Reviewing Literature in Bioethics Research: Increasing Rigour in Non‐Systematic Reviews

The recent interest in systematic review methods in bioethics has highlighted the need for greater transparency in all literature review processes undertaken in bioethics projects. In this article, I articulate features of a good bioethics literature review that does not aim to be systematic, but rather to capture and analyse the key ideas relevant to a research question. I call this a critical interpretive literature review. I begin by sketching and comparing three different types of literature review conducted in bioethics scholarship. Then, drawing on Dixon‐Wood's concept of critical interpretive synthesis, I put forward six features of a good critical interpretive literature review in bioethics: answering a research question, capturing the key ideas relevant to the research question, analysing the literature as a whole, generating theory, not excluding papers based on rigid quality assessment criteria, and reporting the search strategy.     

Bioethics in China

Historically, the preconditions for the emergence of bioethics in China. were political reforms and their applications. The Hanzhong Euthanasia Case and the publication of Qiu Ren-zong's academic work Bioethics played a significant role in the development of bioethics in China. Other contributory factors include the establishment of the Chinese Society of Medical Ethics/Chinese Medical Association (C.M.A), the publication of the Journal of Chinese Medical Ethics, and the teaching and education of bioethics in China. Major achievements of bioethics in China include the establishment of ethics committee and ethics review system, active international communication and cooperation among the academic circles, and the successful management of the 8th World Congress of Bioethics in Beijing in 2006. Chinese bioethics focus on native Chinese realities and conditions, absorb the international research achievements in relevant fields, and combine international ideas with traditional Chinese doctrines. Admittedly, there are still some aspects to be improved, yet bioethics has attracted a lot of attention from the core leadership in China and has gained sound financial support, which augers well for its further development. This article also briefly introduces the development of bioethics in Hong Kong and Taiwan, China.     

Intervention bioethics: a proposal for peripheral countries in a context of power and injustice

The bioethics of the so-called 'peripheral countries' must preferably be concerned with persistent situations, that is, with those problems that are still happening, but should not happen anymore in the 21st century. Resulting conflicts cannot be exclusively analysed based on ethical (or bioethical) theories derived from 'central countries.' The authors warn of the growing lack of political analysis of moral conflicts and of human indignation. The indiscriminate utilisation of the bioethics justification as a neutral methodological tool softens and even cancels out the seriousness of several problems, even those that might result in the most profound social distortions. The current study takes as a theoretical reference the fact that natural resources (which affect us all) are relevant. Based on these premises, and on the concept that equity means 'treating unevenly the unequal', a proposal of a hard bioethics (or intervention bioethics) is introduced, in defence of the historical insights and rights of economically and socially excluded populations that are separated from the international developmental process.     

Bioethics and Its Gatekeepers: Does Institutional Racism Exist in Leading Bioethics Journals?

Who are the gatekeepers in bioethics? Does editorial bias or institutional racism exist in leading bioethics journals? We analyzed the composition of the editorial boards of 14 leading bioethics journals by country. Categorizing these countries according to their Human Development Index (HDI), we discovered that approximately 95 percent of editorial board members are based in (very) high-HDI countries, less than 4 percent are from medium-HDI countries, and fewer than 1.5 percent are from low-HDI countries. Eight out of 14 leading bioethics journals have no editorial board members from a medium- or low-HDI country. Eleven bioethics journals have no board members from low-HDI countries. This severe underrepresentation of bioethics scholars from developing countries on editorial boards suggests that bioethics may be affected by institutional racism, raising significant questions about the ethics of bioethics in a global context.     

Bioethics for human geneticists: models for reasoning and methods for teaching.

The ethical issues raised by the Human Genome Project (HGP) and by human genetics in general are not entirely novel. In fact, the ethical issues surrounding genetic research and the provision of genetic services fit into the evolution of bioethics, a field of inquiry which has its roots in concerns of the 1970s, concerns about the dignity and self-determination of individuals and about the development of medical technologies. Although bioethics has been largely occupied with patient-centered concerns, attention is currently shifting toward socially oriented issues, such as the justice of the existing health-care system. Genetic counseling has already incorporated many of the lessons of early bioethics and, as a profession, adheres to a consultand-centered ethic which reflects the values incorporated into the doctrine of informed consent, which is a cornerstone of bioethics. The mandate of the Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications Program of the HGP--to anticipate ethical problems arising from advances in genetics and to educate the public about genetics--reflects not only the nonpaternalistic approach of early bioethics but also bioethics' increasing attention to the ethical import of systemic and institutional factors, as well as an anticipatory and preventive approach to dealing with ethical concerns. Because bioethics has so much to contribute to current consideration of ethical issues in human genetics, it is important to provide training in ethics to those working in the field. Guidelines for using a case-oriented approach are suggested.     

Don't Blame the ‘Bio’ — Blame the ‘Ethics’: Varieties of (bio) ethics and the challenge of pluralism

We tend to think that the difficulties in bioethics spring from the novel and alarming issues that arise due to discoveries in the new biosciences and biotechnologies. But many of the crucial difficulties in bioethics arise from the assumption we make about ethics. This paper offers a brief overview of bioethics, and relates ethical 'principlism' to 'ethical fundamentalism.' It then reviews some alternative approaches that have emerged during the second phase of bioethics and argues for a neo-Aristotelian approach. Misconceptions about ethical principles and ethical reasoning not only distort our views of the business of bioethics, but they also prevent us from facing up to the formidable problems posed by ethical pluralism in so-called liberal societies.     

Anthropological and Sociological Critiques of Bioethics

Anthropologists and sociologists offer numerous critiques of bioethics. Social scientists criticize bioethicists for their arm-chair philosophizing and socially ungrounded pontificating, offering philosophical abstractions in response to particular instances of suffering, making all-encompassing universalistic claims that fail to acknowledge cultural differences, fostering individualism and neglecting the importance of families and communities, and insinuating themselves within the “belly” of biomedicine. Although numerous aspects of bioethics warrant critique and reform, all too frequently social scientists offer ungrounded, exaggerated criticisms of bioethics. Anthropological and sociological critiques of bioethics are hampered by the tendency to equate bioethics with clinical ethics and moral theory in bioethics with principlist bioethics. Also, social scientists neglect the role of bioethicists in addressing organizational ethics and other “macro-social” concerns. If anthropologists and sociologists want to provide informed critiques of bioethics they need to draw upon research methods from their own fields and develop richer, more informed analyses of what bioethicists say and do in particular social settings.     

Beyond the Sterility of a Distinct African Bioethics: Addressing the Conceptual Bioethics Lag in Africa

In the current debate on the future of bioethics in Africa, several authors have argued for a distinct communitarian African bioethics that can counter the dominancy of Western atomistic principlism in contemporary bioethics. In this article I examine this rather contentious argument and evaluate its validity and viability. Firstly, I trace the contextual origins of contemporary bioethics and highlight the rise and dominance of principlism. I particularly note that principlism was premised on a content‐thin notion of the common morality that is in need of enrichment. I also contend that bioethics is essentially two‐dimensional, being both conceptual and empirical, and indicate the lag in Africa with regard to conceptual bioethics. I then appeal for authentic engagement by 1) African health care professionals, 2) African health care training institutions, 3) Africa's bioethics development partners, and 4) African bioethicists and philosophers, towards addressing this critical lag. I underline the need to maintain the essential universality of bioethics as a discipline. I particularly argue against the pursuit of a distinct African bioethics, as it appears to be rooted in sterile African ethno‐philosophy. Rather, African bioethicists and philosophers would do well to elucidate the universalisability of insights from traditional African thought, for the benefit of bioethics as a whole. Thus we must engage beyond the sterility of a distinct African bioethics ‐ authentically reflecting on the essentially universal contemporary bioethical concerns ‐ to effectively articulate a viable trajectory for bioethics in Africa.     

Does pediatrics need its own bioethics?

Pediatric bioethics raises unique issues because children are constantly growing, developing, and changing. The ethical issues that arise for newborns are different from those that arise for seven-year-olds or 17-year-olds. Furthermore, children do not develop cognitive capacities or moral reasoning skills at the same rate. Thus, it is difficult to generalize about what is appropriate or inappropriate for children in either the clinical or the research setting. This article responds to some of the issues raised by a new volume of essays about pediatric bioethics. It puts these issues into historical context by examining the implications of Saul Krugman's famous studies on the etiology and prevention of hepatitis at New York's Willowbrook State School.     

The genesis of public health ethics

As bioethics emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and began to have enormous impacts on the practice of medicine and research – fuelled, by broad socio‐political changes that gave rise to the struggle of women, African Americans, gay men and lesbians, and the antiauthoritarian impulse that characterised the New Left in democratic capitalist societies – little attention was given to the question of the ethics of public health. This was all the more striking since the core values and practices of public health, often entailing the subordination of the individual for the common good, seemed opposed to the ideological impulses of bioethics. Of what relevance is autonomy‐focused bioethics for public health, with its mix of justifications including those that are either implicitly or explicitly paternalistic or that seek to impose strictures on individuals and communities in the name of collective welfare? To examine the deep divide between the central commitments of bioethics and the values that animate the practice of public health, we focus on a series of controversies implicating the concepts of privacy, liberty, and paternalism. Recognising the role of moral values in decision‐making was a signal contribution of bioethics in its formative period. Over the past three decades a broad array of perspectives emerged under the rubric of bioethics but individualism remains central. As we commence the process of shaping an ethics of public health, it is clear that bioethics is the wrong place to start when thinking about the balances required in defence of the public's health.     

WHAT CAN HISTORY DO FOR BIOETHICS?

This article details the relationship between history and bioethics. I argue that historians' reluctance to engage with bioethics rests on a misreading of the field as solely reducible to applied ethics, and overlooks previous enthusiasm for historical perspectives. I claim that seeing bioethics as its practitioners see it – as an interdisciplinary meeting ground – should encourage historians to collaborate in greater numbers. I conclude by outlining how bioethics might benefit from new histories of the field, and how historians can lend a fresh perspective to bioethical debates.     

Lessons from Queer Bioethics: A Response to Timothy F. Murphy

‘Bioethics still has important work to do in helping to secure status equality for LGBT people’ writes Timothy F. Murphy in a recent Bioethics editorial. The focus of his piece, however, is much narrower than human rights, medical care for LGBT people, or ending the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Rather, he is primarily concerned with sexuality and gender identity, and the medical intersections thereof (i.e. DSM diagnosis; access to SrS or ARTs). It is the objective of this response to provide an alternate account of bioethics from a Queer perspective. I will situate Queer bioethics within Queer studies, and offer three ‘lessons’ that bioethics can derive from this perspective. These are not definitive rules for Queer bioethics, since it is a field which fundamentally opposes categorizations, favoring pastiche over principles. These lessons are exploratory examples, which both complement and contradict LGBT bioethics. My latter two lessons – on environmental bioethics and disability – overlap with some of Murphy's concerns, as well as other conceptions of LGBT bioethics. However, the first lesson takes an antithetical stance to Murphy's primary focus by resisting all forms of heteroconformity and disavowing reproduction as consonant with Queer objectives and theory. The first lesson, which doubles as a primer in Queer theory, does heavy philosophical lifting for the remainder of the essay. This response to Timothy F. Murphy, whose work is certainly a legacy in bioethics, reveals the multiplicity of discourses in LGBT/Queer studies, many of which are advantageous – even essential – to other disciplines like bioethics.     

The responsibilities of the engaged bioethicist: Scholar,advocate, activist

The work of a bioethicist carries distinctive responsibilities. Alongside those of any worker, there are responsibilities associated with giving guidance to practitioners, policy makers and the public. In addition, bioethicists are professionally exposed to and required to identify situations of moral trouble, and as a result may find themselves choosing to work as advocates or activists, with responsibilities that are distinct from those generally acknowledged within academia. The requirement for bioethics to make normative judgements entails taking a stance, which means there cannot be a sharp line between ‘academic’ or ‘objective’ bioethics, and advocacy/activism, but a continuum of bioethicists’ engagement and an associated continuum of responsibilities.     

FROM INTEGRATIVE BIOETHICS TO PSEUDOSCIENCE

Integrative bioethics is a brand of bioethics conceived and propagated by a group of Croatian philosophers and other scholars. This article discusses and shows that the approach encounters several serious difficulties. In criticizing certain standard views on bioethics and in presenting their own, the advocates of integrative bioethics fall into various conceptual confusions and inconsistencies. Although presented as a project that promises to deal with moral dilemmas created by modern science and technology, integrative bioethics does not contain the slightest normativity or action‐guiding capacity. Portrayed as a scientific and interdisciplinary enterprise, integrative bioethics displays a large number of pseudoscientific features that throw into doubt its overall credibility.     

The Nature and Value of Bioethics Expertise

In this article, I address the extent to which experts in bioethics can contribute to healthcare delivery by way of aid in clinical decision‐making and policy‐formation. I argue that experts in bioethics are moral experts, in that their substantive moral views are more likely to be correct than those of non‐bioethicists, all else being equal, but that such expertise is of use in a relatively limited class of cases. In so doing, I respond to two recent arguments against the view that bioethicists are moral experts, one by Christopher Cowley and another by David Archard. I further argue that bioethics experts have significant additional contributions to make to healthcare delivery, and highlight a hitherto neglected aspect of that contribution: amelioration of moral misconception among clinicians. I describe in detail several aspects of moral misconception, and show how the bioethicist is in a prime position to resolve that sort of error.     

从生命伦理到生命法

20世纪下半叶以来,生命科技的发展极大地增进了人类的福祉,但也引生了大量伦理与法律问题,使得生命科技的伦理调整与法律规范成为必然。在生命科技发展的过程中,生命伦理发挥了重要的引领作用,它以其自身特定的机制保障着生命科技的健康发展。生命伦理与生命法存在着明显区别,这些区别使得生命伦理在现代生命科技社会中无法独立承担引领生命科技健康发展的使命,而必须与生命法共同在生命科技社会治理中发挥作用。在现代生命科技社会中,生命法具有不可取代的重要作用,正是基于此,20世纪70年代以来,各国兴起了一场生命伦理法律化的运动,纷纷强化了本国的生命法制建设,改变了以往单纯依赖生命伦理调整生命科技活动的历史,使法律也参与到生命科技的规制中来。人类生命科技治理必然要经历一个由单纯依赖生命伦理到依赖生命法与生命伦理相结合的发展阶段。当前,我国生命立法还存在诸多不足,难以适应生命科技发展的现实需要,需要采取相应的完善对策。     

African Bioethics vs. Healthcare Ethics in Africa: A Critique of Godfrey Tangwa

It is nearly two decades now since the publication of Godfrey Tangwa's article, ‘Bioethics: African Perspective’, without a critical review. His article is important because sequel to its publication in Bioethics, the idea of ‘African bioethics’ started gaining some attention in the international bioethics literature. This paper breaks this relative silence by critically examining Tangwa's claim on the existence of African bioethics. Employing conceptual and critical methods, this paper argues that Tangwa's account of African bioethics has some conceptual, methodic and substantive difficulties, which altogether do not justify the idea of African bioethics, at least for now. Contra Tangwa, this article establishes that while African bioethics remains a future possibility, it is more cogent that current efforts in the name of ‘African bioethics’ be primarily re‐intensified towards ‘Healthcare ethics in Africa’.