David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 5 (2):157-167 (2002)
Is technology value-free or is it value-laden? How does technology affect human autonomy? These questions, viewed within the context of medicine, are the focus of attention in this article. The central argument is that we need neither to subscribe to the value-neutrality dictum nor to the all-encompassing value-ladenness thesis to explain the pertinent position of technology in medicine. Technology is constitutive of and strongly implicated in difficult questions of value. This, however, does not mean that technology is identical to (or neutral to) these value-laden questions. Technology poses issues of value, but only some of these relate to technology qua technology. Hence, it makes a difference whether we discuss general questions of value posed by technology or whether we discuss the value-ladenness of technology. Admitting technological value-ladenness does not imply that we are subject to a technological imperative that reduces our autonomy, on the contrary, it explains how technology increases our responsibility. This is particularly prominent in medicine
|Keywords||imperative responsibility technology value-ladenness value-neutrality values|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bjørn Hofmann (2001). On the Value-Ladenness of Technology in Medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 4 (3):335-345.
Bjørn Hofmann (2003). Technological Paternalism: On How Medicine has Reformed Ethics and How Technology Can Refine Moral Theory. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (3):343-352.
Sylvia Burrow (2012). Reproductive Autonomy and Reproductive Technology. Techne 16 (1):31-45.
Thomas Engel & Ulrike Henckel (2008). Human Beings, Technology and the Idea of Man. Poiesis and Praxis 5 (3-4):249-263.
Zhouying Jin (2011). Global Technological Change: From Hard Technology to Soft Technology. Intellect.
Tracy Colony (2009). Concerning Technology. Idealistic Studies 39 (1/3):23-34.
Zbigniew Szawarski (1989). Dignity and Technology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 14 (3):243-249.
Sylvia Burrow (2012). On The Cutting Edge: Ethical Responsiveness to Cesarean Section Rates. American Journal of Bioethics 12 (7):44-52.
Fredrik Svenaeus (2013). The Relevance of Heidegger's Philosophy of Technology for Biomedical Ethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 34 (1):1-15.
Eric L. Krakauer (1998). Prescriptions: Autonomy, Humanism and the Purpose of Health Technology. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 19 (6):525-545.
Rayvon Fouché (ed.) (2007). Technology Studies. Sage Publications.
Tony Grajeda (2005). Disasterologies. Social Epistemology 19 (4):315 – 319.
Philip J. Nickel (2013). Trust in Technological Systems. In M. J. de Vries, S. O. Hansson & A. W. M. Meijers (eds.), Norms in technology: Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 9. Springer.
Song Tian (2011). A Study of Experiential Technology and Scientific Technology, Exemplified by Chinese and Western Medicine. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):298-315.
Val Dusek (2006). Philosophy of Technology: An Introduction. Oxfordblackwell Pub..
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads16 ( #144,248 of 1,696,220 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #239,051 of 1,696,220 )
How can I increase my downloads?