This paper explores an emerging sub-field of both empirical bioethics and experimental philosophy, which has been called “experimental philosophical bioethics” (bioxphi). As an empirical discipline, bioxphi adopts the methods of experimental moral psychology and cognitive science; it does so to make sense of the eliciting factors and underlying cognitive processes that shape people’s moral judgments, particularly about real-world matters of bioethical concern. Yet, as a normative discipline situated within the broader field of bioethics, it also aims (...) to contribute to substantive ethical questions about what should be done in a given context. What are some of the ways in which this aim has been pursued? In this paper, we employ a case study approach to examine and critically evaluate four strategies from the recent literature by which scholars in bioxphi have leveraged empirical data in the service of normative arguments. (shrink)

In the present chapter, we seek to better understand how lay people reason about the “true self” of a person with advancing dementia. We are also interested in how such reasoning bears on laypeople’s views about the validity or invalidity of an advance directive (AD) regarding that person’s treatment. Toward that end, we will report the results of two empirical studies we undertook to gain insights into this relationship: namely, between judgments about the true self and whether to follow an (...) AD. We find that many participants judge that a hypothetical person with dementia, stipulated to be non-autonomous with respect to her healthcare decision-making, is nevertheless still her “true self” and that her current apparent preference (to be treated) should be honored despite conflicting with the autonomous preference (not to be treated) previously recorded in her AD. We discuss potential normative implications of our findings, drawing on arguments from the emerging literature on experimental philosophical bioethics, also known experimental bioethics or “bioxphi.”. (shrink)

The question of what makes someone the same person through time and change has long been a preoccupation of philosophers. In recent years, the question of what makes ordinary or lay people judge that someone is—or isn’t—the same person has caught the interest of experimental psychologists. These latter, empirically oriented researchers have sought to understand the cognitive processes and eliciting factors that shape ordinary people’s judgments about personal identity and the self. Still more recently, practitioners within an emerging discipline, experimental (...) philosophical bioethics or “bioxphi”—the focus of this chapter—have adopted a similar aim and employed similar methodologies, but with two distinctive features: (a) a special concern for enhanced ecological validity in the examples and populations studied; and (b) an interest in contributing to substantive normative debates within the wider field of bioethics. Our aim in this chapter is to sample illustrative work on personal identity in bioxphi, explore how it relates to studies in psychology covering similar terrain, and draw out the implications of this work for matters of bioethical concern. In pursuing these issues, we highlight recent work in bioxphi that includes the perceived validity of advance directives following neurodegeneration, the right of psychologically altered study participants to withdraw from research, how drug addiction may cause one to be regarded by others as “a completely different person,” the effect of deep-brain stimulation on perceptions of the self, and the potential influence of moral enhancement interventions on intuitive impressions of a person’s character. (shrink)

Papers in philosophical bioethics often discuss unrealistic scenarios and defend controversial views. Why is that, and what is this kind of work good for? My aim in the first part of this paper is to specify how philosophical bioethics relates to other types of work in bioethics, and to explain the role of the unrealistic scenarios and the controversial views. In the second part, I propose three strategies for doing research in philosophical bioethics (...) that makes a valuable contribution to the bioethics community at large. (shrink)

The debate regarding physician-assisted suicide continues in our society. Despite the recent opinions of the United States Supreme Court, this issue is unlikely to go away anytime soon. For a variety of reasons, this debate is now conducted in the legalistic terms of individual rights and liberties. As a result, perhaps we philosophers have been left behind. This is now a matter for the legal arena and philosophy is likely to be irrelevant. I would like to suggest otherwise for two (...) reasons. (shrink)

In 1975, The New England Journal of Medicine published James Rachels' article 'Active and Passive Euthanasia'. The argumentative method that Rachels introduced, the Bare Difference Argument (also known as the Contrast Strategy), became one of the most widely used tools in ethical reasoning. The argument, however, fails to show active euthanasia being morally permissible. It fails because Rachels takes the intuitions from the case where letting die is morally impermissible and applies the intuitions to cases where letting die is morally (...) permissible. While it is possible to create thought-experiments that are more analogous to euthanasia, in this respect, than Rachels' cases, they too are disanalogous to euthanasia with some of the relevant features. Creating the perfect analogy, however, would be a mistake too. Such a case would be too analogous; people would simply be divided on what kind of moral intuitions they would have. The problem thus highlights a methodological limit in philosophical bioethics and raises questions related to the roles of philosophical ethicists in the context of assisted dying. (shrink)

Many people working in bioethics take pride in the subject’s embrace of a wide range of disciplines. This invites questions of what in particular is added by each. In this paper, I focus on the role of philosophy within the field: what, if anything, is its unique contribution to bioethics? I sketch out a claim that philosophy is central to bioethics because of its particular analytic abilities, and defend its place within bioethics from a range of (...) sceptical attacks. (shrink)

A large tranche of contemporary bioethical inquiry is self-consciously focused on purpose and methodology. Bioethics is a field of disparate disciplines, and it is not always clear what role the philosopher plays in the wider scheme. Even when philosophical reflections can, in principle, find application in the real world , there can be difficulty in finding sound resolution between the competing perspectives. Where fundamentals differ, we face apparent deadlock, with theorists seemingly able only to talk across each other. (...) Perspectives on this vary. For example, some will argue that the philosopher’s role is purely reflective and need have no practical resonance whatsoever. Others may say that philosophers are not equipped to engage with empirical questions or, when they do, they do so on flawed understandings of “the real world”; bad science or science fiction replaces brute fact and emotional, social, and empirical reality. Some may seek to strike a balance by trying to engage the questions within a political framing, allowing both for normative and real-world concerns. (shrink)

The term philosophical generation, or generations, covers one such initiative in new readings in the history of 20th century philosophy, ethics, and moral philosophy. It focuses its attention on interactions between philosophers as personalities, as teachers of philosophy, and their student-philosophers. It is interested in the interactions that shape the tradition of philosophical thinking and ethics in such unique environments as university departments, institutes of academies, scientific societies, journal editorial offices, or publishing houses. The present study provides an (...) analysis of the existing state of the generational discourse in a historical-philosophical context starting from the 20th century. It focuses on the prospects and pitfalls of the applicability of this lens when examining Slovak philosophical and ethics work in the 20th century and today. It brings thinking about the extent to which the given approach could contribute to existing reflections of our philosophy and ethics and the effort to answer the question of our philosophical identity. It would make possible to point out perspectives and, at the same time, the pitfalls of grasping the formation of philosophical generations in the Slovak academic environment. (shrink)

What are the moral stakes involved when we will have the same power to engineer our bodies as we do our automobiles? Which specific bioethics problems will put the most pressure on our ethical traditions? What should we do now to prepare for this brave new world? With Greg Loeben, Ronald Munson, and Wade Robison.

Flesh of My Flesh is a collection of articles by today's most respected scientists, philosophers, bioethicists, theologians, and law professors about whether we should allow human cloning. It includes historical pieces to provide background for the current debate. Religious, philosophical, and legal points of view are all represented.

This commentary shows how philosophical counseling offers an alternative way for consultants to facilitate "closure" in bioethical disputes.

This book provides a clear and stimulating introduction to bioethics - from the more familiar debates on euthanasia, living wills and new reproductive technologies such as IVF, through to the philosophical implications of recent developments in genetics such as prenatal genetic therapy, genetic enhancement and human cloning. Offers a clear and stimulating textbook introduction to contemporary issues in bioethics. Provides original and provocative contributions to ongoing debates. Guides the reader from the more familiar debates on euthanasia, advance (...) directives, and new reproductive technologies, through to the philosophical implications of developments such as prenatal genetic therapy, genetic enhancement and human cloning. The book is built around four important themes: the nature of moral status ; life, death, and killing ; the threat to personal identity; the question of whether biomedical innovations can be ‘unnatural’. (shrink)

Blumenthal-Barby et al. (2022) present a nuanced and convincing case for the continued presence of moral and political philosophers in bioethics. We agree with the authors that philosophers should have a role in bioethical inquiry. However, we partly disagree on what that role should be. We assess the case taking our clues from a concern the authors mention – and another one that they do not directly address.

The contributors to the volume discuss various approaches to bioethical thinking and the political and institutional contexts of bioethics, addressing underlying concerns about the purposes of its practice.

Two sources of possible disagreement in bioethics may be associated with pessimism about what bioethics can achieve. First, pluralism implies that bioethics engages with interlocutors who hold divergent moral beliefs. Pessimists might believe that these disagreements significantly limit the extent to which bioethics can provide normatively robust guidance in relevant areas. Second, the interdisciplinary nature of bioethics suggests that interlocutors may hold divergent views on the nature of bioethics itself—particularly its practicality. Pessimists may suppose (...) that interdisciplinary disagreements could frustrate the goals of bioethics. In this article, I explore how wonder may alleviate the concerns of the first group of pessimists regarding problems associated with pluralism, provided that we are willing to accept some interdisciplinary frustrations. Then, I invite readers of this issue of The Journal of Medicine & Philosophy to test these intuitions by considering the role of wonder in these articles. (shrink)

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine is now one of the most important bioethics texts from the point of view of international policy and law. It is the result of five years of discussions and negotiations between the different instances of the Council of Europe. In this article I analyze several problems. First, there are problems of articulation between the Convention and the (...) joint Explanatory Report. The oriented exegesis of the Explanatory Report raises suspicion about the Convention, which appears as a smooth façade for an instrument actually serving ideological positions many people do not share. Second, there are problems of formulation within the Convention. These are mainly problems with articles that state prohibitions without any distinction, relativization, contextualization or sense of evolution. Finally, there are problems of substance, leading to the conclusion that the Convention is not a good illustration of the human rights philosophical tradition in the name of which it has been proclaimed. This tradition is the one of Enlightenment. And when Kant summarizes the motto of Enlightenment, the injunction is "Sapere Aude!": "Dare to know!" It is difficult to hear such a message through the Convention, and the Explanatory Report includes too many passages and sentences that mean the opposite. (shrink)

In her excellent essay, Blumenthal-Barby (2024) argues that it is “time for bioethics to end talk of personhood.” She is concerned, more specifically, with “the philosophical concept of personhood,...

First published in 1999. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Abstract:The end of the last century was a particularly vibrant period for feminist bioethics. Almost two decades on, we reflect on the legacy of the feminist critique of bioethics and investigate the extent to which it has been successful and what requires more attention yet. We do this by examining the past, present, and future: we draw out three feminist concerns that emerged in this period—abstraction, individualism, and power—and consider three feminist responses—relationality, particularity, and justice—and we finish with (...) some thoughts about the future. (shrink)

This paper is structured in three sections. The first discusses the institutional framework pertaining to bioethics in Serbia. The functioning of this framework is critically assessed and a number of recommendations for its improvement presented. It is also emphasized that philosophers are underrepresented in public debate on bioethics in Serbia. Second, this underrepresentation will be related to two issues that figure prominently in Serbian society but are not accompanied by corresponding bioethical discourses: the first is abortion and the (...) second is the largely unrestricted use of neuropharmacology since the 1990s, both for therapeutic and for cosmetic/recreational purposes. Finally, the perspective of bioethics in Serbia is addressed. It is asserted that this perspective can be based on the enhancement of public philosophical debate on bioethical issues, especially those with notable features in Serbian society . Such enhancement would also strengthen the corresponding institutional and legal frameworks. (shrink)

This paper explores the interconnections between philosophical wisdom and bioethical expertise, arguing that the latter can be enlightened by the former. First, it analyses the arguments of those who think that philosophy has nothing to say to bioethics, and afterwards, it shows that philosophical wisdom has an irreducible ethical component, which in turn helps bioethics to reach its aims. Thus, this paper shows that some Wittgensteinian commentators (e.g., Paul Johnston) did not grasp the contributions the author (...) of the Tractatus Logico-philosophicus and even his later work made to ethics (and potentially to bioethics as a subfield) as an autonomous domain of investigation independent of logic, the empirical sciences, and metaphysics. (shrink)

This article presents a general overview of philosophical issues undertaken in the work of Richard Otowicz, Jesuit and Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Faculty of Theology in Warsaw. Within the set of views developed by him, the theological perspective undoubtedly assumes pride of place. Often, however, he refers to philosophical issues from which, in his opinion, one cannot escape—issues that bear directly on human life. What is especially striking is Otowicz’s hypothesis that bioethics is a (...) kind of self-defense reflex of mankind, who are attempting by means of it to intellectually grasp the issues relating to the unlimited expansion of technology. Developments and changes observed in the world are forcing humanity to rethink very fundamental issues, such as interpersonal relationships or the relationship of man to nature. (shrink)

The papers in this number of the Journal originated in a session sponsored by the American Philosophical Association's Committee on Philosophy and Medicine in 1999. The four papers and two commentaries identify and address philosophical challenges of how we should understand and teach bioethics in the liberal arts and health professions settings. In the course of introducing the six papers, this article explores themes these papers raise, especially the relationship among professional medical ethics, the "long history" of (...) medical ethics, and bioethics. The tendency of bioethics to deprofessionalize medical ethics is rejected, in favor of an historically informed professional medical ethics. It is suggested that bioethics should be critically reconsidered from the perspective of medical ethics as professional ethics. (shrink)

Critically examining what most people take for granted is central to philosophical inquiry. Philosophers who accept positions on policy making commissions, tasks forces, or committees cannot, however, play the same uncompromisingly critical role in this capacity as they do in the classroom or in their personal research or writing. Still, philosophers have much to contribute to such bodies, and they can do so without compromising their integrity or betraying themselves as philosophers. Keywords: compromise, critical reflection, embryo research, integrity, organ (...) transplantation, policy development, Warnock Committee CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

The elderly are often considered a vulnerable group in public and academic bioethical debates and regulations. In this paper, we examine and challenge this assumption and its ethical implications. We begin by systematically delineating the different concepts of vulnerability commonly used in bioethics, before then examining whether these concepts can be applied to old age. We argue that old age should not, in and of itself, be used as a marker of vulnerability, since ageing is a process that can (...) develop in a variety of different ways and is not always associated with particular experiences of vulnerability. We, therefore, turn to more fundamental phenomenological considerations in order to reconstruct from a first person perspective the intricate interconnections between the experiences of ageing and vulnerability. According to this account, ageing and old age are phenomena in which the basic anthropological vulnerability of human beings can manifest itself in an increased likelihood of harm and exploitation. Thus, we plead for a combined model of vulnerability that helps to avoid problems related to the current concepts of vulnerability. We conclude first that old age as such is not a sufficient criterion for being categorized as vulnerable in applied ethics, and second that reflections on ageing can help to develop a better understanding of the central role of vulnerability in human existence and in applied ethics. (shrink)

Background This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children’s consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from (...) research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families’ informed consent to surgery. Results The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices. Conclusion We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children’s rights. (shrink)

We argue that a responsible analysis of today's evidence-based risk assessments and risk debates in biology demands a critical or metascientific scrutiny of the uncertainties, assumptions, and threats of error along the manifold steps in risk analysis. Without an accompanying methodological critique, neither sensitivity to social and ethical values, nor conceptual clarification alone, suffices. In this view, restricting the invitation for philosophical involvement to those wearing a "bioethicist" label precludes the vitally important role philosophers of science may be able (...) to play as bioevidentialists. The goal of this paper is to give a brief and partial sketch of how a metascientific scrutiny of risk evidence might work. (shrink)

Bioethics introduces students to the most relevant historical, epistemological, methodological, and practical aspects of bioethics. The book presents readers with some of the most thought-provoking writing in the field, along with an original introduction to each reading. Selections range from the work of great philosophers like Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill, to contemporary writings and reports. Readers explore various ideologies and philosophies including the seminal work of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress on principles of biomedical ethics (...) and the dialogical approach to bioethics. They also consider controversial topics straight from the headlines of the day, such as the collision between paternalism and autonomy, futility, human research, genetic manipulation, and active and passive euthanasia. Bioethics encourages students to think objectively and impartially in order to resolve the ethical dilemmas that stem from biotechnological empowerment and biomedical techniques. The book is suitable for courses in biomedical, research, and practical ethics, as well as those that discuss moral philosophy. It can be used as a stand-alone text, or as a supplement to standard textbooks. Erick Valdes earned a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Chile as well as a Ph.D. in political philosophy from Paris-Sorbonne University in France. He is an adjunct research scholar at the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, where he conducts advanced research on bioethics and biolaw. In addition, Dr. Valdes teaches bioethics, research ethics, theories of democracy and international human rights at George Mason University and American University. He is the author of nine books on bioethics and political philosophy and has published in both English and Spanish. He has written extensively on bioethics and biolaw for international journals, and served as a visiting professor at universities in England, France, Spain, Russia, Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and Chile. (shrink)

_Slow Cures and Bad Philosophers_ uses insights from the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein to rethink bioethics. Although Wittgenstein produced little formal writing on ethics, this volume shows that, in fact, ethical issues permeate the entirety of his work. The scholars whom Carl Elliott has assembled in this volume pay particular attention to Wittgenstein’s concern with the thick context of moral problems, his suspicion of theory, and his belief in description as the real aim of philosophy. Their aim is not (...) to examine Wittgenstein’s personal moral convictions but rather to explore how a deep engagement with his work can illuminate some of the problems that medicine and biological science present. As Elliott explains in his introduction, Wittgenstein’s philosophy runs against the grain of most contemporary bioethics scholarship, which all too often ignores the context in which moral problems are situated and pays little attention to narrative, ethnography, and clinical case studies in rendering bioethical judgments. Such anonymous, impersonal, rule-writing directives in which health care workers are advised how to behave is what this volume intends to counteract. Instead, contributors stress the value of focusing on the concrete particulars of moral problems and write in the spirit of Wittgenstein’s belief that philosophy should be useful. Specific topics include the concept of “good dying,” the nature of clinical decision making, the treatment of neurologically damaged patients, the moral treatment of animals, and the challenges of moral particularism. Inspired by a philosopher who deplored “professional philosophy,” this work brings some startling insights and clarifications to contemporary ethical problems posed by the realities of modern medicine. _Contributors._ Larry Churchill, David DeGrazia, Cora Diamond, James Edwards, Carl Elliott, Grant Gillett, Paul Johnston, Margaret Olivia Little, James Lindemann Nelson, Knut Erik Tranoy. (shrink)

Dr. Van Rensselaer Potter was always quick to point out that a viable ethics must be based upon a viable scientific knowledge base. The implications are clear, that a global ethics must be based upon a global philosophy. The present discussion provides the conceptual basis for a Global Philosophy, specifically a global theology with criteria of belief for a mature Global Bioethics.

This book is for those interested in an extensive review of the field of bioethics. It is for philosophers who wish to understand the core conceptual issues in health care ethics, and for bioethicists who wish to better understand classical problems in philosophy that have a bearing on health care ethics. The Handbook of Bioethics: Taking Stock of the Field from a Philosophical Perspective: -presents a comprehensive survey of bioethics in one volume; -has 27 of the (...) most prominent scholars in the field take stock of the issues they helped define; -contains essays that outline areas where future research is needed; -identifies potential areas for fruitful collaboration between traditional philosophers and bioethicists; -is an ideal text for graduate or upper level undergraduate courses. (shrink)

In this essay I will illustrate how a Japanese philosopher reacted to a newly imported discipline, “bioethics,” in the 1980s and then tried to create an alternative way of looking at “life” in the field of philosophy. This essay might serve as an interesting case study in which a contemporary “western” way of thinking succeeded in capturing, but finally failed to persuade, a then-young Japanese researcher’s mind.

Background This analysis is about practical living bioethics and how law, ethics and sociology understand and respect children’s consent to, or refusal of, elective heart surgery. Analysis of underlying theories and influences will contrast legalistic bioethics with living bioethics. In-depth philosophical analysis compares social science traditions of positivism, interpretivism, critical theory and functionalism and applies them to bioethics and childhood, to examine how living bioethics may be encouraged or discouraged. Illustrative examples are drawn from (...) research interviews and observations in two London paediatric cardiac units. This paper is one of a series on how the multidisciplinary cardiac team members all contribute to the complex mosaic of care when preparing and supporting families’ informed consent to surgery. Results The living bioethics of justice, care and respect for children and their consent depends on theories and practices, contexts and relationships. These can all be undermined by unseen influences: the history of adult-centric ethics; developmental psychology theories; legal and financial pressures that require consent to be defined as an adult contract; management systems and daily routines in healthcare that can intimidate families and staff; social inequalities. Mainstream theories in the clinical ethics literature markedly differ from the living bioethics in clinical practices. Conclusion We aim to contribute to raising standards of respectful paediatric bioethics and to showing the relevance of virtue and feminist ethics, childhood studies and children’s rights. (shrink)

Blumenthal-Barby et al. (2022) are right. Philosophers should pay greater attention to bioethics and bioethicists should pay greater attention to insights from philosophy. This commentary extends t...

Contemporary Bioethics: A Reader with Cases is the most cutting-edge bioethics anthology/casebook available. Incorporating introductions, readings, and cases that span the breadth of the discipline, this exceptional volume captures the spirit of bioethics as a rich, exciting, and continuously evolving field. Addressing all of the essential topics--including abortion, reproductive ethics, end-of-life care, research ethics, and the allocation of resources--it also moves beyond the "classic" approach of other books by extending into timely and provocative issues like terrorism, cosmetic (...) surgery, immigration, genetic manipulations, links between first- and third-world health, and--unique to this book--environmental sustainability and climate change. In addition, Contemporary Bioethics is the only book of its kind that includes both philosophical and religious perspectives.The text opens with a substantial introduction that presents key ethical principles, theories, and methods and shows students how to use these tools to frame and address ethical dilemmas in medicine. Covering the brief yet captivating history of the field, the introduction also considers the role of religion in the development of bioethics and examines differences between secular and religious modes of argumentation. Each of the seven topical chapters contains an in-depth introduction, a selection of concise readings representing a diverse range of moral perspectives, discussion questions, and a collection of full-length and provocative case studies that enable students to further explore the issues.Ideal for introductory courses in bioethics and biomedical ethics, Contemporary Bioethics is supplemented by a Instructor's Manual on CD and a Companion Website containing resources for both students and professors, including chapter summaries, additional cases with discussion questions, ideas for further reading, vocabulary flashcards, self-quizzes, and more. (shrink)

This article focuses on the principles of bioethics and modern medical ethics which have increasingly become subject to ethical discourses and, thus, have acquired their topicality and viability. These ethical connections primarily refer to research in the field of biological sciences, biotechnology and medical research whose results have lead to serious consequences in the context of modern society, since they relate to the essence of human life. Contemporary medicine in particular touches on these issues which, by modern science based (...) on positivism and pragmatism, are claimed to be metaphysical, thus not part of science. The issues refer to the relationship between spirit and matter, life and death, the essence of a human being, the meaning of life, etc. hilosophical and existential issues concerning the life of an individual and the entire society are the characteristic feature of current dynamic processes in all social spheres. They have a principally ethical meaning because they continually confront us with ambitions, interests and our own displacement in the world, in which the loss of order makes us search for alternative ways of life. The differences in theoretical and methodological bases as well as the methods of work applied by exact scientists dealing with the human being (biology, medicine, physics, chemistry, etc.) and ethics are often a source of problems and misunderstandings. Therefore, the calling of scientists, philosophers and ethicists for a mutual dialogue is so urgent. (shrink)