Advertisement

Disability Issues in Health Care Ethics and Law in the Public Health Curriculum

Chapter

Abstract

The term “health care ethics” (sometimes called “bioethics” or “medical ethics”) was the name given to an area of study and practice that arose after World War II with revelations about abuse of vulnerable people by medical researchers – abuse which, two decades later, was documented to be all too common in American clinical research (Beecher, 1966). Although originally focused on clinical and research encounters, today the scope of health care ethics has expanded to include resource allocation, health systems assessment, disease control, health promotion and ill-health prevention, risk reduction and other familiar public health issues. Recently, the Institute of Medicine has argued that it is essential for schools of public health to teach health ethics (Gebbie, Rosenstock & Hernandez, 2002), and the American Public Health Association has adopted a public health code of ethics that incorporates basic values and principles from health care ethics (APHA, 2002). Some writers carefully distinguish health care ethics from public health ethics (e.g., Gostin, 2002; Callahan & Jennings, 2002); but increasingly health care ethicists have recognized that these boundaries are vague at best and there is a need to extend the limits of health care ethics to encompass more traditional public health issues.

Keywords

Disability Scholar Persistent Vegetative State Public Health Ethic Bioethical Issue Health Care Ethic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Albrecht, G. and Devlinger, P. 1999. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Social Science and Medicine. 48:977–988.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Americans with Disabilities Act (1980) 42 U.S.C. § 12101Google Scholar
  3. American Public Health Association. 2002. Principles of the Ethical Practice of Public Health. http://www.apha.org/NR/rdonlyres/1CED3CEA-287E-4185-9CBD-BD405FC60856/0/ethicsbrochure.pdf.
  4. Amundson, R. 2005. Disability, Ideology, and Quality of Life: a Bias in Biomedical Ethics. In D. Wasserman, J. Bickenbach and R. Wachbroit (eds.). Quality of Life and Human Difference. New York: Cambridge University Press, 101–124.Google Scholar
  5. Annas, G. 2009. Bioethics and Genomics. In A. Clapham, M. Robinson (eds.) Realizing the Right to Health. Swiss Human Rights Book Vol. 3. Zurich: Rüffer & Rub.Google Scholar
  6. Arnesen, T. and Nord, E. 1999. The Value of DALY Life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. British Medical Journal. 319:1423–1424.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Asch, A. 1989. Reproductive Technology and Disability. In S. Cohen and N. Taub (eds.) Reproductive Laws for the 1990s. Clifton: Humana, 69–124.Google Scholar
  8. Asch, A. 2001. Disability, Bioethics, and Human Rights. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, and M. Bury (eds.) Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 297–326.Google Scholar
  9. Asch, A. and Wasserman, D. 2005. Where is the Sin in Synecdoche? In D. Wasserman, J. Bickenbach and R. Wachbroit. (eds.). Quality of Life and Human Difference, New York: Cambridge University Press 172–216.Google Scholar
  10. Battin, M.P., Rhodes, R. and Silvers, A. (eds.) 1998. Physician Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Beauchamp, Tom L. and Childress, Hames F. 2001. Principles of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Beecher, H. 1966. Ethics and clinical research. The New England Journal of Medicine. 274:1354–1360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bickenbach, J. E. (1998). Disability and Life-ending Decisions. In M. Battin, R. Rhodes and A. Silvers (eds.) Considering Physician Assisted Suicide. New York: Routledge, 123–132.Google Scholar
  14. Bouvia v. California 179 Cal. App. 3d 1127 (1986).Google Scholar
  15. Brown, I., Renwick, B. and Nagler, M. 1996. The Centrality of Quality of Life in Health Promotion and Rehabilitation. In R. Renwick, I. Brown, and M. Nagler (eds.) Quality of Life in Health Promotion and Rehabilitation: Conceptual Approaches, Issues, and Applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Buchanan, A., Brock, D., Daniels, N. and Wikler, D. 2000. From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Callahan, D. and Jennings, B. 2002. Ethics and public health: forging a strong relationship. American Journal of Public Health. 92(2):169–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeJong, G. and Banja, J. 1995. Disability: Health Care and Physical Disability. In W.T. Reich (ed.) Encyclopedia of Bioethics. New York: Simon and Schuster, 615–622.Google Scholar
  19. Dunstan, M. 1988. Screening for fetal and genetic abnormalities: social and ethical issues. Journal of Medical Ethics. 25:290–298.Google Scholar
  20. Duster, T. 1990. Backdoor to Eugenics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Dworkin, R. 1993. Life’s Dominion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  22. Gebbie, K., Rosenstock, L. and Hernandez, L.M. (eds.) 2002. Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? Educating Public Health Professionals for the 21st Century. Washington: Institute of Medicine.Google Scholar
  23. Gliedman, J. and Roth, W. 1980. The Unexpected Minority: Handicapped Children in America. New York: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  24. Gostin, L. 2002. Public Health Law and Ethics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. 1985. Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lollar, D. 2002. Public Health Trends in Disability – Past, Present, and Future. In G. Albrecht, K. Seelman, and M. Bury (eds.) Handbook of Disability Studies. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 754–771.Google Scholar
  27. McDowell, I. and Newell, C. 1991. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Menzel, P., et al. 1999. Toward a broader view of values in cost-effectiveness analysis of health. Hastings Center Report. 29:7–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Murray, C.J.L. and Lopez, A. 1996. The Global Burden of Disease. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
  30. Parens, E. and Asch, A. (eds.). 2001. Prenatal Testing and Disability. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. 1982. Making Health Care Decisions. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  33. Saxton, M. 1998. Disability Rights and Selective Abortion. In R. Solinger (ed.) Abortion Wars: A Half Century of Struggle, 1950–2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 374–395.Google Scholar
  34. Shakespeare, T. 2006. Disability Rights and Wrongs. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Shelp, E.E. 1986. Born to Die? Deciding the Fate of Critically Ill Newborns. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  36. Singer, P. 1993. Practical Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Singer, P. 1996. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.Google Scholar
  38. Stein, M.A. and Lord, J.E. 2010. Monitoring the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Innovations, Lost Opportunities, and Future Potential. Human Rights Quarterly. 32:689–728.Google Scholar
  39. United Nations. 2007. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 61/106. (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/convtexte.htm).
  40. United Nations. 1993. The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities G.A. Res. 48/96. (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/dissre00.htm).
  41. Washington v. Glucksberg 521 U.S. 702 (1997).Google Scholar
  42. Wasserman, D., Bickenbach, J. and Wachbroit, R. (eds.). 2005. Quality of Life and Human Difference. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. World Health Organization, 2000. World Health Report – Health Systems: Improving Performance. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Paraplegic Research NottwilNottwilSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations