Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T19:19:32.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideology and Politicization in Public Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2011

SUMMER McGEE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recently, concern has been raised regarding the politicization of public bioethics. Party politics has increasingly influenced public debate on ethical issues like stem cell research, human cloning, and end-of-life care. These debates have put bioethics “smack in the middle” of the culture wars. These recent events confirm Daniel Callahan’s prescient claim made in 1996 that “bioethical debates are beginning to reflect those culture wars … the larger moral struggles of our society.”

Type
Special Section: Open Forum
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 73 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Stolberg, SG.Schiavo’s case may reshape American law. New York Times 2005:1 April.Google Scholar

2. Callahan, D.Bioethics, our crowd and ideology. Hastings Center Report 1996;26(6):3–7, at 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. Leo, J.Schiavo scandal indicates low state of bioethics. Yahoo News 2005:28 MarchGoogle Scholar; available at http://fe21.story.media.mud.yahoo.com/news/?tmpl=story&cid=2206&ncid=742&e=15&u=/ucjl/20050328/cm_ucjl/schiavoscandalindicateslowstateofbioethics (last accessed 14 Jun 2010); Smith, WJ.Human non-person: Terri Schiavo, bioethics and our future. National Review Online 2005Google Scholar; available at http://old.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503290755.asp (last accessed 3 Dec 2010); see note 1, Stolberg, 2005:29 March 2005.

4. See note 3, Leo 2005:117.

5. Callahan, D.Judging the future: Whose fault will it be? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000;25(6):677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. Spicker, SF.Government and bureaucratic bioethics: Addressing moral issues in the service of ideology. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1996;21(2):113–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. Fox, RC.More than bioethics. Hastings Center Report 1996;26(6):3–7.Google ScholarPubMed

8. See note 6, Spicker 1996:117.

9. Cherry, MJ.Foundations of the culture wars: Compassion, love, and human dignity. Christian Bioethics 2001;7(3):299–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; See note 7, Fox 1996.

10. See note 5, Callahan 2000.

11. See note 6, Spicker 1996:117.

12. See note 2, Callahan 1996:3.

13. Jonsen, A.Bioethicists, whose crowd and what ideology? Hastings Center Report 1996;26(6):3–7.Google ScholarPubMed

14. Menzel, PT.Public philosophy: Distinction without authority. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1990;15(4):411–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. Walsby, H. Definition of ideology. In: Walsby, H.The Domain of Ideologies. Middlesex: Riverside Press; 1947:93–99; available at http://gwiep.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/doi20090217.pdf (last accessed 3 Dec 2010).Google Scholar

16. Blake, T.What is Systematic Ideology? 2005; available at http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=127 (last accessed 3 Dec 2010).Google Scholar

17. See note 16, Blake 2005:1.

18. See note 16, Blake 2005.

19. See note 15, Walsby 1947:93.

20. Hayry, H.Bioethics and political ideology: The case of active voluntary euthanasia. Bioethics 1997;11(3–4):271–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

21. See note 8, Spicker 1996:17.

22. See note 13, Jonsen 1996:4.

23. See note 14, Menzel 1990:422.

24. See note 14, Menzel 1990:422.

25. See note 13, Jonsen 1996:5.

26. Callahan, D.Judging the future: Whose fault will it be? Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 2000;25(6):677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Charo, RA.Passing on the right: Conservative bioethics is closer than it appears. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 2004;32:307–14, at 308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed It is not the goal of this paper to confirm or deny Charo’s claims, but rather to point out that this is a major critique against the PCB, which many would claim has become a highly politicized advisory body.

28. See note 2, Callahan 1996.

29. See note 5, Callahan 2000:685.

30. Bulger, RE, Bobby, EM, Fineberg, HV, eds. Society’s Choices: Social and Ethical Decision Making in Biomedicine. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1995.Google Scholar

31. Office of Technology Assessment. Biomedical Ethics in US Public Policy. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1993.Google Scholar

32. See note 9, Cherry 2001:300.

33. Levin, Y.The paradox of conservative bioethics. The New Atlantis 2003;1(1):53–66 (print ed.); available at http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-paradox-of-conservative-bioethics (last accessed 3 Dec 2010).Google Scholar

34. Johnson, S.Multiple roles and successes in public bioethics: A response to the public forum critique of bioethics commissions. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 2006;16(2):178–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

35. See note 27, Charo 2004.

36. Sandel, M. A response to Rawls’ political liberalism. In: Sandel, M.Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998:184–215, at 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar