Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.3
0.6
Journals
Philosophies
Special Issues
Clinical Ethics and Philosophy
share announcement

Clinical Ethics and Philosophy

A special issue of Philosophies (ISSN 2409-9287).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 20 December 2024 | Viewed by 7052

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. Mario Picozzi

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Biotechnology and Science of life, Insubria University, 21100 Varese, Italy
Interests: clinical ethics; clinical ethics consultation; ethics of organ transplantation; informed consent; end of life issues; research integrity
Prof. Dr. Fabrizio Turoldo

E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, 30123 Venice, Italy
Interests: bioethics; moral philosophy
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Clinical ethics is being increasingly recognized as a necessary component of healthcare. However, there are still several unanswered questions that have been nourishing a lively debate for many years.

This Special Issue intends to deepen the philosophical matters related to clinical ethics, verifying if and how there has been an evolution, which are the points of convergence, and which disagreements remain.

We will pay attention to the Ethics Committee, a privileged agent of clinical ethics, analyzing the main philosophical issues related to its management.

We will investigate the philosophical assumptions regarding the clinical ethics method and one of its priority tasks, the clinical ethics consultation.

In this Special Issue, we will explore the following topics:

  1. The philosophical foundations of clinical ethics
  • What are the links and differences between bioethics and clinical ethics?
  • Does clinical ethics have different philosophical assumptions to bioethics?
  • Is clinical ethics a philosophical or medical discipline?
  • What are the purposes of clinical ethics?
  • Is a bioethics expert also an expert in clinical ethics?
  • What are the philosophical foundations of clinical ethics?
  • Is an ethical theory necessary for clinical ethics?
  • Is interdisciplinarity a constitutive element of clinical ethics?
  1. The historical evolution of clinical ethics
  • Has the concept of clinical ethics evolved?
  • How has practice been driving the change of clinical ethics and its meaning?
  • In clinical ethics, are guidelines useful or do they limit the analysis and discussion of the single case?
  1. The places of clinical ethics
  • What is the role of the Ethics Committee? Is the Ethics Committee’s function only advisory?
  • Should the Ethics Committee give practical indications or only present the possible perspectives?
  • To represent the different ethical positions, is a single ethics advisor sufficient or do we need a team of several experts?
  • What philosophical training is required to serve on an Ethics Committee?
  • Clinical ethics and public engagement: wishful thinking or a way forward?
  • Significant experiences in these areas.
  1. The method in clinical ethics
  • What method should we recommend for clinical ethics?
  • Is there a preferable method for clinical ethics or can multiple methods coexist?
  • If there are different methods, can clinical ethics be considered a medical discipline?
  1. Clinical ethics consultation as the primary task of clinical ethics
  • What does ethics consultation mean?
  • Can we talk of an expert in ethics?
  • What is the most appropriate approach to clinical ethics consultation? What is its philosophical basis?
  • Can/should the ethics consultant be neutral?
  • Presentation and discussion of case studies illustrating these aspects.

Prof. Dr. Mario Picozzi
Prof. Dr. Fabrizio Turoldo
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Philosophies is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • clinical ethics
  • methods in clinical ethics
  • philosophical foundations of clinical ethics
  • ethics committee
  • clinical ethics consultations
  • ethics expertise

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (2 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

9 pages, 186 KiB  
Article
Digital Resurrection: Challenging the Boundary between Life and Death with Artificial Intelligence
by Hugo Rodríguez Reséndiz and Juvenal Rodríguez Reséndiz
Philosophies 2024, 9(3), 71; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030071 - 18 May 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 4644
Abstract
The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses challenges in the field of bioethics, especially concerning issues related to life and death. AI has permeated areas such as health and research, generating ethical dilemmas and questions about privacy, decision-making, and access to technology. Life [...] Read more.
The advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses challenges in the field of bioethics, especially concerning issues related to life and death. AI has permeated areas such as health and research, generating ethical dilemmas and questions about privacy, decision-making, and access to technology. Life and death have been recurring human concerns, particularly in connection with depression. AI has created systems like Thanabots or Deadbots, which digitally recreate deceased individuals and allow interactions with them. These systems rely on information generated by AI users during their lifetime, raising ethical and emotional questions about the authenticity and purpose of these recreations. AI acts as a mediator between life, death, and the human being, enabling a new form of communication with the deceased. However, this raises ethical issues such as informed consent from users and the limits of digital recreation. Companies offer services like the Digital Resurrection of deceased individuals and the generation of hyper-realistic avatars. Still, concerns arise about the authenticity of these representations and their long-term emotional impact. Interaction with Thanabots may alter perceptions of death and finitude, leading to a potential “postmortal society” where death is no longer viewed as a definitive end. Nevertheless, this raises questions about the value of life and the authenticity of human experiences. AI becomes a bridge between the living and the dead, partially replacing rituals and mystical beliefs. As technology advances, there will be a need for greater transparency in interacting with AI systems and ethical reflections on the role of these technologies in shaping perceptions of life and death. Ultimately, the question arises of whether we should allow the dead to rest in peace and how to balance the pursuit of emotional relief with authenticity and respect for the memory of the deceased. A deeper ethical consideration is needed on how AI alters traditional notions of life, death, and communication in contemporary society. In this research, an interdisciplinary approach was utilized to conduct a comprehensive systematic review of the recent academic literature, followed by a detailed analysis of two key texts. Central ideas were extracted, and recurring themes were identified. Finally, a reflective analysis of the findings was conducted, yielding significant conclusions and recommendations for future research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Ethics and Philosophy)

Other

Jump to: Research

16 pages, 258 KiB  
Viewpoint
Three Different Currents of Thought to Conceive Justice: Legal, and Medical Ethics Reflections
by Francesco De Micco and Roberto Scendoni
Philosophies 2024, 9(3), 61; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9030061 - 30 Apr 2024
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1837
Abstract
The meaning of justice can be defined according to a juridical, human, theological, ethical, biomedical, or social perspective. It should guarantee the protection of life and health, personal, civil, political, economic, and religious rights, as well as non-discrimination, inclusion, protection, and access to [...] Read more.
The meaning of justice can be defined according to a juridical, human, theological, ethical, biomedical, or social perspective. It should guarantee the protection of life and health, personal, civil, political, economic, and religious rights, as well as non-discrimination, inclusion, protection, and access to care. In this review, we deal with three theoretical concepts that define justice in all its aspects. (1) The utilitarian theory, which justifies moral statements on the basis of the evaluation of the consequences that an action produces, elaborating a pragmatic model of medical science. (2) The libertarian theory, which considers freedom as the highest political aim, thus absolutizing the rights of the individual; here, the principle of self-determination, with respect to which the principle of permission/consent is the fundamental presupposition, plays a central role in the definition of the person. (3) The iusnaturalist theory, in which man’s moral freedom is identified with the ability to act by choosing what the intellect indicates to him as good; the natural moral law that drives every conscience to do good is therefore realized in respect for the person in the fullness of his rights. In conclusion, different forms and conceptions of justice correspond to different organizations of society and different ways of addressing ethical issues in the biomedical domain. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Ethics and Philosophy)
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-2
Back to TopTop