Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Response to Erich Loewy: commentary.

David C Thomasma

    The Journal of Clinical Ethics
    |July 1, 1991
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    Dialogue with David C. Thomasma and Renzo Pegoraro.

    Theoretical medicine and bioethics·2005
    Same author

    Early bioethics.

    Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·2002
    Same author

    Down syndrome: still a social stigma.

    American journal of perinatology·2002
    Same author

    Assisted death and martyrdom.

    Christian bioethics·2001
    Same author

    Ensuring a good death.

    Bioethics forum·1997
    Same author

    A communal model for presumed consent for research on the neurologically vulnerable.

    Accountability in research·1996
    Same journal

    What Should Be Our Utmost Goals in Teaching Medical Students Ethics.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Physicians Interpret Legislatures' Lists of Exceptions to Abortion Restrictions?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    ECMO Used for the Benefit of a Patient's Family: Case Study.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Pregnancy-Related Morbidity and Mortality in Abortion-Restricted States Be Documented, Collected, and Reported After <i>Dobbs</i>?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    The Latest Data on Medical Aid in Dying in the United States and What It Tells Us.

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    Same journal

    How Should Researchers Study Abortion Care Later in Pregnancy After <i>Dobbs</i>?

    The Journal of clinical ethics·2026
    See all related articles

    The capacity to suffer grants animals a right not to be harmed. This ethical framework prioritizes community beneficence and nurturing over libertarian autonomy, impacting clinical ethics decisions.

    Area of Science:

    • Bioethics
    • Moral Philosophy
    • Animal Rights

    Background:

    • Modern libertarianism often grounds community obligations in the right to autonomy.
    • This perspective contrasts with an ethics centered on the capacity to suffer.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To critique libertarian ethics by proposing an alternative social contract.
    • To explore the implications of suffering-based ethics for clinical decision-making.

    Main Methods:

    • Philosophical argumentation and critique of existing ethical theories.
    • Development of a moral calculus based on the capacity to suffer.

    Main Results:

    • The capacity to suffer establishes a prima facie right against causing suffering for all sentient beings.
    Keywords:
    Analytical ApproachBioethics and Professional EthicsProfessional Patient Relationship

    Related Experiment Videos

  • Community obligations include active beneficence (nurturing) and nonmaleficence.
  • A social contract based on mutual nurturing is proposed as an alternative to autonomy-based contracts.

    • Conclusions:

    • Clinical ethics obligations shift when the capacity to suffer is lost or absent.
    • A "calculus" of moral worth can be developed, weighing obligations to individuals with diminished capacity to suffer against other primary duties.
    • Grounding ethics in the capacity to suffer, though potentially "thin," stimulates critical discussion on the nature of "good" in clinical decisions.