Sebastian Muders

 Markus Rüther

Bettina Schoene-Seifert

Marco Stier

There has been an ongoing debate about the capabilities and limits of the bio-natural sciences as sources and the methodological measure in the philosophy of psychiatry for quite some time now. Still, many problems remain unsolved, at least partly for the following reasons: The opposing parties do not tend to speak with each other, exchange their arguments and try to increase mutual understanding. Rather, one gets the impression that they often remain in their “trenches”, busy with confirming each others' opinions and developing their positions in isolation. This leads to several shortcomings: (1) Good arguments and insights from both sides of the debate get less attention they deserve. (2) The further improvement of each position becomes harder without criticism, genuinely motivated by the opposing standpoint. (3) The debate is not going to stop, at least not in the way it would finish after a suggested solution finds broad support; (4) Related to this, insisting on the ultimate aptnessof one side is just plainly wrong in almost every case. Since undeniably, most philosophical positions usually have a grain of truth hidden in them. In sum, many controversies persist with regard to the appropriate methodological, epistemological, and even ontological level for psychiatric explanation and therapies. In a conference which took place in December last year, we tried to contribute to a better understanding about what really is at issue in the philosophy of psychiatry. We asked for a common basis for several sides, for points of divergence and for the practical impact of different solutions on everyday work in psychiatry. Since psychiatry as a whole is a subject that is to wide to be covered in a single meeting, we focused on the following four core topics: 1.Competing accounts of psychiatric biologism, reductionism, and physicalism. 2.Mental disease and brain disease in the light of current neuroscientific and epigenetic findings. 3.Normative suppositions for different accounts of mental disease. 4.Normative implications of different accounts of mental disease. These topics, which have been vigorously as well as fruitfully discussed at our conference, will (ideally) be, too, in the center of our contribution to Frontiers. More precisely, we think of arranging a “research topic” which assembles the issues of the conference. At this point, it seems promising to us to group three or four Target Articles (TA) and let them get criticized ...

The Philosophy of Psychiatry and Biologism

Assisted dying is still an extremely contested topic in Bioethics. Despite the strongly influential role human dignity plays in this debate, it still has not received the appropriate, multi-faceted treatment it deserves. Studies show that the notion of dignity already plays an important role in medical contexts: it is frequently used by health care professionals as well as patients. However, its use in these contexts needs to be analyzed and explained in more detail. Moreover, a review of the available literature clearly shows that the general, highly fruitful academic debate on human dignity is more than ready to take the next step into applied ethics: in particular, into the even more controversial area of assisted death. This book offers a detailed philosophical analysis of dignity and how it relates to assisted death. Its audience will benefit both from the general discussion of human dignity it offers as well as from the specific bioethical context to which it is applied.

Human Dignity and Assisted Death

Matthias Hoesch

Markus Rüther

What does it mean to lead a good life? This anthology examines this question from an interdisciplinary philosophical and theological perspective, assembling contributions from German and international experts. The individual essays are representative of the current state of research. Suitable as an introductory work, the volume surveys the problems that prevail in this area of thought.

Sebastian Muders

About

Books

Join the club