The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics: from the margins to the mainstream?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

Without vulnerability, there would be no need for healthcare, or law, or ethics. Each of these systems owes its existence to the fact that human beings are open, fragile, and fallible. The idea of vulnerability might seem to deserve a prominent place in thinking and writing about healthcare law and ethics, therefore. But what exactly do we mean by ‘vulnerability’ when we refer to it in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE), and what should we mean by it? Must the theory and practice of HCLE adopt an understanding of vulnerability that applies in other contexts too, or should we be seeking a bespoke concept of vulnerability particular to the HCLE setting? The idea of vulnerability has had a chequered history in HCLE literature. It has figured mainly at the margins of the discourse, where it has tended to be associated with risk, harm, and exploitation, and seen as something undesirable to be minimised or eliminated. Since the turn of the millennium, however, there has been a pronounced shift toward more direct, explicit engagement with the idea of vulnerability. In this chapter, I will begin by using a Wittgensteinian approach to enquire into what ‘vulnerability’ currently means in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE). I will observe that the meaning of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics is in flux and suggest that, although our thinking, talking, and writing about healthcare seems to be progressing toward a more appropriate engagement with the idea of vulnerability, now would be an appropriate moment to take stock of developments. In the latter part of the chapter I will offer some clarifications, draw some key distinctions, and emphasise some important themes, in order to facilitate the development of our understanding.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationEmbracing Vulnerability
Subtitle of host publicationThe Implications and Challenges for Law
EditorsDaniel Bedford, Jonathan Herring
Place of PublicationLondon
Number of pages33
Publication statusAccepted/In press - 17 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

vulnerability
moral philosophy
Law
exploitation
human being
discourse
history

Keywords

  • vulnerability
  • healthcare law
  • medical law
  • medical ethics
  • healthcare ethics
  • professionalism

Cite this

Neal, M. (Accepted/In press). The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics: from the margins to the mainstream? In D. Bedford, & J. Herring (Eds.), Embracing Vulnerability: The Implications and Challenges for Law London.
Neal, Mary. / The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics : from the margins to the mainstream?. Embracing Vulnerability: The Implications and Challenges for Law. editor / Daniel Bedford ; Jonathan Herring. London, 2019.
@inbook{f1bda7f7c8cd4cbf83b609056d890f35,
title = "The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics: from the margins to the mainstream?",
abstract = "Without vulnerability, there would be no need for healthcare, or law, or ethics. Each of these systems owes its existence to the fact that human beings are open, fragile, and fallible. The idea of vulnerability might seem to deserve a prominent place in thinking and writing about healthcare law and ethics, therefore. But what exactly do we mean by ‘vulnerability’ when we refer to it in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE), and what should we mean by it? Must the theory and practice of HCLE adopt an understanding of vulnerability that applies in other contexts too, or should we be seeking a bespoke concept of vulnerability particular to the HCLE setting? The idea of vulnerability has had a chequered history in HCLE literature. It has figured mainly at the margins of the discourse, where it has tended to be associated with risk, harm, and exploitation, and seen as something undesirable to be minimised or eliminated. Since the turn of the millennium, however, there has been a pronounced shift toward more direct, explicit engagement with the idea of vulnerability. In this chapter, I will begin by using a Wittgensteinian approach to enquire into what ‘vulnerability’ currently means in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE). I will observe that the meaning of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics is in flux and suggest that, although our thinking, talking, and writing about healthcare seems to be progressing toward a more appropriate engagement with the idea of vulnerability, now would be an appropriate moment to take stock of developments. In the latter part of the chapter I will offer some clarifications, draw some key distinctions, and emphasise some important themes, in order to facilitate the development of our understanding.",
keywords = "vulnerability, healthcare law, medical law, medical ethics, healthcare ethics, professionalism",
author = "Mary Neal",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "17",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781138476929",
editor = "Daniel Bedford and Jonathan Herring",
booktitle = "Embracing Vulnerability",

}

Neal, M 2019, The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics: from the margins to the mainstream? in D Bedford & J Herring (eds), Embracing Vulnerability: The Implications and Challenges for Law. London.

The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics : from the margins to the mainstream? / Neal, Mary.

Embracing Vulnerability: The Implications and Challenges for Law. ed. / Daniel Bedford; Jonathan Herring. London, 2019.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics

T2 - from the margins to the mainstream?

AU - Neal, Mary

PY - 2019/1/17

Y1 - 2019/1/17

N2 - Without vulnerability, there would be no need for healthcare, or law, or ethics. Each of these systems owes its existence to the fact that human beings are open, fragile, and fallible. The idea of vulnerability might seem to deserve a prominent place in thinking and writing about healthcare law and ethics, therefore. But what exactly do we mean by ‘vulnerability’ when we refer to it in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE), and what should we mean by it? Must the theory and practice of HCLE adopt an understanding of vulnerability that applies in other contexts too, or should we be seeking a bespoke concept of vulnerability particular to the HCLE setting? The idea of vulnerability has had a chequered history in HCLE literature. It has figured mainly at the margins of the discourse, where it has tended to be associated with risk, harm, and exploitation, and seen as something undesirable to be minimised or eliminated. Since the turn of the millennium, however, there has been a pronounced shift toward more direct, explicit engagement with the idea of vulnerability. In this chapter, I will begin by using a Wittgensteinian approach to enquire into what ‘vulnerability’ currently means in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE). I will observe that the meaning of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics is in flux and suggest that, although our thinking, talking, and writing about healthcare seems to be progressing toward a more appropriate engagement with the idea of vulnerability, now would be an appropriate moment to take stock of developments. In the latter part of the chapter I will offer some clarifications, draw some key distinctions, and emphasise some important themes, in order to facilitate the development of our understanding.

AB - Without vulnerability, there would be no need for healthcare, or law, or ethics. Each of these systems owes its existence to the fact that human beings are open, fragile, and fallible. The idea of vulnerability might seem to deserve a prominent place in thinking and writing about healthcare law and ethics, therefore. But what exactly do we mean by ‘vulnerability’ when we refer to it in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE), and what should we mean by it? Must the theory and practice of HCLE adopt an understanding of vulnerability that applies in other contexts too, or should we be seeking a bespoke concept of vulnerability particular to the HCLE setting? The idea of vulnerability has had a chequered history in HCLE literature. It has figured mainly at the margins of the discourse, where it has tended to be associated with risk, harm, and exploitation, and seen as something undesirable to be minimised or eliminated. Since the turn of the millennium, however, there has been a pronounced shift toward more direct, explicit engagement with the idea of vulnerability. In this chapter, I will begin by using a Wittgensteinian approach to enquire into what ‘vulnerability’ currently means in the context of healthcare law and ethics (HCLE). I will observe that the meaning of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics is in flux and suggest that, although our thinking, talking, and writing about healthcare seems to be progressing toward a more appropriate engagement with the idea of vulnerability, now would be an appropriate moment to take stock of developments. In the latter part of the chapter I will offer some clarifications, draw some key distinctions, and emphasise some important themes, in order to facilitate the development of our understanding.

KW - vulnerability

KW - healthcare law

KW - medical law

KW - medical ethics

KW - healthcare ethics

KW - professionalism

UR - https://www.routledge.com/

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9781138476929

BT - Embracing Vulnerability

A2 - Bedford, Daniel

A2 - Herring, Jonathan

CY - London

ER -

Neal M. The idea of vulnerability in healthcare law and ethics: from the margins to the mainstream? In Bedford D, Herring J, editors, Embracing Vulnerability: The Implications and Challenges for Law. London. 2019