A disaster is an occurrence disrupting a community’s normal functioning and existence. The disruption may render it impossible to comply with principles and to respect, protect, and fulfill rights as it happens in ordinary times; it may induce an overwhelming shortage of resources and make tragic decisions unavoidable. From its very beginning, the COVID-19 pandemic evoked the scenario of disaster medicine, where triage is likely to imply not simply postponing a treatment but letting someone die. However, it is not only (...) the health care system that faces disruption risks. Lockdown measures and other restrictions were imposed to curb the pandemic, impinging upon individual freedom as well as economic activities. The proposal of mandatory vaccination implied a suspension of the principle of autonomy, which is a fundamental pillar of modern medicine. Out of the ordinary balancing efforts may be required, and two questions arise. Do such exceptional circumstances suggest reconsidering the criteria to apply, especially when essential, life-saving treatments are at stake? Who should decide? Science offers the premises to build on, but the last word does not belong to science. It remains the province of ethics and politics. (shrink)

The publication of the Report of the International Bioethics Committee of Unesco on Social responsibility and health provides an opportunity to reshape the conceptual framework of the right to health care and its practical implications. The traditional distinctions between negative and positive, civil-political and economic-social, legal and moral rights are to be questioned and probably overcome if the goal is to pursue ‘the highest attainable standard of health’ as a fundamental human right, that should as such be guaranteed to every (...) human being. What we are called upon to, is the commitment not to exclude now and forever anyone from having access to the ‘excellence’ of scientific and medical progress. Therefore, the addressees of this ‘responsibility’ cannot be just the governments and the states within the limits of their ‘jurisdiction’. The challenge is to tackle at the same time the social and global determinants of health. (shrink)

The UNESCO International Bioethics Committee is an international body that sets standards in the field of bioethics. This collection represents the contributions of the IBC to global bioethics. The IBC is a body of 36 independent experts that follows progress in the life sciences and its applications in order to ensure respect for human dignity and freedom. Currently, some of the topics of the IBC contributions have been discussed in the bioethics literature, mostly journal articles. However, this is a unique (...) contribution by the scholars who developed these universal declarations and reports. The contributors have not only provided a scholarly up to date discussion of their research topics, but as members of the IBC they have also discussed specific practical challenges in the development of such international documents. This book will be suited to academics within bioethics, health care policy and international law. (shrink)

The contributions collected in this section deal with some of the most crucial issues addressed in the Report on “Social Responsibility and Health” of the International Bioethics Committee: the importance of ‘social responsibility’ in the promotion of health, i.e. far beyond the context of the ethics of management and private companies where the term was introduced at first; the role of solidarity as a necessary presupposition for a genuinely universalistic morality of justice; the content of the right to health care, (...) especially when we consider it as a ‘legal’ right; the quest for efficiency in health care policies, which is indispensable if we want to effectively extend the enjoyment of progressively higher standard of health; the sense of responsibility in the context of professional activities; the decision making procedures that are to be implemented in order to achieve a fair and just allocation of resources. (shrink)

La conclusione di Rosenzweig sul diverso modo dell’ebreo e del cristiano di lavorare alla «stessa opera» è una delle pagine più citate della Stella. Dio non può fare a meno di nessuno dei due. Ha dato al primo la vita eterna, accendendo nel suo cuore il fuoco della verità. Ha posto il secondo sulla via eterna, cosicché egli seguirà «fino alla fine» i raggi della sua luce. L’ebreo vede la stella, ma non i raggi. Il cristiano è destinato a vedere (...) sempre ciò che è illuminato, ma non la luce. Diverso sarà dunque il rischio, a partire dalla preghiera per quella «verità intera» che non appartiene in quanto tale né all’uno né all’altro e per questo ha bisogno di entrambi. Il cristiano che cammina «seguendo la corrente del tempo» è esposto alla triplice tentazione della spiritualizzazione del concetto di Dio, della apoteosi del concetto di uomo e della panteizzazione del concetto di mondo . L’ebreo contempla appunto nel suo cuore – ma nel suo cuore soltanto – la fedele immagine della verità. Egli si distoglie così «dalla vita nel tempo», come «la vita del tempo» si distoglie da lui. È significativo che per sottolineare il senso profondo di questo radicamento Rosenzweig ricorra ad un termine così hegeliano come la Erinnerung, che nella conclusione della Fenomenologia è la notte dell’autocoscienza nella quale lo spirito scende, ma per potersi distendere nel tempo facendone il suo tempo e dunque «la verità e la certezza del suo trono». (shrink)

The new dilemmas and responsibilities which arise in bioethics both because of the unprecedented pace of scientific development and of growing moral pluralism are more and more difficult to grapple with. At the ‘global’ level, the call for the universal nature at least of some fundamental moral values and principles is often being contended as a testament of arrogance, if not directly as a new kind of subtler imperialism. The human rights framework itself, which provided the basis for the most (...) relevant international declarations and documents, is not exempt from the charge. However, the refusal of a top-down conception of the universal as a sort of product for exportation should not be confused with a relativistic landscape, where all the cows can be indifferently black or white. This contribution aims at outlining an approach, which reconciles universalism as enshrined in founding human rights declarations with respect for cultural diversity. In order to do so, two conceptual frameworks are discussed: the ‘tool-kit’ model and the morals/ethics difference. The example of the right to quality health care confirms the argument that striking a balance between cherishing pluralism and defending some fundamental rights and obligations does not amount to an assertion of moral imperialism. (shrink)