Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Bodily Rights and Property Rights
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9984-7831
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2006 (English)In: Journal of Medical Ethics, ISSN 0306-6800, E-ISSN 1473-4257, Vol. 32, no 4, 209-214 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Whereas previous discussions on ownership of biological material have been much informed by the natural rights tradition, insufficient attention has been paid to the strand in liberal political theory represented by Felix Cohen, Tony Honore, and others, which treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights. In accordance with that tradition, we propose that the primary normative issue is what combination of rights a person should have to a particular item of biological material. Whether that bundle qualifies to be called `` property'' or `` ownership'' is a secondary, terminological issue. We suggest five principles of bodily rights and show how they can be applied to the construction of ethically appropriate bundles of rights to biological material.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2006. Vol. 32, no 4, 209-214 p.
Keyword [en]
human tissue, biobanks, commodification, ethics
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-8710DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.011270ISI: 000236406800006Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-33645759522OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-8710DiVA: diva2:14104
Note
QC 20100708Available from: 2008-06-09 Created: 2008-06-09 Last updated: 2010-11-24Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Virtue Ethics, Bioethics, and the Ownership of Biological Material
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Virtue Ethics, Bioethics, and the Ownership of Biological Material
2008 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other scientific)
Abstract [en]

The overall aim of this thesis is to show how some ideas in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be interpreted and used as a productive way to approach a number of pressing issues in bioethics. Articles I-II introduce, and endorse, a social constructivist perspective on rights (as opposed to the more traditional natural rights idea). It is investigated if the existence of property-like rights to biological material would include the moral right to commodification and even commercialisation. Articles III-V discuss similar questions and more specifically champion the application of an Aristotelian virtue ethics perspective. The articles are preceded by an introductory essay on some of the central themes in the Nicomachean Ethics. This section also includes a very brief account of what the connection between virtue ethics and a theory of social construction, including rights, could look like. The thesis seeks to show that if read somewhat creatively many of the ideas in the Nicomachean Ethics make for a highly useful approach to modern moral problems. It should be noted, however, that this thesis in no way claims to be an exegetic, or a complete, study of the Nicomachean Ethics.

Article I deals with ownership of biological material from a philosophical, as opposed to a legal, perspective. It is argued that a strand in liberal political theory that treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights, as developed by e.g. Felix Cohen and Tony Honoré, is well suited for discussions on ownership of biological material.

Article II investigates which differences in biological material might motivate differences in treatment and ownership rights. The article draws on the social constructivist theory of ownership which was developed in Article I.

Article III employs virtue ethics to explain why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell organs such as kidneys. It is suggested that the former action will bring the agent closer to a state of human flourishing.

Article IV argues that virtues like philia, justice, beneficence and generosity — traditionally all seen as other-regarding — contain strong self-regarding aspects. The central claim is that these self-regarding aspects of the other-regarding virtues are necessary components of complete virtue and thus that the fully virtuous agent has to act virtuously both in her dealings with herself and others.

Article V applies the ideas that were developed in Article IV to the case of living organ donations to next of kin. It is proposed that such an act, although noble and fine, is supererogatory, rather than obligatory, as the donor is morally entitled to be partial to herself. This argument is made against the backdrop of a discussion on some Aristotelian ideas on philia and partiality.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2008. viii, 121 p.
Series
Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831
Keyword
Biological material, ownership, rights, organ, donation, property, commodification, kidney, virtue ethics, natural rights, transplantation, transplant, social organisation
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-4814 (URN)978-91-7178-993-8 (ISBN)
Public defence
2008-08-27, Sal F3, KTH, Lindstedtsvägen 26, Stockholm, 10:00
Opponent
Supervisors
Note
QC 20100709Available from: 2008-06-09 Created: 2008-06-09 Last updated: 2010-07-09Bibliographically approved
2. Ethical aspects of owning human biological material
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Ethical aspects of owning human biological material
2005 (English)Licentiate thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH, 2005. viii, 12 p.
Keyword
biological material, ownership, rights, organ donation, property, commodification, kidney, virtue ethics, natural rights, transplantation, transplant, social organisation
National Category
Philosophy
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-610 (URN)91-7178-144-7 (ISBN)
Presentation
2005-10-12, 00:00 (English)
Note
QC 20101124Available from: 2006-02-07 Created: 2006-02-07 Last updated: 2010-11-24Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Björkman, Barbro

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Björkman, BarbroHansson, Sven Ove
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Philosophy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 226 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf