<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>English Publications and Research</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2013 Ryerson University All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english</link>
<description>Recent documents in English Publications and Research</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:59:58 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>








<item>
<title>Care and the self: biotechnology, reproduction, and the good life</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/3</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/3</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:17:13 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>This paper explores a novel philosophy of ethical care in the face of burgeoning biomedical technologies. I respond to a serious challenge facing traditional bioethics with its roots in analytic philosophy. The hallmarks of these traditional approaches are reason and autonomy, founded on a belief in the liberal humanist subject. In recent years, however, there have been mounting challenges to this view of human subjectivity, emerging from poststructuralist critiques, such as Michel Foucault's, but increasingly also as a result of advances in biotechnology itself. In the face of these developments, I argue that the theoretical relevance and practical application of mainstream bioethics is increasingly under strain. Traditionalists will undoubtedly resist. Together, professional philosopher-bioethicists, public health policymakers, and the global commercial healthcare industry tend to respond conservatively by shoring up the liberal humanist subject as the foundation for medical ethics and consumer decision-making, appealing to the familiar tropes of reason, autonomy, and freedom.</p>
<p>I argue for a different approach to bioethics, and work towards a new way to conceive of ethical relations in healthcare – one that does not presume a sovereign subject as the basis of dignity, personhood or democracy. Instead, I am critical of the narrow instantiations of reason, autonomy, and freedom, which, more recently, have been co-opted by a troubling neo-liberal politics of the self. Thus, I am critical of current trends in medical ethics, often running in tandem with corporate-governmental models of efficiency, accountability, and so-called evidence-based best practices. As an example of such market-driven conceptions of subjectivity, I discuss the paradigm of "self-care." Self-care shores up the traditional view of the self as a free agent. In this sense, self-care is looked upon favourably by mainstream bioethics in its focus on autonomy, while healthcare policy endorses this model for ideological and economic reasons. To contrast this, I propose a different model of care together with a different model of selfhood. Here I develop and apply Foucault's late work on the "care of the self." In this understanding of "care," I suggest that we might work towards an ethical self that is more commensurable both with recent theoretical views on subjectivity and – more pressingly – with the challenges of emergent biotechnologies. I end this paper with a discussion on ethical parenthood, which offers a practical reading of the "care of the self" in relation to new reproductive technologies (NRTs).</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Stuart J. Murray</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Foucault&apos;s &quot;fearless speech&quot; and the transformation and mentoring of medical students</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/2</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:11:58 PDT</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	<p>In his six 1983 lectures published under the title, Fearless Speech (2001), Michel Foucault developed the theme of free speech and its relation to frankness, truth-telling, criticism, and duty. Derived from the ancient Greek word parrhesia, Foucault's analysis of free speech is relevant to the mentoring of medical students. This is especially true given the educational and social need to transform future physicians into able citizens who practice a fearless freedom of expression on behalf of their patients, the public, the medical profession, and themselves in the public and political arena. In this paper, we argue that Foucault's understanding of free speech, or parrhesia, should be read as an ethical response to the American Medical Association's recent educational effort, Initiative to Transform Medical Education (ITME): Recommendations for change in the system of medical education (2007). In this document, the American Medical Association identifies gaps in medical education, emphasizing the need to enhance health system safety and quality, to improve education in training institutions, and to address the inadequacy of physician preparedness in new content areas. These gaps, and their relationship to the ITME goal of promoting excellence in patient care by implementing reform in the US system of medical education, call for a serious consideration and use of Foucault's parrhesia in the way that medical students are trained and mentored.</p>

	]]>
</description>

<author>Thomas J. Papadimos et al.</author>


</item>






<item>
<title>Review: Canadian Dreams</title>
<link>http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://digitalcommons.ryerson.ca/english/1</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:04:53 PST</pubDate>
<description>
	<![CDATA[
	
	]]>
</description>

<author>Nancy Johnston</author>


</item>





</channel>
</rss>
