Between Relativism and Imperialism: Navigating Moral Diversity in Cross‐Cultural Bioethics

The need for explicit theoretical reflection on cross‐cultural bioethics continues to grow as the spread of communication technologies and increased human migration has made interactions between medical professionals and patients from different cultural backgrounds much more common. I claim that this need presents us with the following dilemma. On the one hand, we do not want to operate according to an imperialist ethical framework that denies and silences the legitimacy of cultural values other than our own. On the other hand, we do not want to backslide into a form of cultural relativism that is unable to critically appraise cultural practices that are harmful, unjust, or oppressive. I examine two prominent attempts – the principlism of Tom Beauchamp and James Childress and the Contractarianism of Robert Baker – to frame cross‐cultural bioethics between these two extremes and argue that both approaches have significant flaws. The principlist approach fails to provide a non‐question begging way to identify cross‐cultural norms that does not already assume the universal legitimacy of moral principles dominant in North American society. Baker's contractarianism cannot grapple with the realities of political power imbalances that often characterize cross‐cultural moral disputes. I suggest that a naturalized feminist framework, though not free of its own theoretical difficulties, provides the best alternative for approaching moral diversity respectfully and critically.     

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’.     

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.     

A Confucian View of Personhood and Bioethics

This paper focuses on Confucian formulations of personhood and the implications they may have for bioethics and medical practice. We discuss how an appreciation of the Confucian concept of personhood can provide insights into the practice of informed consent and, in particular, the role of family members and physicians in medical decision-making in societies influenced by Confucian culture. We suggest that Western notions of informed consent appear ethically misguided when viewed from a Confucian perspective.     

Looking back, looking beyond: revisiting the ethics of genome generation

This paper will explore some of the ethical imperatives that have shaped strategic and policy frameworks for the use of new genetic technologies and how these play a role in shaping the nature of research and changing attitudes; with an attempt to conceptualize some theories of genetic determinism. I analyse why there is a need to put bioethical principles within a theoretical framework in the context of new technologies, and how, by doing so, their practical applications for agriculture, environment medicine and health care can be legitimized. There are several theories in favour of and against the use of genetic technologies that focus on genes and their role in our existence. In particular the theory of geneticisation is commonly debated. It highlights the conflicting interests of science, society and industry in harnessing genetic knowledge when the use of such knowledge could challenge ethical principles. Critics call it a ‘reductionist’ approach, based on arguments that are narrowed down to genes, often ignoring other factors including biological, social and moral ones. A parallel theory is that there is something special about genes, and it is this “genetic exceptionalism” that creates hopes and myths. Either way, the challenging task is to develop a common ground for understanding the importance of ethical sensitivities. As research agendas become more complex, ethical paradigms will need to be more influential. New principles are needed to answer the complexities of ethical issues as complex technologies develop. This paper reflects on global ethical principles and the tensions between ethical principles in legitimizing genetic technologies at the social and governance level.     

Origin Myths in Bioethics: Constructing Sources,Motives and Reason in Bioethic(s)

Bioethics, the term now usually standing in for Biomedical Ethics, is a field of medical anthropological engagement. While many anthropologists and other social scientists work with bioethicists and physicians, this paper instead takes Bioethics as a topic of cultural research from the perspective of Cultural Bioethics and Interpretive Medical Anthropology. Application of useful findings of vintage anthropological research in cultural anthropology and the anthropology of religion and an interpretive lens reveal a field without a single origin or unified methodology. The paper suggests the appropriateness of a literal meaning of current conceptual commonality of the term Bioethics: that the term does in fact refer to a plurality of distinct enterprises with distinct origins and, hence, justifications.     

Opportunities in Reform: Bioethics and Mental Health Ethics

Last year marks the first year of implementation for both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in the United States. As a result, healthcare reform is moving in the direction of integrating care for physical and mental illness, nudging clinicians to consider medical and psychiatric comorbidity as the expectation rather than the exception. Understanding the intersections of physical and mental illness with autonomy and self‐determination in a system realigning its values so fundamentally therefore becomes a top priority for clinicians. Yet Bioethics has missed opportunities to help guide clinicians through one of medicine's most ethically rich and challenging fields. Bioethics' distancing from mental illness is perhaps best explained by two overarching themes: 1) An intrinsic opposition between approaches to personhood rooted in Bioethics' early efforts to protect the competent individual from abuses in the research setting; and 2) Structural forces, such as deinstitutionalization, the Patient Rights Movement, and managed care. These two themes help explain Bioethics' relationship to mental health ethics and may also guide opportunities for rapprochement. The potential role for Bioethics may have the greatest implications for international human rights if bioethicists can re‐energize an understanding of autonomy as not only free from abusive intrusions but also with rights to treatment and other fundamental necessities for restoring freedom of choice and self‐determination. Bioethics thus has a great opportunity amid healthcare reform to strengthen the important role of the virtuous and humanistic care provider.     

Bioethics,children, and the environment

Queer perspectives have typically emerged from sexual minorities as a way of repudiating flawed views of sexuality, mischaracterized relationships, and objectionable social treatment of people with atypical sexuality or gender expression. In this vein, one commentator offers a queer critique of the conceptualization of children in regard to their value for people's identities and relationships. According to this account, children are morally problematic given the values that make them desirable, their displacement of other beings and things entitled to moral protection, not to mention the damaging environmental effects that follow in the wake of population growth. Objectionable views of children are said even to have colonized the view of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) people who – with the enthusiastic endorsement of bioethics – increasingly turn to assisted reproductive treatments to have children. In the face of these outcomes, it is better – according to this account – that people reconsider their interest in children. This account is not, however, ultimately strong enough to override people's interest in having children, relative to the benefits they confer and relative to the benefits conferred on children themselves. It is certainly not strong enough to justify differential treatment of LGBT people in matters of assisted reproductive treatments. Environmental threats in the wake of population growth might be managed in ways other than devaluing children as such. Moreover, this account ultimately damages the interests of LGBT people in matters of access, equity, and children, which outcome is paradoxical, given the origins of queer perspectives as efforts to assert and defend the social interests of sexual and gender minorities.     

Two Agendas for Bioethics: Critique and Integration

Many bioethicists view the primary task of bioethics as ‘value clarification’. In this article, I argue that the field must embrace two more ambitious agendas that go beyond mere clarification. The first agenda, critique, involves unmasking, interrogating, and challenging the presuppositions that underlie bioethical discourse. These largely unarticulated premises establish the boundaries within which problems can be conceptualized and solutions can be imagined. The function of critique, then, is not merely to clarify these premises but to challenge them and the boundaries they define. The second agenda, integration, involves honoring and unifying what is right in competing values. Integration is the morally ideal response to value conflict, offering the potential for transcending win/lose outcomes. The function of integration, then, is to envision actions or policies that not only resolve conflicts, but that do so by jointly realizing many genuine values in deep and compelling ways. My argument proceeds in stages. After critically examining the role and dominant status of value clarification in bioethical discourse, I describe the nature and value of the two agendas, identify concrete examples of where each has been and could be successful, and explain why a critical integrative bioethics – one that appreciates the joint necessity and symbiotic potential of the two agendas – is crucial to the future of the field. The ultimate goal of all of this is to offer a more compelling vision for how bioethics might conduct itself within the larger intellectual and social world it seeks to understand and serve.     

Not Fit for Purpose: The Ethical Guidelines of the Indian Council of Medical Research

In 2006, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) published its ‘Ethical guidelines for Biomedical Research on human participants’. The intention was to translate international ethical standards into locally and culturally appropriate norms and values to help biomedical researchers in India to conduct ethical research and thereby safeguard the interest of human subjects. Unfortunately, it is apparent that the guideline is not fit for purpose. In addition to problems with the structure and clarity of the guidelines, there are several serious omissions and contradictions in the recommendations. In this paper, we take a close look at the two key chapters and highlight some of the striking flaws in this important document. We conclude that ethics committees and national authorities should not lose sight of international ethical standards while incorporating local reality and cultural and social values, as focusing too much on the local context could compromise the safety of human subjects in biomedical research, particularly in India.     

Bioethics and the Framing of Climate Change's Health Risks

Cheryl Cox MacPherson recently argued, in an article for this journal, that ‘Climate Change is a Bioethics Problem’. This article elaborates on that position, particularly highlighting bioethicists' potential ability to help reframe the current climate change discourse to give more attention to its health risks. This reframing process is especially important because of the looming problem of climate change skepticism. Recent empirical evidence from science framing experiments indicates that the public reacts especially positively to climate change messages framed in public health terms, and bioethicists are particularly well positioned to contribute their expertise to the process of carefully developing and communicating such messages. Additionally, as climate framing research and practice continue, it will be important for bioethicists to contribute to the creation of that project's nascent ethical standards. The discourse surrounding antibiotic resistance is posited as an example that can lend insight into how communicating a public health‐framed message, including the participation of bioethicists, can help to override public skepticism about the findings of politically contentious scientific fields.     

A method of Reflexive Balancing in a Pragmatic,Interdisciplinary and Reflexive Bioethics

In recent years there has been a wealth of literature arguing the need for empirical and interdisciplinary approaches to bioethics, based on the premise that an empirically informed ethical analysis is more grounded, contextually sensitive and therefore more relevant to clinical practice than an ‘abstract’ philosophical analysis. Bioethics has (arguably) always been an interdisciplinary field, and the rise of ‘empirical’ (bio)ethics need not be seen as an attempt to give a new name to the longstanding practice of interdisciplinary collaboration, but can perhaps best be understood as a substantive attempt to engage with the nature of that interdisciplinarity and to articulate the relationship between the many different disciplines (some of them empirical) that contribute to the field. It can also be described as an endeavour to explain how different disciplinary approaches can be integrated to effectively answer normative questions in bioethics, and fundamental to that endeavour is the need to think about how a robust methodology can be articulated that successfully marries apparently divergent epistemological and metaethical perspectives with method. This paper proposes ‘Reflexive Bioethics’ (RB) as a methodology for interdisciplinary and empirical bioethics, which utilizes a method of ‘Reflexive Balancing’ (RBL). RBL has been developed in response to criticisms of various forms of reflective equilibrium, and is built upon a pragmatic characterization of Bioethics and a ‘quasi‐moral foundationalism’, which allows RBL to avoid some of the difficulties associated with RE and yet retain the flexible egalitarianism that makes it intuitively appealing to many.     

Bioethics in the Malay‐Muslim Community in Malaysia: A Study on the Formulation of Fatwa on Genetically Modified Food by the National Fatwa Council

The field of bioethics aims to ensure that modern scientific and technological advancements have been primarily developed for the benefits of humankind. This field is deeply rooted in the traditions of Western moral philosophy and socio‐political theory. With respect to the view that the practice of bioethics in certain community should incorporate religious and cultural elements, this paper attempts to expound bioethical tradition of the Malay‐Muslim community in Malaysia, with shedding light on the mechanism used by the National Fatwa Council to evaluate whether an application of biological sciences is ethical or not. By using the application of the genetically modified food as a case study, this study has found that the council had reviewed the basic guidelines in the main references of shari'ah in order to make decision on the permissibility of the application. The fatwa is made after having consultation with the experts in science field. The council has taken all factors into consideration and given priority to the general aim of shari'ah which to serve the interests of mankind and to save them from harm.     

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.     

The Treaty of Waitangi and Research Ethics in Aotearoa

Researchers, when engaging with Māori communities, are in a process of relationship building and this process can be guided by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, partnership, participation and protection. The main concerns for many indigenous peoples in research revolve around respect for their indigenous rights, control over research processes and reciprocity within research relationships to ensure that equitable benefits are realised within indigenous groups. Māori have identified similar issues and these concerns can be aligned with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The relevance of the Treaty of Waitangi to research ethics is discussed and this paper suggests a revised interpretation of the treaty principles to incorporate the range of ethical issues that Māori have expressed as important.     

Focus: Bioethics: Rethinking Benefits in Health Research,Reflections of an Ethics Committee

The principle of beneficence in health research implies the effort of researchers to minimize risk to participants and maximize benefits to participants and society, which could be considered an abstract definition. Therefore, the benefits are not easily conceived by researchers who fail to achieve their goal, which is to privilege the well-being of participants. The purpose of this work was to describe and discuss the theoretical elements that support the principle of beneficence so that their knowledge allows designing and granting adequate benefits to participants. The present document defines the principle of beneficence. It also analyzes the maximization of benefits, the distinctions between different classifications of benefits, and the differentiation from compensations or incentives. With all this information, researchers must do a critical deliberation to select adequate benefits for participants of their studies, considering the type of study, potential participants, probability of risk, among others. These benefits should not be understood as a charity that researchers grant to the participant; they should be conceived as any form of action in favor of the well-being of participants. Participants must always be considered as moral agents, responsible for deciding whether the benefits would outweigh the possible negative unintended consequences of a particular study. Finally, no risk should be taken if it is not commensurate or proportional to the benefit of the research study.     

Bioethics and practical justice in the post‐COVID‐19 era

The ethical concept of justice, as it relates to the development and deployment of innovative health technologies, commands the fair and equitable distribution of burdens and benefits. In bioethics, specific guidance on practical strategies for achieving what this concept of justice demands are somewhat elusive. Drawing on issues of justice arising or likely to arise in the context of the search for a vaccine or cure for COVID‐19, this paper argues for a focus on the concept of “practical justice” in post‐pandemic bioethics work. To illustrate the value and promise of this concept, the paper reflects on an approach to achieving practical justice in health biotechnology research that is grounded in a commitment to offer technical assistance to developing and under‐resourced nations.