利益权衡还是道德意志?——从黑格尔的角度反思近代社会契约理论

社会契约理论是西方17世纪和18世纪的政治哲学主流思潮之一,但在19世纪却逐渐失去影响力。通过黑格尔的视角,本文分析了社会契约理论的哲学基础及其内在困难。自始至终,社会契约理论的哲学基础是同意学说,也就是说,国家和法律的道德正当性来自于个人或被统治者的同意。但是,同意包含了两个不同的含义。在霍布斯和洛克看来,同意意味着一种理性的利益计算;而根据卢梭和康德的理解,同意代表一种意志的自我立法或普遍意志。黑格尔在《法哲学原理》中将同意的这两种含义分别称为抽象法权和道德,并且认为它们都是意志自由的辩证发展过程的不同阶段。但在黑格尔的哲学体系中,真正的意志自由既不是外在的抽象法权,也不是内在的道德自由,而是二者在更高层次上的统一,也就是道德自由在一个具体的共同体中获得具体的实现。只有在一个伦理共同体,尤其是在作为其最高形式的国家之中,个体的自由意志才得到最终的实现。     

政府数据开放背景下个人信息知情同意权的行政法架构

政府数据开放的趋势对于个人信息保护的要求越来越高。个人信息保护中的知情同意权是公民个人信息自决权的核心,是政府数据开放制度中必不可少的内容。知情同意权最早起源于医疗领域,是医学界保护接受测试者的基本规范,这一规范从医学伦理转化而来,最终在法律中得到确认。个人信息保护中的知情同意,要求任何主体在收集和利用个人信息时应当如实、全面地告知当事人具体情况,并征得当事人同意后方可对信息进行处理,包含具体同意和概括同意。个人信息知情同意权在行政法领域的特殊性表现为:双方主体地位不平等,知情同意权更多地表现为知情权,个人信息泄露影响巨大。同时应当构建如下规则:知情同意不能构成责任免除;概括同意和具体同意并行;剔除具有可识别性的信息,且不能恢复;制定大数据使用规范,避免出现大数据歧视。     

未成年人器官捐赠知情同意权的法理基础与制度构建

近年来器官捐赠的行为越来越多,其合法性特别是未成年人器官捐赠的合法性引起了社会的广泛关注。分析未成年人器官捐赠的现状及器官的法律性质,明确捐赠行为的合法性和知情同意权的法理基础,指出未成年人器官捐赠知情同意权的不足,并结合社会各方利益提出对策建议,以期建立合法合理的未成年人器官捐赠知情同意权制度。     

Children’s consent to child welfare services: Some explorative remarks

In this article, children consenting to a care order proposal is explored as a form of meaningful participation as seen by care-experienced young people. In contrast to health care and research ethics, almost no research exists on children's consent to child welfare measures. The findings suggest that instead of approaching children as individualistic rights-holders, a more relational understanding about consenting is required, both conceptually and in practice, to acknowledge the social, emotional and power relations in which children's consent (or objection) becomes topical in child welfare. Without that recognition, consenting may be far from meaningful participation.     

股东同意与公司财产的刑法保护--被害人同意理论在公司制度中的运用

被害人同意是具体法益所有人对于他人侵害自己可以支配的权益所表示的允诺。被害人同意须具备相应的有效要件才能发生阻却刑法构成要件或阻却违法性的效力。股东同意基于股东在公司中的法律地位具有被害人同意的属性。公司业务执行人基于股东同意所实施的犯罪行为如果是在被害人同意前提下做出的,其行为的性质可适用被害人同意的一般原理予以评价和判断。股东同意是否是"有效"的被害人同意并进而具有排除刑法构成要件的效力则应具体问题具体分析。     

医疗手术中的被害人承诺——从刑法学的角度审视

医疗手术中的被害人承诺,是阻却医师刑事责任的正当化事由。真实有效的被害人承诺,必须具备承诺权限、承诺能力、承诺意思、承诺时间和承诺合法等五个要件,缺一不可。在国外,医师没有得到患者承诺的专断治疗,往往构成故意伤害罪或暴行罪。     

Midwives’ experience of personal/professional risk when providing continuity of care to women who decline recommendations: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

ProblemWomen’s autonomous choices in pursuit of physiological childbirth are sometimes limited by the midwife’s willingness to support those choices, particularly when those choices are contrary to recommendations or outside of guidelines.BackgroundWomen’s reasons for making such choices have received some research attention, however there is a paucity of research examining this phenomenon from the perspective of caseloading midwives’ and their perception of personal/professional risk in such situations.AimTo synthesise qualitative research which includes the voices of midwives working in a continuity of carer model who perceive any kind of risk to themselves when caring for women who decline current established recommendations.MethodsSystematic literature search and meta-synthesis were carried out following a pre-determined search strategy. The search was executed in April 2021 and updated in July 2021. Studies were assessed for quality using JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Data extraction was assisted by JBI QARI Data Extraction Tool for Qualitative Research. GRADE-CERQual was applied to the findings.FindingsEight studies qualified for inclusion. Five main themes were synthesised as third order constructs and were incorporated into a line of argument: Women’s rights to bodily autonomy and choice in childbearing are violated, and their ability to access safe midwifery care in pursuit of physiological birth is restricted, when midwives practise within a maternity system which is adversarial towards midwives who provide the care which women require. Midwives who provide such care place themselves at risk of damaged reputation, collegial conflict, intimidating disciplinary processes, tensions of ‘being torn’, and a heavy psychological load. Despite these personal and professional risks, midwives who provide this care do so because it is the ethical and moral thing to do, because they recognise that women need them to, because it can be very rewarding, and because they are able to.ConclusionMaternity systems and colleagues can be key risk factors for caseloading midwives who facilitate women’s right to decline recommendations. These identified risks can make it unsustainable for midwives to continue providing woman-centred care and contribute to workforce attrition, reducing options/choices for women which paradoxically increases risk to women and babies.