medigraphic.com

2022, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2022; 17 (2)

Feminist Perspectives for Bioethics

Rivera-Sanín ML

Language: Spanish
References: 42
Page:
PDF size: 202.89 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Purpose/Context. The article reviews central concepts of contemporary feminist proposals in order to offer philosophical, epistemological and political analyses useful for the foundation and practice of contemporary bioethics. It seeks to deepen and problematize central concepts of bioethical theories such as autonomy, justice and vulnerability from a perspective anchored in an understanding of social phenomena and subjectivities as immersed in a complex web of power structures.
Methodology/Approach. The text is formulated from a philosophical and analytical perspective that builds a thread of concepts and categories for the revision and enrichment of some fundamentals of contemporary bioethics. Diverse sources of feminist theories, philosophical theories and political proposals are used to construct a way of situating oneself epistemologically and politically in the face of the bioethical problems of the so-called feminist perspective.
Results/Findings. It is proposed that the adoption of a feminist perspective for bioethics should be understood not as a reduced set of women’s problems, nor as a simple inclusion of women in bioethical discussions, but as the adoption of a way of situating, observing and analyzing social phenomena and bioethical problems from an understanding of the structural causes of oppressions, which conceives gender, race, social class, sexual orientation, disability and other axes of difference, as central categories of analysis.
Discussion/Conclusions/Contributions. The adoption of a feminist perspective implies a critical review of the foundations of the field, particularly of principlism as the most widespread version, making visible some of its limitations and problematic consequences. It also leads to an epistemological review of the knowledge involved in the field and its deliberative practices, pointing out the importance of addressing the conditions that prevent or hinder the fulfillment of the political commitment of bioethics as a pluralistic and transformative space for societies.


REFERENCES

  1. Abrams, Kathryn. 1998. “From Autonomy to Agency: Feminist Perspectives onSelf-Direction.” William & Mary Law Review 805, no. 40.

  2. Butler, Judith. 1990. “Gender trouble, feminist theory, and psychoanalytic discourse.”Feminism/postmodernism. Nueva York: Routledge.

  3. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1990. “Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics,and violence against women of color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6:1241-1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

  4. Curiel Pichardo y Rosa Ynés Ochy. 2009. “Descolonizando el feminismo: unaperspectiva desde América Latina y el Caribe.” Primer Coloquio Latinoamericanosobre Praxis y Pensamiento Feminista. Buenos Aires, Argentina.

  5. Curiel, Ochy. 2014. “Género, raza, sexualidad: debates contemporáneos.” Colombia:Universidad del Rosario. http://www.urosario.edu.co/urosario_files/1f/1f1d1951-0f7e-43ff-819f-dd05e5fed03c.pdf

  6. Davis, Angela. 2005. Mujeres, raza y clase. Madrid: Ediciones Akal.

  7. Diniz, Debora y Ana Cristina González Vélez. 1998. “Bioética feminista: a emergênciada diferença.” Estudos Feministas 6, no. 2: 255-263.

  8. Diniz, Debora y Dirce Guilhem. 2009. “Bioética feminista: o resgate político doconceito de vulnerabilidade.” Revista Bioética 7, no. 2.

  9. Diniz, Debora y Dirce Guilhem. 2000. “Feminismo, bioética e vulnerabilidade.”Estudos Feministas 8, no. 1: 237-244.

  10. Espinoza, M. Y., D. Gómez y K. Ochoa. 2014. “Feminismo, epistemologías y apuestasdescoloniales en Abya Yala.” Colombia: Editorial Universidad del Cauca.

  11. Fricker, Miranda. 2007. Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Londres:Oxford University Press.

  12. Friedman, Marilyn. 2003. Autonomy, Gender, Politics. Londres: Oxford University Press.

  13. Gilligan, Carol. 1977. “In a different voice: Women’s conceptions of self and of morality.”Harvard Educational Review 47, no. 4: 481-517. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.47.4.g6167429416hg5l0

  14. Haliburton, Rachel. 2015. Autonomy and the Situated Self. Maryland, Estados Unidos:Lexington Books.

  15. Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Nueva York: Cornell UniversityPress.

  16. Hill Collins, Patricia y Sirma Bilge. 2020. Intersectionality. Nueva York: John Wiley& Sons.

  17. Hill Collins, Patricia. 2017. “Intersectionality and epistemic injustice.” En TheRoutledge handbook of epistemic injustice. Londres: Routledge.

  18. Hill Collins, Patricia. 2004. Black sexual politics: African Americans, gender, and thenew racism. Londres: Routledge.

  19. Lorde, Audre. 2012. Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Canadá: Crossing Press.

  20. Lugones, María. 2008. “Colonialidad y género.” Tabula rasa 9: 73-101. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.340

  21. Mackenzie, Catriona. 2008. “Relational Autonomy, Normative Authority and Perfectionism.”Journal of Social Philosophy 39: 512-533. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9833.2008.00440.x

  22. Mackenzie, Catriona. 2010. “Conceptions of Autonomy and Conceptions of theBody in Bioethics.” En: Feminist Bioethics. At the Center, On the Margins, Scully,Jackie Leach, Laurel Baldwin-Ragaven y Petya Fitzpatrick (editores). Baltimore:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

  23. Mackenzie, Catriona. 2019. “Autonomía Relacional, Autoridad Normativa y Perfeccionismo.”Humanitas Hodie 2, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.28970/hh.2019.1.a5

  24. Marsico, Gaia. 2006. “Bioética feminista: recorridos en evolución.” En Bioética yfeminismo: estudios multidisciplinares de género, pp. 73-88. España: EdicionesUniversidad de Salamanca.

  25. Mohanty, Chandra. 1988. “Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonialdiscourses.” Feminist review 30, no. 1: 61-88. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.1988.42

  26. Moreno, Julieta. 2016. Efectos de la universalización del sujeto de la bioética en lasorientaciones y recomendaciones de salud pública frente a la epidemia por virus delZika. Tesis de Maestría, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/1545

  27. O’neill, Onora. 2004. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Reino Unido: CambridgeUniversity Press.

  28. Oyěwùmí, Oyèrónkẹ́. 1997. The invention of women: Making an African sense of westerngender discourses. Estados Unidos: University of Minnesota Press.

  29. Pelluchon, Corine. 2014. La autonomía quebrada. Bogotá: Universidad El Bosque.

  30. Pelluchon, Corine. 2015. Elementos para una ética de la vulnerabilidad: Los hombres, losanimales, la naturaleza. Colombia: Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana yUniversidad del Bosque.

  31. Rivera Sanín, María Lucía. 2016. “Interseccionalidad e inclusión en la educaciónsuperior: Consideraciones sobre la Universidad Nacional de Colombia.” Pedagogíay Saberes 44: 105-118. https://doi.org/10.17227/01212494.44pys105.118

  32. Rivera Sanín, María Lucía. 2020. “Autonomía, agencia y autoconfianza: reflexionesdesde la bioética feminista.” En Siguiendo el rastro de todas. Mujeres en las neurociencias.Quintero, Patricia y Ángela María Gutiérrez (editoras), Bogotá: AsociaciónColombiana de Neurología.

  33. Segato, Rita Laura. 2010. “Los cauces profundos de la raza latinoamericana: unarelectura del mestizaje.” Crítica y emancipación 2, no. 3: 11-44.

  34. Segato, Rita Laura. 2007. La nación y sus otros: raza, etnicidad y diversidad religiosa entiempos de políticas de la identidad. Argentina: Prometeo Libros Editorial.

  35. Sherwin, Susan y Carolyn McLeod. 2000. “Relational autonomy, Self-trust andHealth Care for Patients who are Oppressed.” En Relational Autonomy. FeministPerspectives on Autonomy, Agency, and the Social Self, Mackenzie, Catriona y NatalieStoljar (editoras). Nueva York: Oxford University Press.

  36. Sherwin, Susan. 1992. No longer patient: Feminist ethics and health care. Estados Unidos:Temple University Press.

  37. Traphagan, John. 2013. Rethinking Autonomy: a critique of principlism in biomedicalethics. Nueva York: State University of New York Press.

  38. Tronto, Joan. 2010. “Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality, and purpose.”Ethics And Social Welfare 4, no. 2: 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2010.484259

  39. Tronto, Joan. 2013. Caring democracy. Nueva York: New York University Press.

  40. Tronto, Joan. 2020. Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care. ReinoUnido: Routledge.

  41. Young, Iris. 2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Estados Unidos: PrincetonUniversity Press.

  42. Zagorac, Ivana. 2017. “What vulnerability? Whose vulnerability? Conflict of understandingsin the debate on vulnerability.” Facta Universitatis-Law and politics15, no. 2: 157-169. https://doi.org/10.22190/FULP1701157Z




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com