Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T00:02:58.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Moral Status of Fetuses in Russia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2009

Pavel Tichtchenko  and
Boris Yudin
Pavel Tichtchenko
Affiliation:
A senior research follow at the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Science, and teaches philosophy and bioethics at Moscow State University.
Boris Yudin
Affiliation:
An editor of the journal Chelovek, is Departmental Chief at the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Science, and teaches bioethics at Moscow State University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Starting bioethics in Russia we were motivated with the idea of the democratization of our society on a basic micro-social level. The country was swift enough to take several important steps in this direction on the macro-social level, i.e., to adopt a new constitution with guarantees of human rights and rights of ownership of private property, to elect the parliament and the president. But these modernizations in the Russian political facade did not sufficiently change the internal structure of the society–the net of everyday relationships in the home, at work, at school, in hospitals and other places. One of the most brilliant philosophers of the Russian “silver age,” L.S. Frank, wrote in the beginning of the century that a tyrannical state (at his time the czarist state) grows out of tyrannical interpersonal relationships. Political revolution not grounded in a social evolution on the basic level of satisfying “simple” human economic, physical, and psychological needs could reproduce only the same totalitarian pattern under a new ideological label. Events resulting from the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 proved the wisdom of his statement. Russia could suffer the same fate today.

Type
Special Section: The Unborn and the Newly Born: Seeking Ethical Standards
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , Winter 1997 , pp. 31 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Tribe, LH. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990, p. 57.Google Scholar

2. Tichtchenko, P. The individual and healthcare in the new Russia. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995;4:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

3. Melnikov, A. Television program immerses government in complicated problems of medical ethics. Izvestija 1996 Jan 11.Google Scholar

4. Feodornia, M. Physicians with limited responsibility. Moskovskij Komsomoletz 1996 Jan. 22.Google Scholar

5. Sadkovskaja, T. Sensation of “Spiegel TV” has burst, but fatal problems of fetal therapy remain. Rossijskije Vestry 1996 Jan. 19.Google Scholar

6. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar

7. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar

8. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar

9. Chukurov, A. Business on the unborn. Pravda 1996 Jan. 13.Google Scholar

10. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar

11. See note 9. Chukurov, 1996.Google Scholar

12. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar

13. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar

14. Popov, AA, Lukina, AV. Family planning and artificial abortions in Russia. Zdravoohranenije Rossijskoj Federazii (Health Care of the Russian Federation) 1995;1:25–30.Google Scholar

15. See note 14. Popov, 1995.Google Scholar

16. See note 1. Tribe, 1990.Google Scholar

17. See note 1. Tribe, 1990.Google Scholar

18. See note 14. Popov, 1995.Google Scholar

19. Yudin, B. The price is-unborn children. Literaturnaj gazeta (literary newspaper) July 3.Google Scholar

20. Akopyan, A. It is the mother's right. Literaturnaj gazeta (literary newspaper) 1996 July 3.Google Scholar

21. See note. 19. Yudin, 1996.Google Scholar