Bioethics in the public square: reflections on thehow

Abstract

As bioethics gains more prominence in public policy debates, it is time to more fully reflect on the following: what is its role in the public square, and what limitations relate to and barriers impede its fulfilment of this role? I contend we should consider the how of bioethics (as a policy influencer) rather than simply focus on the who or what of bioethical enquiry. This is not to suggest considerations of latter categories are not important, only that too little attention has been paid to parallel or resulting policy involvement-involvement that will require specialised skills and knowledge that we can develop with a proactive (vs reactive) stance. Moreover, and equally critically, this how of public policy involvement will require more transparency regarding influences (eg, philosophical, ideological, cultural, socio-political) on what bioethicists bring to the table and what constituency base each represents-a humility as to the scope of one's role. In this vision, bioethics is not one single person or belief system for a policymaker to call to guide or give support to a position; rather, it offers tools-formed and utilised by a diverse disciplinary range of individuals-to help guide ethical analysis of biomedical endeavours, with the goal of infusion and diffusion of ethical enquiry and prioritisation in health policymaking, and greater humility among bioethicists who inform this discussion.

Synthetic Biology between Self-Regulation and Public Discourse: Ethical Issues and the Many Roles of the Ethicist

“…Bioethics, as a field, can bring this structured, mediating, analytical, educational and advisory role to the policy development process in a systematic way." 34 The ethicist has a role to play in the public arena, guiding debate by providing ethical analysis and critical argumentation of ethical issues. In so far as ethicists go beyond analysis and description to make normative claims, they have to be supported by argument and analysis, and must be transparent and nondogmatic about theoretical commitments and normative frameworks, in order to maintain academic integrity and credibility.…”

What is it to do good medical ethics? On the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘goodness’ in medical ethics

“…A similar statement, but here in the form of a self-warning on behalf of the field of bioethics, reads as follows:31The risk is that bioethics can be co-opted to justify (vs critically analyse) pre-existing scientific, and political positions, by finding the sympathetic individual and claiming she speaks for all bioethicists. We should be cognizant when speaking out not to open the door for others to use what we say and to ascribe to it the label of ‘the’ bioethics position.…”