H. Science, governance and self-understanding: from anthropocentricism to ecocentrism? Crit Policy Stud. 2014;8(1):22–40.

(7.) Stern DI, Kaufmann RK. Estimates of global anthropogenic methane emissions 1860–1993. Chemosphere. 1996;33(1):159-76.

(8.) Davidson E. The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nat Geosci. 2009;2:659–62.

(9.) Hedenus F, Wirsenius S, Johansson DJA. The importance of reduced meat and dairy consumption for meeting stringent climate change targets. Clim Change. 2014;124(1–2):79–91.

(10.) Deblonde T, Hartemann P. Environmental impact of medical prescriptions: assessing the risks and hazards of persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity of pharmaceuticals. Public Health. 2013;127(4):312–7.

(11.) Liévano-León A. La bioética y el uso de los ecosistemas acuáticos. En: Escobar Triana J, editor. Memorias de la mesa sobre Bioética Ambiental. Bogotá D.C.; 2010. p. 119-22.

(12.) Miziara ID, Magalhães AT de M, Santos M d’Aparecida, Gomes EF, Oliveira RA. Research ethics in animal models. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. abril de 2012;78(2):128–31.

(13.) LaFollette H, Shanks N. Animal experimentation: The legacy of Claude Bernard. Int Stud Philos Sci. el 9 de enero de 1994;8(3):195–210.

(14.) Kääb S, Nuss HB, Chiamvimonvat N, O’Rourke B, Pak PH, Kass DA, et al. Ionic mechanism of action potential prolongation in ventricular myocytes from dogs with pacing-induced heart failure. Circ Res. febrero de 1996;78(2):262–73.

(15.) Chakir K, Daya SK, Tunin RS, Helm RH, Byrne MJ, Dimaano VL, et al. Reversal of Global Apoptosis and Regional Stress Kinase Activation by Cardiac Resynchronization. Circulation. 2008;117(11):1369–77.

(16.) Ferdowsian HR, Gluck JP. The Ethical Challenges of Animal Research. Cambridge Q Healthc Ethics. 2015;24(4):391-406.

(17.) Amaro Cano M del C. La invasión tecnológica en las ciencias médicas y su repercusión ética en el desarrollo sostenible. Cuad Bioética. 2000;2:200–9.

(18.) Gómez Giraldo LJ. De la bioética a la ecoética. Gest Ambient. 2015;18(1):147-57.

(19.) Morán AA. La ética de la información y la infoesfera. Escritos. 2013;21(45):21–37.

(20.) Hottois G. El paradigma bioético: Una ética para la tecnociencia. Barcelona: Editorial Anthropos; 1991. 208 p.

(21.) Loh S-L. Beyond Peace: Pluralizing Japan’s Nuclear History. Asia-Pacific J. 2013;10(11 (6)):1-2.

(22.) Lefor AT. Scientific misconduct and unethical human experimentation: historic parallels and moral implications. Nutrition. 2005;21(7–8):878–82.

(23.) Lexchin J. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2003;326(7400):1167–70.

(24.) Lesser LI, Ebbeling CB, Goozner M, Wypij D, Ludwig DS. Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles. PLoS Med. 2007;4(1):e5.

(25.) Gracia D. Profesión médica, investigación y justicia sanitaria. Bogotá D.C: Editorial El Búho; 2002. 152-176 p.

(26.) Walsh K. The winner takes it all. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(5):267.

(27.) Aguilar Gordón F. Reflexiones filosóficas sobre la tecnología y sus nuevos escenarios. Sophía. 2011;1(11):123.

(28.) Giraldo FL. La naturaleza humana ante el desarrollo científico y tecnológico. Trilogia. 2011;4:115–27.

(29.) Van Hooft S. What is death? En: LIFE, DEATH, AND SUBJECTIVITY Moral Sources in Bioethics. Amsterdam: Rodopi; 2004. p. 143-52.

(30.) Zuleta Salas GL. La aparición de la bioética y el porqué de la misma. Rev Lasallista Investig. 2014;11(1):23–34.

(31.) De Siqueira JE. El principio de responsabilidad de Hans Jonas. Acta Bioeth. 2001;VII(277–285).

(32.) Jonas H. El principio de responsabilidad. Ensayo de una ética para la civilización tecnológica. Barcelona: Herder Editorial; 1995. 400 p.

(33.) Restrepo Tamayo JC. La teoría de la responsabilidad como imperativo ético. Hans Jonas y el principio axiológico para la tecnociencia. Escritos. 2011;19(42):79–121.

(34.) Davis JK. Collective Suttee: Is It Unjust to Develop Life Extension if It Will Not Be Possible to Provide It to Everyone? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1019(1):535-41.

(35.) Pijnenburg MAM, Leget C. Who wants to live forever? Three arguments against extending the human lifespan. J Med Ethics. 2007;33(10):585-7.

(36.) Kalf RR, Bakker R, Janssens ACJ. Predictive ability of direct-to-consumer pharmacogenetic testing: when is lack of evidence really lack of evidence? Pharmacogenomics. 2013;14(4):341–4.

(37.) Martens FK, Janssens ACJW. How the Intended Use of Polygenic Risk Scores Guides the Design and Evaluation of Prediction Studies. Curr Epidemiol Reports. 2019;6(2):184-90.

(38.) Chasioti D, Yan J, Nho K, Saykin AJ. Progress in Polygenic Composite Scores in Alzheimer’s and Other Complex Diseases. Trends Genet. 2019;35(5):371-82.

(39.) Rosales A. Naturaleza orgánica y responsabilidad ética: Hans Jonas y sus críticos. Trans/Form/Ação (São Paulo). 2004;27(2):97-111.

(40.) Garcés LF. En la búsqueda de un modelo bioético para la experimentación con animales: elementos para su fundamentación. Prod + Limpia. 2014;9(1):124–40.

(41.) Díaz-García A. La ética de la virtud y la bioética. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2009;4(1):93–128.

(42.) Carrasco N. Gilbert Hottois y los comités de ética: ¿una apuesta insostenible? Rev Laguna. 2010;27:57–69.

(43.) Amos L. Researcher vulnerability: An overlooked issue in vulnerability discourses. Sci Res Essays. 2014;9(16):737–43.

(44.) Sherry E. The vulnerable researcher: facing the challenges of sensitive research. Qual Res J. 2013;13(3):278–88.

(45.) Moynihan R. Doctors’ education: the invisible influence of drug company sponsorship. BMJ. 2008;336(7641):416–7.

(46.) Blackley S, Sheffield R. Environment: Re-negotiating the E in STEM Education. Eco-Thinking. 2016;1.

(47.) Rudolph JL. Reconsidering the “nature of science” as a curriculum component. J Curric Stud. 2000;32(3):403–19.

(48.) Greenberg RA, Kim C, Stolte H, Hellmann J, Shaul RZ, Valani R, et al. Developing a bioethics curriculum for medical students from divergent geo-political regions. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16(1):193.