Political Philosophy and Bioethics

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

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 September 2023) | Viewed by 5883

Special Issue Editors


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Philosophy, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20132 Milan, Italy
Interests: normative political philosophy; public ethics; bioethics

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Oncology and Hematology-Oncology, University of Milan, 20122 Milano, Italy
Interests: research ethics; clinical ethics; deliberative approaches to bioethics and governance of science and technology; empirical bioethics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Vulnerability is a key concept in traditional and contemporary philosophy. Etymologically, vulnerability mostly refers to the susceptibility of being physically or emotionally wounded. Yet, besides this prima facie characterization, the notion of vulnerability has eschewed a univocal definition, both within and across distinct threads of literature. In particular, the literature does not make clear how vulnerability should be construed, interpreted, and applied. There are significant controversies concerning the epistemological status of the notion, its content and scope, its consequences for healthcare practices, and even its ineffectiveness. While vulnerability is received by some as an innovative and useful notion, others reject it as useless and confusing.

Nonetheless, the scholarly literature on vulnerability is growing, and this concept has already been pervasively applied in different theoretical domains spanning from political philosophy to applied ethics and its subdomains (e.g., bioethics, research ethics). 

In addition to its theoretical characterization, contemporary strains in the literature have also addressed vulnerability as a bottom-up and situational phenomenon, investigating, for instance, conditions originating from or related to vulnerability. One striking example of these potential conditions, which is worth reflecting upon, is the exceptional experience of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, which might have exacerbated already existing vulnerabilities or created new ones.

Several contributions have also investigated potential differences between vulnerability as a concept and the vulnerability of specific individuals or groups. In this respect, while some scholars focus on the question of who should be granted the title of a vulnerable individual and why (e.g., older adults and minors in the context of biomedical research), others reject a priori definitions, considering vulnerability a more complex and layer-based phenomenon with also potential socio-political and economic implications (e.g., poverty as a condition for greater vulnerability in developing countries, in the context of public health).

Given this scenario, it has become of the utmost importance to comprehensively map the concept of vulnerability to construct a broad picture of its meanings and interpretations.

This Special Issue aims to answer several interrelated research questions:

  1. What are the different meanings, connotations, and accounts of vulnerability in the philosophical and bioethical literature? What relationships do they have amongst each other (e.g., are they compatible? Or do they exclude each other)?
  2. What is the epistemological status of vulnerability as presented in the bioethical literature (i.e., is it a meta-level principle, or something else)?
  3. What are the moral and political obligations, if any, that follow from the acknowledgment of vulnerability as reported in the bioethical literature?
  4. What means are available to address vulnerability? Are there socio-political measures that can be implemented?

Prof. Dr. Roberta Sala
Dr. Virginia Sanchini
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.

 

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 (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

11 pages, 227 KiB  
Article
Caregivers and Family Members’ Vulnerability in End-of-Life Decision-Making: An Assessment of How Vulnerability Shapes Clinical Choices and the Contribution of Clinical Ethics Consultation
by Federico Nicoli, Alessandra Agnese Grossi and Mario Picozzi
Philosophies 2024, 9(1), 14; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies9010014 - 11 Jan 2024
Viewed by 2001
Abstract
Patient-and-family-centered care (PFCC) is critical in end-of-life (EOL) settings. PFCC serves to develop and implement patient care plans within the context of unique family situations. Key components of PFCC include collaboration and communication among patients, family members and healthcare professionals (HCP). Ethical challenges [...] Read more.
Patient-and-family-centered care (PFCC) is critical in end-of-life (EOL) settings. PFCC serves to develop and implement patient care plans within the context of unique family situations. Key components of PFCC include collaboration and communication among patients, family members and healthcare professionals (HCP). Ethical challenges arise when the burdens (e.g., economic, psychosocial, physical) of family members and significant others do not align with patients’ wishes. This study aims to describe the concept of vulnerability and the ethical challenges faced by HCPs in these circumstances. Further, it assesses the contribution of clinical ethics consultation (CEC) in assisting HCPs to face these difficult ethical conundrums. Two clinical cases are analyzed using the Circle Method of CEC. The first regards the difficulty faced by the doctor in justifying treatments previously agreed upon between the patient and his/her friends. The second regards the patient’s concern about being a burden on their family. Family burdens in EOL settings challenge PFCC in that patient autonomy may be disregarded. This compromises shared decision-making between the patient, family and HCPs as a core component of PFCC. In their ability to promote a collaborative approach, CECs may assist in the successful implementation of PFCC. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Philosophy and Bioethics)
18 pages, 305 KiB  
Article
Public Justification, Evaluative Standards, and Different Perspectives in the Attribution of Disability
by Elvio Baccarini and Kristina Lekić Barunčić
Philosophies 2023, 8(5), 87; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies8050087 - 17 Sep 2023
Viewed by 1406
Abstract
This paper proposes a novel method for identifying the public evaluative standards that contribute to the classification of certain conditions as mental disabilities. Public evaluative standards could contribute to ascertaining disabilities by outlining characteristics whose presence beyond a threshold is fundamentally important for [...] Read more.
This paper proposes a novel method for identifying the public evaluative standards that contribute to the classification of certain conditions as mental disabilities. Public evaluative standards could contribute to ascertaining disabilities by outlining characteristics whose presence beyond a threshold is fundamentally important for the life of a person and whose absence or reduced occurrence constitutes a disability. Additionally, they can participate in determining disabilities by delineating particularly grave difficulties, impairments, or incapacities. Our method relies on a model of public justification of evaluative standards that is inspired by Gerald Gaus’s theory of public reason. Thus, our approach recommends the justification of evaluative standards through sound deliberative routes from reasons accessible to all persons who participate in the process of justification and the convergence of what is justified in this way to each of them. We deem that disabilities could be caused both by problems in the internal characteristics of a person as well as by unfairness or a lack of hospitality in external circumstances. This is why the method of justification is applied to the assessment of those circumstances as well. If social or environmental circumstances cannot be justified through the convergence of reasons accessible to all persons involved in the process of justification, we have reasons to exclude the presence of a disability and ascertain the presence of inadequate external conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Philosophy and Bioethics)

Other

Jump to: Research

11 pages, 280 KiB  
Essay
Vulnerability, Embodiment and Emerging Technologies: A Still Open Issue
by Annachiara Fasoli
Philosophies 2023, 8(6), 115; https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies8060115 - 4 Dec 2023
Viewed by 1766
Abstract
When reflecting on the human condition, vulnerability is a characteristic which is clearly evident, because anyone is exposed to the possibility of being wounded (and is, therefore, vulnerable, from the Latin word "vulnus", wound). In fact, human vulnerability, intended as a universal condition [...] Read more.
When reflecting on the human condition, vulnerability is a characteristic which is clearly evident, because anyone is exposed to the possibility of being wounded (and is, therefore, vulnerable, from the Latin word "vulnus", wound). In fact, human vulnerability, intended as a universal condition affecting finite and mortal human beings, is closely linked to embodiment, intended as the constitutive bond every human has with a physical body, subject to changes and to the passing of time. In today’s cultural context, permeated by emerging technologies, theories in favor of the so-called human enhancement through the use of the Genetics–Nanotechnology–Robotics (GNR) Revolution or NBIC Convergence technologies, in particular transhumanism, are emerging in the bioethical debate and seem to question the fundamentally vulnerable nature of human beings, by proposing not only abstract theories, but also concrete techno-scientific projects for its overcoming. Such a project, however, could turn out to be fallacious and inconsistent and could lead to ethically unacceptable consequences. Instead, a coherent (and ethical) way of responding to constitutive human vulnerability seems to be its understanding and acceptance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Political Philosophy and Bioethics)
Back to TopTop