현대 다원주의 사회에 적합한 자율성 모색: 역량 중심 접근법에 입각한 관계적 자율성과 다형적 모델을 중심으로
Revisiting Autonomy in Bioethics: Focusing on ‘Relational Autonomy Based on the Capability Approach’ and the ‘Plural Forms Model’
0
조회
0
다운로드
12
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The purpose of this paper is to search for a justifiable concept of autonomy that feasibly applies to bioethics and, based on this inquiry, suggest a practical model in a modern pluralist society. For this purpose, we classify personal autonomy into ‘metaphysical autonomy’ as the ideal theory guiding practical theories and both ‘narrow bioethical autonomy’ and ‘wide bioethical autonomy’ as non-ideal theories. We criticize narrow bioethical autonomy theories such as those posited by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress. Not only do they fail to flesh out metaphysical autonomy theories such as Harry Frankfurt’s, but they are not feasible because they ignore patient relationships and circumstances. We argue that Amartya Sen’s capability approach compliments the feminist concept of relational autonomy. Not only can this combination overcome the weaknesses found in narrow bioethical autonomy theories, but it allows for a practical framework to remove injustice and support autonomy. We call this combination ‘relational autonomy based on the capability approach’ and classify it as a theory of ‘wide bioethical autonomy.’ Based on this inquiry, we suggest a ‘plural forms model’ in a reasonable pluralism, which can reduce many of the autonomy-related conflicts. This model is useful in medical institution reform for explaining the plurality in both physicians’ identities and cases of patients’ autonomy (such as ambivalence) while it enhances patient autonomy through institutional and non-institutional reforms.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to search for a justifiable concept of autonomy that feasibly applies to bioethics and, based on this inquiry, suggest a practical model in a modern pluralist society. For this purpose, we classify personal autonomy into ‘metaphysical autonomy’ as the ideal theory guiding practical theories and both ‘narrow bioethical autonomy’ and ‘wide bioethical autonomy’ as non-ideal theories. We criticize narrow bioethical autonomy theories such as those posited by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress. Not only do they fail to flesh out metaphysical autonomy theories such as Harry Frankfurt’s, but they are not feasible because they ignore patient relationships and circumstances. We argue that Amartya Sen’s capability approach compliments the feminist concept of relational autonomy. Not only can this combination overcome the weaknesses found in narrow bioethical autonomy theories, but it allows for a practical framework to remove injustice and support autonomy. We call this combination ‘relational autonomy based on the capability approach’ and classify it as a theory of ‘wide bioethical autonomy.’ Based on this inquiry, we suggest a ‘plural forms model’ in a reasonable pluralism, which can reduce many of the autonomy-related conflicts. This model is useful in medical institution reform for explaining the plurality in both physicians’ identities and cases of patients’ autonomy (such as ambivalence) while it enhances patient autonomy through institutional and non-institutional reforms.
참고문헌 (52)
- Rawls J., "Political Liberalism", pp.24~27 (1993), Cambridge University Press
- Beauchamp TL, "Who Deserves Autonomy, and Whose Autonomy Deserves Respect?, In Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy", pp.327~ (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Scheider CE, "The Practice of Autonomy: Patients, Doctors, and Medical Decision", pp.202~203 (1998), Oxford University Press
- 홍소연, "의료행위에서의 간섭주의의 정당화", 석당논총, pp.33~199 (2003)
- 임마누엘 칸트, "도덕형이상학의 기초"
- 존 스튜어트 밀, "자유론"
- Swindell JS, "Respecting Autonomy in Cases of Ambivalence Regarding End of Life Decisions", 박사, pp.2008
- 최경석, "생명의료윤리에서의‘자율성’에 대한 비판적 고찰", 한국의료윤리학회지, 14(1), pp.13~27 (2011), 한국의료윤리학회
- Frankfurt H, "The Importance of What We Care About", pp.15~ (1988), Cambridge University Press
- Anderson J, "Disputing autonomy: second-order desires and the dynamics of ascribing autonomy", Sats-Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 9(1), pp.7~26 (2008)
- Schermer M, "The Different Faces of Autonomy: Patient Autonomy in Ethical Theory and Hospital Practice", pp.4~5 (2002), Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Frankfurt H, "A discussion with Harry Frankfurt", Ethical Perspectives, 5(1), pp.35~ (1998)
- 목광수, "이상론과 비이상론의 관계에 대한 고찰: 존 롤즈의 정의론을 중심으로", 철학논총, 65(3), pp.209~228 (2011), 새한철학회
- Nussbaum M, "Symposium on Amartya Sen's philosophy: 5 adaptive preferences and women's options", Econ Philos, 17(1), pp.67~88 (2001)
- Sen A, "Development as Freedom", pp.62~63 (1999), Knopf
- Sherwin S, "A Relational Approach to Autonomy in Health Care, In The Politics of Women's Health: Exploring Agency and Autonomy", pp.46~49 (1998), Temple University Press
- Beauchamp TL, "Principles of Biomedical Ethics", pp.104~ (2013), Oxford University Press
- Swindell JS, "Two types of autonomy", AJOB Neurosci, 9(1), pp.52~ (2009)
- 이상하, "상황윤리", pp.170~ (2009), 철학과현실사
- Mill JS, "자유론", pp.31~ (2005), 책세상
- 이상하, "제한적 합리성과 적응적 사고", 과학철학, 8(2), pp.81~114 (2005), 한국과학철학회
- Jennifer N, "Reconceiving autonomy: sources, thoughts and possibilities", YJLF, 1, pp.7~36 (1989)
- Mackenzie C, "Autonomy Refigured, In Relational Autonomy", pp.26~ (2000), Oxford University Press
- Brison SJ, "Relational Autonomy and Freedom of Expression, In Relational Autonomy" (2000), Oxford University Press
- Sandel M, "The Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self, In Communitarianism and Individualism", pp.18~ (1992), Oxford University Press
- Baumann H, "Reconsidering relational autonomy: personal autonomy for socially embedded and temporally extended selves", Analyse und Kritik, 30, pp.445~ (2008)
- Walker MU, "Morality in practice: a response to Claudia card and Lorraine code", Hypatia, 17(1), pp.175~ (2002)
- 김선희, "자아와 행위, 관계적 자아의 자율성", pp.15~ (1998), 철학과현실사
- Donchin A, "Understanding autonomy relationally: toward a reconfiguration of bioethical principles", J Med Philos, 26(4), pp.365~386 (2001)
- Meyers DT, "Who’s there? Selfhood, self-regard, and social relations", Hypatia, 20(4), pp.210~ (2005)
- 이은영, "삶의 마감 시 공동의사결정과 관계적 자율성", 박사, 의료법윤리학협동과정 의료윤리학전공, pp.2012
- Nussbaum M, "Creating Capabilities the Human Development Approach", pp.26~ (2011), Harvard University Press
- Nussbaum M, "Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice", Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), pp.41~42 (2003)
- Beyond Liberalization: Social Opportunity and Human Capability, "Sen A", Institute of Social Sciences, 78~79 (1994)
- Sen A, "Capabilities, lists, and public reason: continuing the conversation", Feminist Economics, 10(3), pp.78~ (2004)
- Sen A, "Well-being, agency and freedom", J Philos, 82(4), pp.186~ (1985)
- Anderson E, "What is the point of equality?", Ethics, 109, pp.87~ (1999)
- 목광수, "역량 중심 접근법과 인정의 문제 ― 개발 윤리와의 관련 하에서 고찰 ―", 철학, (104), pp.215~239 (2010), 한국철학회
- May T, "The Concept of Autonomy in Bioethics: An Unwarranted Fall from Grace, In Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy", pp.306~308 (2005), Cambridge University Press
- 홍소연, "의료행위와 환자의 자율성", 윤리교육연구, 4(4), pp.135~156 (2003), 한국윤리교육학회
- 허라금, "원칙의 윤리에서 여성주의 윤리로: 자기 성실성의 철학", pp.19~ (2004), 철학과현실사
- 염수균, "정치적 덕으로서의 인테그리티: 드워킨의 견해에 대한 비판적 고찰", 철학연구, (91), pp.237~264 (2010), 철학연구회
- 피터 싱어, "생명윤리학", pp.86~ (2006), 인간사랑
- 허대석, "환자의 자기결정권과 사전의료지시서", 대한의사협회지, 52(9), pp.865~870 (2009), 대한의사협회
- Parsons T, "The sick role and the role of the physician reconsidered", Health and Society, 53(3), pp.271~ (1975)
- Szasz T, "의학윤리란 무엇인가?", pp.137~138 (2005), 바오로딸
- Veatch RM, "Models for Ethical Medicine in a Revolutional Age, In Biomedical Ethics", pp.55~58 (1996), McGraw-Hill
- 변문숙, "간섭주의의 정당화 기준에 대한 고찰 : 온건 간섭주의를 중심으로", 철학논구, 31, pp.111~134 (2003)
- 목광수, "정의론과 사회윤리", pp.550~ (2012), 철학과현실사
- 베른하트 헤링, "의료윤리", pp.291~ (2006), 가톨릭출판사
- 홍용석, "병원치료시 환자의 기대수준과 병원선택 요인 - 대학병원과 중소병원의 비교를 중심으로 -", 보건의료산업학회지, 5(4), pp.15~26 (2011), 보건의료산업학회