Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2009
Starting bioethics in Russia we were motivated with the idea of the democratization of our society on a basic micro-social level. The country was swift enough to take several important steps in this direction on the macro-social level, i.e., to adopt a new constitution with guarantees of human rights and rights of ownership of private property, to elect the parliament and the president. But these modernizations in the Russian political facade did not sufficiently change the internal structure of the society–the net of everyday relationships in the home, at work, at school, in hospitals and other places. One of the most brilliant philosophers of the Russian “silver age,” L.S. Frank, wrote in the beginning of the century that a tyrannical state (at his time the czarist state) grows out of tyrannical interpersonal relationships. Political revolution not grounded in a social evolution on the basic level of satisfying “simple” human economic, physical, and psychological needs could reproduce only the same totalitarian pattern under a new ideological label. Events resulting from the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 proved the wisdom of his statement. Russia could suffer the same fate today.
1. Tribe, LH. Abortion: The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1990, p. 57.Google Scholar
2. Tichtchenko, P. The individual and healthcare in the new Russia. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1995;4:75–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Melnikov, A. Television program immerses government in complicated problems of medical ethics. Izvestija 1996 Jan 11.Google Scholar
4. Feodornia, M. Physicians with limited responsibility. Moskovskij Komsomoletz 1996 Jan. 22.Google Scholar
5. Sadkovskaja, T. Sensation of “Spiegel TV” has burst, but fatal problems of fetal therapy remain. Rossijskije Vestry 1996 Jan. 19.Google Scholar
6. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar
7. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar
8. See note 2. Tichtchenko, 1995.Google Scholar
9. Chukurov, A. Business on the unborn. Pravda 1996 Jan. 13.Google Scholar
10. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar
11. See note 9. Chukurov, 1996.Google Scholar
12. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar
13. See note 5. Sadkovskaja, 1996.Google Scholar
14. Popov, AA, Lukina, AV. Family planning and artificial abortions in Russia. Zdravoohranenije Rossijskoj Federazii (Health Care of the Russian Federation) 1995;1:25–30.Google Scholar
15. See note 14. Popov, 1995.Google Scholar
16. See note 1. Tribe, 1990.Google Scholar
17. See note 1. Tribe, 1990.Google Scholar
18. See note 14. Popov, 1995.Google Scholar
19. Yudin, B. The price is-unborn children. Literaturnaj gazeta (literary newspaper) July 3.Google Scholar
20. Akopyan, A. It is the mother's right. Literaturnaj gazeta (literary newspaper) 1996 July 3.Google Scholar
21. See note. 19. Yudin, 1996.Google Scholar
