Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems

Marceta, Jesper Ahlin

doi:10.1007/s40592-020-00108-y

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although researchers did not universally use the term "authentication," sociologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and ethicists have empirically demonstrated the presence of divergent types of authentication in cultural industries (Roeland et al, 2011;Rutten, 2019), cosmetic surgery transitions (Weiss & Kukla, 2009;Gimlin, 2013), life-style and marketing discourses (Rose & Wood, 2005;Chalmers & Price, 2009;Houtman et al, 2010;O'Neillet al, 2014;Houtman et al, 2016), personalized healthcare (Sharon, 2017), bio-ethical debates on human enhancement technologies (Bolt, 2007;Marceta, 2020;Parens, 2005), and AI-generated art (Floridi, 2018). Authenticity has become such a binding value and dominant norm in Western societies (Aupers et al, 2010) that the way people talk about what constitutes the (in)authentic may say more about the authenticity conceptions available in everyday language, than how people truly feel or think about what constitutes the (in)authentic.…”

Section: From Authenticity To Authenticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Authenticity in Technological Environments

Beerends

Aydin

2021

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Essentialists understand authenticity as an inherent quality of a person, object, artifact, or place, whereas constructionists consider authenticity as a social creation without any pre-given essence, factuality, or reality. In this paper, we move beyond the essentialist-constructionist dichotomy. Rather than focusing on the question whether authenticity can be found or needs to be constructed, we hook into the idea that authenticity is an interactive, culturally informed process of negotiation. In addition to essentialist and constructionist approaches, we discuss a third, less well-known approach that cannot be reduced to any of the two forms. This approach celebrates the authenticity of inauthenticity by amplifying the made. We argue that the value of (in)authenticity lies not in choosing for one of these approaches, but in the degree to which the process of negotiating authenticity enables a critical formation of selves and societies. Authenticity is often invoked as a method of social control or a mark of power relations: once something is defined as authentic, it is no longer questioned. Emerging technologies—especially data-driven technologies—have the capacity to conceal these power relations, propel a shift in power, and dominate authentication processes. This raises the question how processes of authentication can contribute to a critical formation of selves and societies, against the backdrop of emerging technologies. We argue in favor of an interactionist approach of authenticity and discuss the importance of creating space in authentication processes that are increasingly influenced by technology as an invisible actor.

show abstract

Section: From Authenticity To Authenticationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating Authenticity in Technological Environments

Beerends

Aydin

2021

Philos. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite its importance, the concept of DMC remains controversial. Issues such as how emotions affect DMC (Charland, 1998), whether the ability to value is relevant to DMC (Kim, 2010), how authenticity should play a role (den Hartogh, 2016;Ahlin Marceta, 2020), and the role of voluntariness have all inspired debate (Charland, 2002). A recent narrative review explores the role of emotions and values, and highlights the complexity and lack of consensus (Hermann et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Assessments of Decision-Making Capacity Be Risk-Sensitive? A Systematic Review

Berens

Kim

2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe concept of decision-making capacity (DMC) or competence remains controversial, despite widespread use. Risk-sensitive DMC assessment (RS-DMC)—the idea that the higher the risk involved in a decision, the greater the decisional abilities required for DMC—has been particularly controversial. We conducted a systematic, descriptive review of the arguments for and against RS-DMC to clarify the debate.MethodsWe searched PubMed/MEDLINE (National Library of Medicine), PsycInfo (American Psychological Association) and Philpapers, updating our search to February 15th, 2022. We targeted peer-reviewed publications in English that argue for or against RS-DMC. Two reviewers independently screened the publications and extracted data from each eligible manuscript.ResultsOf 41 eligible publications, 22 supported a risk-sensitive threshold in DMC assessment. Most arguments for RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal and practical merits. The arguments against RS-DMC primarily express concerns about paternalism and the seeming asymmetry between consent and refusal; critics of RS-DMC support epistemic, rather than substantive (i.e., variable threshold), risk-sensitivity; counterarguments responding to criticisms of RS-DMC address charges of paternalism and exhibit a notable variety of responses to the issue of asymmetry. Authors used a variety of frameworks regarding the definition of DMC, its elements, and its relation to decisional authority, and these frameworks were significantly associated with positions on RS-DMC. A limitation of our review is that the coding relies on judgment and interpretation.ConclusionThe review suggests that some of the debate about RS-DMC stems from differences in underlying frameworks. Most defenses of RS-DMC rely on its intuitive appeal, while most criticisms reflect concerns about paternalism or the asymmetry between consent and refusal. Defenses of RS-DMC respond to the asymmetry problem in a variety of ways. Further research is needed on the implications of underlying frameworks, the asymmetry problem, and the distinction between epistemic and substantive models of RS-DMC.

show abstract

“…Маркета (Королевский технологический институт, Швеция) подчеркивает, что уважение к свободе -центральный моральный принцип биоэтики. «Быть свободным -значит быть самоуправляемым» [Marceta, 2020]. Если пациент не способен принимать решения, касающиеся его здоровья, или если он/она не принимает медицинских решений независимо от внешних факторов влияния, таких как социальное или экономическое давление, это отрицательно влияет на степень независимости принятия решений.…”

unclassified

Some issues of biomedical ethics in a pandemic (review)

Летов¹

2021

PhST

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article is an analytical review of English-language articles devoted to modern problems of biomedical ethics. The article considers such ethical categories as respect for the freedom of the patient, paternalism, protection of the patient’s interests, the principle of sustainability, justified allocation of resources, etc. It is noted, in particular, that, according to the principle of equitable distribution of medical resources, everyone receives what they deserve, in accordance with the needs of health and no one is discriminated against because of individual characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic status or age. Under the principle of patient freedom, people have the right to make informed decisions of their own, including with regard to voluntary vaccination programs, and can act according to their norms, desires and beliefs. This review presents articles that, for the first time, consider the ethical aspects of dealing with the consequences of coronavirus infection. In particular, it is indicated that decisions on the priority of vaccination should be based on such principles as: a) equal moral value of each person, b) available knowledge to maximize public health by preventing COVID-19. An open and transparent dialogue with the public is needed to ensure and, in the long term, increase public confidence and justification for the adoption of a vaccination strategy. It should contain information on the current state of knowledge about the vaccine itself and about political decision-making processes, including the underlying ethical arguments.

show abstract

Resolved and unresolved bioethical authenticity problems

Cited by 4 publications

References 24 publications

Negotiating Authenticity in Technological Environments

Negotiating Authenticity in Technological Environments

Should Assessments of Decision-Making Capacity Be Risk-Sensitive? A Systematic Review

Some issues of biomedical ethics in a pandemic (review)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About