The Place of Philosophy in Bioethics Today

REFERENCES

• “A review and analysis of the ELSI research programs at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy.” 2000. National Human Genome Research Institute. Accessed February 10, 2000. https://www.genome.gov/erpeg-final-report.
   Google Scholar
• Aas, S. 2019. Prosthetic embodiment. Synthese 1–29. doi:10.1007/s11229-019-02472-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., and B. Lo, 2019. Building on the American College of Physicians ethics manual. Annals of Internal Medicine 170 (2):133–4. doi:10.7326/M18-3120.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogenschutz, M. P., A. A. Forcehimes, J. A. Pommy, C. E. Wilcox, P. C. R. Barbosa, and R. J. Strassman, 2015. Psilocybin-assisted treatment for alcohol dependence: A proof-of-concept study. Journal of Psychopharmacology 29 (3):289–99. doi:10.1177/0269881114565144.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boorse, C. 2011. Concepts of health and disease. In Philosophy of medicine. Handbook of the philosophy of science, ed. Fred Gifford, 13–64. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Carhart-Harris, R. L., M. Bolstridge, J. Rucker, C. M. J. Day, D. Erritzoe, M. Kaelen, M. Bloomfield, J. A. Rickard, B. Forbes, A. Feilding, et al. 2016. Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: An open-label feasibility study. The Lancet. Psychiatry 3 (7):619–27. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30065-7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chadha, M. 2015. A Buddhist epistemological framework for mindfulness meditation. Asian Philosophy 25 (1):65–80. doi:10.1080/09552367.2015.1012802.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiesa, A., and A. Serretti, 2011. Mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 17 (1):83–93. doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, E. 2010. The problem of biological individuality. Biological Theory 5 (4):312–25. doi:10.1162/BIOT_a_00068.
   Google Scholar
• Crisp, R. 2017. Well-being. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/well-being/.
   Google Scholar
• Dempsey, M. M., and T. Dougherty, 2021. Introduction. Ethics 131 (2):207–9. doi:10.1086/711206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang, C. Y., D. K. Reibel, M. L. Longacre, S. Rosenzweig, D. E. Campbell, and S. D. Douglas, 2010. Enhanced psychosocial well-being following participation in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program is associated with increased natural killer cell activity. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 16 (5):531–8. doi:10.1089/acm.2009.0018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feldman, F. 1994. Confrontations with the reaper: A Philosophical study of the nature and value of death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, J. M. 1993. The metaphysics of death. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, G. 2018. Needing and necessity. In Oxford studies in normative ethics, ed. Mark Timmons, 170–192. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Frick, J. 2015. Contractualism and social risk. Philosophy & Public Affairs 43 (3):175–223. doi:10.1111/papa.12058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gendler, T. S. 2008. Alief and belief. The Journal of Philosophy 105 (10):634–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grose, J. 2020. How many organisms during a pregnancy? Philosophy of Science 87 (5):1049–60. doi:10.1086/710542.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamm, F. M. 2020a. Moral reasoning in a pandemic. Text. Boston Review. Accessed July 6, 2020. http://bostonreview.net/philosophy-religion/f-m-kamm-moral-reasoning-pandemic.
   Google Scholar
• Kamm, F. M. 2020b. The use and abuse of the trolley problem: Self-driving cars, medical treatments, and the distribution of harm. In Ethics of artificial intelligence, ed. S. Matthew Liao, 79–108. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kingma, E. 2019. Were you a part of your mother? Mind 128 (511):609–46. doi:10.1093/mind/fzy087.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, S. M. 2012. Intentions and moral permissibility: The case of acting permissibly with bad intentions. Law and Philosophy 31 (6):703–24. doi:10.1007/s10982-012-9134-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre, A. 2019. Doctrine of double effect. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/double-effect/.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, B., R. Nelson, P. Ubel, and J. S. Blumenthal-Barby, 2021. Two minds, one patient: Clearing up confusion about ambivalence. The American Journal of Bieothics doi:10.1080/15265161.2021.1887965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberdiek, J. 2017. Imposing risk: A normative framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Overall, C. 2015. Rethinking abortion, ectogenesis, and fetal death. Journal of Social Philosophy 46 (1):126–40. doi:10.1111/josp.12090.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pallikkathayil, J. 2011. The possibility of choice: Three accounts of the problem with coercion. Philosophers’ Imprint 11:1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parfit, D. 1984. Reasons and persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 2005. Political liberalism. Columbia: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riley, E. 2017. The beneficent nudge program and epistemic injustice. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 20 (3):597–616. doi:10.1007/s10677-017-9805-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, C. 2018. Why desperate times (but only desperate times) call for consequentialism. Oxford studies in normative ethics volume 8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/oso/9780198828310.001.0001/oso-9780198828310-chapter-11.
   Google Scholar
• Savulescu, J. 2015. Bioethics: Why philosophy is essential for progress. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (1):28–33. doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, A. T. 2016. The ethics and politics of mindfulness-based interventions. Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (7):450–4. doi:10.1136/medethics-2015-102942.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siderits, M. 2007. Buddhism as philosophy: An introduction. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sobel, D. 2016. From valuing to value: A defense of subjectivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stapleton, G. 2017. Qualifying choice: Ethical reflection on the scope of prenatal screening. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (2):195–205. doi:10.1007/s11019-016-9725-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefano, L. D., C. Mills, A. Watkins, and D. Wilkinson, 2020. Ectogestation ethics: The implications of artificially extending gestation for viability, newborn resuscitation and abortion. Bioethics 34 (4):371–84. doi:10.1111/bioe.12682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugarman, Jeremy, and Daniel P. Sulmasy, eds. 2010. Methods in medical ethics. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sulmasy, D. P. 2019. Whole-brain death and integration: Realigning the ontological concept with clinical diagnostic tests. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (5):455–81. doi:10.1007/s11017-019-09504-w.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, G. M. 2017. Down’s syndrome screening and reproductive politics: Care, choice, and disability in the prenatal clinic. New York: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Veatch, R. M. 1973. Generalization of expertise. Studies – Hastings Center 1 (2):29–40. doi:10.2307/3527511.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Veatch, R. 1978. Generalization of expertise. The Hastings Center Studies 1 (2):29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Veatch, R. M. 2019. Controversies in defining death: A case for choice. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 40 (5):381–401. doi:10.1007/s11017-019-09505-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woollard, F., and F. Howard-Snyder. 2016. Doing vs. allowing harm. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/doing-allowing/.
   Google Scholar
• Zernicke, K. A., T. S. Campbell, P. K. Blustein, T. S. Fung, J. A. Johnson, S. L. Bacon, and L. E. Carlson, 2013. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms: A randomized wait-list controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 20 (3):385–96. doi:10.1007/s12529-012-9241-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zuk, P., G. Lázaro-Muñoz, 2019. DBS and autonomy: Clarifying the role of theoretical neuroethics. Neuroethics 1–11. doi:10.1007/s12152-019-09417-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar