In recent years, the development in bioethics has increasingly been toward empirical research. Much less attention has been paid to the question about the theoretical frameworks on which bioethics should be based.

Many have complained that Kant’s ethics provides little specific guidance as to how we should act. In contemporary healthcare, professionals act in large-scale organizational contexts, with complex reward structures, and in many cases belong to professional bodies that determine the ethical obligations associated with particular roles.

Among bioethicists, and perhaps ethicists generally, the idea that we are obliged to respect autonomy is something of a shibboleth. Appeals to autonomy are commonly put to work to support legal and moral claims about the importance of consent, but they also feed a wider discourse in which the patient’s desires are granted a very high importance and medical paternalism is regarded as almost self-evidently indefensible.

You have lied! You are a liar! This is one of the most serious moral offences one can be blamed for. Augustine even regards lying as the fundamental moral offence and identifies it with sin and evil in general. For Augustine and Kant, lying is in itself morally reprehensible and not justifiable at all.

The overarching question addressed in this article is whether there is something that might reasonably be called a Habermasian approach or perspective that bioethical enquiry might utilize.

Recent developments in genomic science hold out the tantalizing prospect of soon being able to treat and prevent a wide variety of medical conditions through gene therapy. In time, it may be possible to use similar techniques not simply to combat disease but also to enhance, or improve on, normal human functioning.

In this article, I present what I believe to be the core of Jürgen Habermas’s views on the morality, ethics, and regulation of emerging genetic and reproductive technologies in his book The Future of Human Nature.

The human being’s mastery of itself, on which the self is founded, practically always involves the annihilation of the subject in whose service that mastery is maintained, because the substance which is mastered, suppressed, and disintegrated by self-preservation is nothing other than the living entity.

There must be few philosophical projects more serious than Jürgen Habermas’s lifelong effort to realize the lofty universalist ambitions of the Enlightenment in his communicative theory of rational discourse and deliberative democracy.

In this issue of CQ, we are pleased to inaugurate a new Department, Professionalism, with an article by Jeffrey Blustein entitled “When Doctors Break the Rules: On the Ethics of Physician Noncompliance.” The article examines the ethical dilemmas physicians face when they believe that promoting the best interests of patients requires them to break one or more institutional rules.

Suppose a primary care physician practicing in an underserved community orders a treatment for one of her indigent patients under the state’s Medicaid program.

In Confessions of a Knife, Richard Selzer gives a candid account of his life as a surgeon, divulging mistakes, regrets, impressions, and emotions in beautiful, metaphorical prose.

“Dissecting Bioethics,” edited by Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry, welcomes contributions on the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of bioethics.

The section is dedicated to the idea that words defined by bioethicists and others should not be allowed to imprison people’s actual concerns, emotions, and thoughts. Papers that expose the many meanings of a concept, describe the different readings of a moral doctrine, or provide an alternative angle to seemingly self-evident issues are therefore particularly appreciated.

The themes covered in the section so far include dignity, naturalness, public interest, community, disability, autonomy, parity of reasoning, symbolic appeals, and toleration.

All submitted papers are peer reviewed. To submit a paper or to discuss a suitable topic, contact Tuija Takala at [email protected].

To submit a case that has been reviewed by an ethics committee or to submit papers on related topics in clinical ethics, readers are invited to contact Ruchika Mishra, editor of “Ethics Committees and Consultants at Work,” at: [email protected].