Cited by 3Ethics and bioethics in healthcareEnvironmental Philosophy and EthicsEnvironmental law and policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Case for Integrating the Environment into the Definition of Bioethics

Open access
Chaffee, Mary W.·2017·UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy

Abstract

A profession’s definition of a concept is a powerful act that illuminates key aspects, while leaving discarded notions in the dark. In 1971, Van Rensselaer Potter first coined the term “bioethics” to advocate for the exploration of medical science and values with the goal of protecting life on earth. But, in the years since, bioethics became solely focused on issues in medicine and health care without recognizing their broader links to the environment. This Note argues that it is shortsighted to view bioethics as divorced from the world outside hospital doors. It further argues that an expanded conceptual model of bioethics is necessary in light of the complexities of contemporary society. Bioethical analysis will be inadequate if the narrow scope of the current definition of bioethics remains unchallenged. If Potter’s broader view of bioethics were embraced, bioethical work would include examination of the moral and legal foundations for human health and environmental protection policies. Bioethical analysis could then invite debate on topics like land use and pollution control policies, for example, and not merely on patient care issues within the health care system.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5070/l5352035647

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Henk ten Have, Potter's Notion of Bioethics, 22 KENNEDY INST. ETHICS J. 59, 59 (2012).
  2. MED. ASS'N J. ETHICS 749, 749 (2014).
  3. Warren T. Reich, The Word "Bioethics": The Struggle over Its Earliest Meanings, 5 KENNEDY INST. ETHICS J. 19, 22 (1995).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chaffee, M. W.
Corresponding author
Chaffee, Mary W.
Venue
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
35
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0733-401X (ISSN-L)
  • 1942-8553
OpenAlex
W2735803244
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Environmental law and policy
Keywords
bioethics, environmental ethics, definition of bioethics, Van Rensselaer Potter, environmental policy, health care ethics, land use policy, pollution control

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review