Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:34:54.101Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Communitarian Turn: Myth or Reality?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2011

RUTH CHADWICK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This quotation from the London Review of Books is an example of a turn—a different way of looking at things that involves a redefinition of the kind of thing higher education is and how it should be provided. It is a turn away from a public good perspective—the opposite, it might be said, of the kind of turn addressed in this article.

Type
Special Section: From Informed Consent to No Consent?
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 546 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

1. Collini, S.Browne’s gamble. London Review of Books 2010;32(21):23–5.Google Scholar

2. MacIntyre, A.After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press; 1981.Google Scholar

3. World Health Organization. Genetic Databases: Assessing the Benefits and the Impact on Human and Patient Rights. Geneva: WHO; 2003, p. 7.Google Scholar

4. See note 3, World Health Organization 2003.

5. Chadwick, R, Berg, K.Solidarity and equity: New ethical frameworks for genetic databases. Nature Reviews Genetics 2001;2(4):318–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

6. Knoppers, BM, Chadwick, R.Human genetic research: Emerging trends in ethics. Nature Reviews Genetics 2005;6:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Knoppers, BM, Chadwick, R.The Human Genome Project: Under an international ethical microscope. Science 1994;265:2035–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

8. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO). Statement on Pharmacogenomics (PGx): Solidarity, Equity and Governance. Genomics, Society and Policy 2007;3:45.Google Scholar

9. See note 8, HUGO 2007:45.

10. See note 8, HUGO 2007:46.

11. Clarke, CA. Problems raised by developments in genetics. In: Ebling, FJ, ed. Biology and Ethics. London: Academic Press; 1969, at 96.Google Scholar

12. Vyvyan, J.The Dark Face of Science. London: Michael Joseph; 1971, at 21.Google Scholar

13. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee. Statement on Human Genomic Databases. London: HUGO; 2000.Google Scholar

14. See note 5, Chadwick, Berg 2001.

15. Lunshof, J, Chadwick, R, Vorhaus, DB, Church, GM. From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics 2008;9:406–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

16. As in the 2001 article by myself and Kare Berg, for example.

17. Chadwick, R.What is “applied” in applied ethics. Journal of Applied Ethics 2009;1:1–7.Google Scholar

18. Donchin, A, Diniz, D.Guest editors’ note. Bioethics 2001;15(3):iii–v.Google Scholar

19. Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) Ethics Committee. Statement on Benefit-Sharing. London: HUGO; 2000, at 2.Google Scholar

20. See note 6, Knoppers, Chadwick 2005.

21. Williams, B. The idea of equality. In: Laslett, P, Runciman, WG, eds. Philosophy, Politics and Society. 2nd series. Oxford: Blackwell; 1962.Google Scholar

22. See note 15, Lunshof et al. 2008.

23. Nissenbaum, H.Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 2004;79(1):119–58.Google Scholar