↓ Skip to main content

Global bioethics and communitarianism

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
Title
Global bioethics and communitarianism
Published in
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, August 2011
DOI 10.1007/s11017-011-9190-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henk A. M. J. ten Have

Abstract

This paper explores the role of 'community' in the context of global bioethics. With the present globalization of bioethics, new and interesting references are made to this concept. Some are familiar, for example, community consent. This article argues that the principle of informed consent is too individual-oriented and that in other cultures, consent can be community-based. Other references to 'community' are related to the novel principle of benefit sharing in the context of bioprospecting. The application of this principle necessarily requires the identification and construction of communities. On the global level there are also new uses of the concept of community as 'global community.' Three uses are distinguished: (1) a diachronic use, including past, present, and future generations, (2) a synchronic ecological use, including nonhuman species, and (3) a synchronic planetary use, including all human beings worldwide. Although there is a tension between the communitarian perspective and the idea of global community, this article argues that the third use can broaden communitarianism. The current development towards cosmopolitanism is creating a new global community that represents humanity as a whole, enabling identification of world citizens and evoking a sense of global solidarity and responsibility. The emergence of global bioethics today demonstrates this development.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Colombia 1 3%
India 1 3%
Unknown 37 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 18%
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 10 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 18%
Social Sciences 5 13%
Arts and Humanities 4 10%
Philosophy 3 8%
Environmental Science 2 5%
Other 7 18%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2011.
All research outputs
#18,293,967
of 22,649,029 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#222
of 291 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,625
of 123,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,649,029 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 291 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 123,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.