Since the birth of bioethics a new situation has been consolidated, it emerges sometimes confusedly in the lemma of “bioeconomy”, in which human bodies are registered as much in techno-scientific research as in labor processes. In fact, in pharmacological trials in healthy subjects and in the field of reproductive technology, a new kind of manpower has arisen, now defined as “clinical labor”. An emblematic case is IVF, its development has made it possible to separate the figure of the woman supplier of the gametes from that of the woman carrying out gestation and birth, thereby giving rise to two different markets – one for oocytes and the other for surrogacy – tainted by forms of social and racial discrimination. However, the contrast between solidarity (gift) and profit (exploitation) is not the only thing at stake. Clinical labor, in fact, derives in theoretical terms from the analyses of those economists who have enhanced the notion of human capital trying simultaneously to transform the most intimate bodily functions into “commercial goods and services”. So while from many quarters the notion of human capital is looked on as the solution to problems, there is inadvertence as to how it institutes an ethics that completely rewrites the way of conceiving the relationship between health, illness and disability within the perspective of the enterprising self. This paper, therefore, endeavours to investigate from a bioethical standpoint the neoliberal literature on human capital, in order to avert its tracing the bioethical criteria of the biotechnical age to come.

Dalla nascita della bioetica si è consolidata una situazione inedita, che emerge talvolta confusamente nel lemma “bioeconomia”, in cui i corpi umani sono iscritti tanto nella ricerca tecno-scientifica quanto nei processi del lavoro. Nella sperimentazione farmacologica su soggetti sani e nell’ambito delle tecnologie riproduttive, infatti, è sorta una nuova forma di manodopera definita ormai “lavoro clinico”. Emblematico è il caso della Fivet, il cui sviluppo ha reso possibile separare la figura della donna fornitrice di gameti da quella in cui avverrà la gestazione e il parto, dando così luogo a due differenti mercati – degli ovociti e della maternità surrogata – segnati da forme di discriminazione sociali e razziali. Eppure, in gioco non è solo la contrapposizione tra solidarietà (dono) e profitto (sfruttamento). Il “lavoro clinico”, infatti, deriva sul piano teorico dall’elaborazione di quegli economisti che hanno valorizzato la nozione di capitale umano cercando simultaneamente di «trasformare le più intime funzioni corporee in beni e servizi commerciali». Così, mentre da più parti si guarda alla nozione di capitale umano come alla soluzione dei problemi, non ci si accorge di come essa istituisca un’etica che riscrive interamente il modo di intendere il rapporto tra salute, malattia e disabilità nell’ottica dell’imprenditoria di sé. Il tentativo di questo contributo, allora, è di indagare in chiave bioetica la letteratura neoliberale sul capitale umano, per evitare che sia questa a tracciare i criteri bioetici dell’epoca biotecnica a venire.

Musio, A., Il capitale in-umano. La bioetica di fronte al "lavoro clinico", <<MEDICINA E MORALE>>, 2016; (3): 293-314 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/87311]

Il capitale in-umano. La bioetica di fronte al "lavoro clinico"

Musio, Alessio
2016

Abstract

Since the birth of bioethics a new situation has been consolidated, it emerges sometimes confusedly in the lemma of “bioeconomy”, in which human bodies are registered as much in techno-scientific research as in labor processes. In fact, in pharmacological trials in healthy subjects and in the field of reproductive technology, a new kind of manpower has arisen, now defined as “clinical labor”. An emblematic case is IVF, its development has made it possible to separate the figure of the woman supplier of the gametes from that of the woman carrying out gestation and birth, thereby giving rise to two different markets – one for oocytes and the other for surrogacy – tainted by forms of social and racial discrimination. However, the contrast between solidarity (gift) and profit (exploitation) is not the only thing at stake. Clinical labor, in fact, derives in theoretical terms from the analyses of those economists who have enhanced the notion of human capital trying simultaneously to transform the most intimate bodily functions into “commercial goods and services”. So while from many quarters the notion of human capital is looked on as the solution to problems, there is inadvertence as to how it institutes an ethics that completely rewrites the way of conceiving the relationship between health, illness and disability within the perspective of the enterprising self. This paper, therefore, endeavours to investigate from a bioethical standpoint the neoliberal literature on human capital, in order to avert its tracing the bioethical criteria of the biotechnical age to come.
2016
Italiano
Musio, A., Il capitale in-umano. La bioetica di fronte al "lavoro clinico", <<MEDICINA E MORALE>>, 2016; (3): 293-314 [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/87311]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/87311
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact