This brief essay proposes to reflect on what could be Latin American bioethics, speculating about possible identity characteristics and operational limits of the idea of what constitutes Latin America, outlined conceptually by geographical, historical and cultural aspects. This attempt does not assume the task of defining exactly or definitively what Latin American bioethics is, but rather limits itself to the purpose of causing controversy in order to stimulate reflection on this topic to assess its usefulness.

Our challenge for the twenty-first century consists in showing how to construct a global ethics and in trying to discover a rational foundation for it, which may be used as guidance for action and as a norm for the criticism of specific situations. I argue that four tasks must be accomplished to construct a global ethics: Construct that global governance or that world government that makes cosmopolitan citizenship possible. Foster the joint work of bioethics, economic and business ethics, and development (...) ethics – areas of applied ethics, each one of which on its own has reached the global level. Discover a rational basis for a global ethics, which has a universal normative force, but assumes cultural differences. Develop and promote a dilaogical ethics of cordial reason, which renders one capable of compassion and care. (shrink)

Much confusion exists in the definitions of the areas covered by the disciplines of Bioethics and Biotech ethics. This paper seeks to unravel this situation, following a full discussion of the definition of ethics it shows that, although Bioethics is an all-inclusive term, it is generally used for the more specific area of Biomedical ethics. This leaves space for the equivalent level term of Biotech ethics to cover those aspects of the new and old biotechnologies that are not directly concerned (...) with the delivery of health care to humans. (shrink)

Los avances científicos y su aplicación técnica en el ámbito de la odontología, ha motivado la reflexión bioética de la práctica en esta disciplina planteando las siguientes interrogantes: ¿cómo entender el papel del odontólogo?, ¿cómo se configura el universo bioético del odontólogo?, ¿cómo se posibilita el consentimiento válidamente informado? Para explorar la respuesta a estos cuestionamientos, se tiene como punto de partida la relación odontólogo-paciente, y se transita por aspectos de la bioética del odontólogo y las características del consentimiento informado (...) en la práctica odontológica. La conclusión destaca la importancia de hacer del consentimiento informado el medio por el cual se recupera la dignidad de la persona mediante una relación ética y dialógica en tanto proceso mediante el cual se reconoce la alteridad del paciente durante la relación odontólogo- paciente además de coadyuvar a la educación en salud del paciente promoviendo su responsabilidad frente a la autonomía y sus derechos. Scientific advances and their technical application in the field of Dentistry, have led to a bioethical reflection about practice in this discipline by asking questions like: how to understand the dentist´s role, how to set the dentist´s bioethical universe?, how is the valid informed consent made possible? To answer these questions, the patient-dentist relationship is taken as a starting point, and goes through the dentist´s bioethical aspects and informed consent characteristics in dental practice. The conclusion highlights the importance of the informed consent as a way to recover a person´s dignity by which the otherness of the patient is recognized as well as to contribute to the patient´s health education promoting responsibility towards autonomy and rights. (shrink)

In the 1970s “bioethics” emerged as a new interdisciplinary discourse on medicine, health care, and medical technologies, primarily in Western, developed countries. The main focus was on how individual patients could be empowered to cope with the challenges of science and technology. Since the 1990s, the main source of bioethical problems is the process of globalization, particularly neo-liberal market ideology. Faced with new challenges such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, hunger, pandemics, and organ trafficking the bioethical discourse of empowering individuals (...) is no longer sufficient. Global bioethics nowadays is concerned with applying and implementing a universal ethical framework. Islamic bioethics has contributed to creating such framework (exemplified in the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights) while at the same time it is continuously articulating and interpreting this framework in specific settings and contexts. (shrink)

For Van Rensselaer Potter (1911–2001), Global Bio-Ethics is about building on the legacy of Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), one of the most notable forest managers of the twentieth century who brought to light the importance of pragmatism in the sciences and showed us a new way to proceed with environmental ethics. Following Richard Huxtable and Jonathan Ives's methodological 'Framework for Empirical Bioethics Research Projects' called 'Mapping, framing, shaping,' published in BMC Medicine Ethics (2019)), we propose operationalizing a framework for Global Bio-Ethics (...) by hybridizing approaches in empirical bioethics and ecosystem management. We explain this framework using the metaphor of forest management. This mixed approach is articulated through three phases: (1) mapping the “landscape” to build a working theory, (2) framing the “scene” to prepare the fieldwork, and (3) shaping bioethics “tools” to stimulate cooperation. Applying this methodology, an adaptive management cycle is outlined to help ensure that political processes are sustainable and socially acceptable, still based on strategic and ethical thinking, but also capable of reshaping failing policies. (shrink)

Van Rensselaer Potter (1911-2001), le biologiste à l’origine du terme « bioéthique » dans les écrits nord-américains, considère que « real bioethics falls in the context of the ideals of […] Aldo Leopold », un forestier, philosophe et poète ayant marqué le XXe siècle. Associer Leopold à Potter a pour effet de placer la bioéthique dans la famille des éthiques de l’environnement, ce qui la différencie du sens conventionnel retenu en médecine et en recherche depuis le Rapport Belmont (1979), une (...) déclaration ayant propulsé l’institutionnalisation de la bioéthique en Amérique du Nord. Cependant, diviser la bioéthique entre le médical et l’environnemental est réducteur. Potter propose au contraire une bioéthique globale s’intéressant aux enjeux situés à leur interface, dont ceux concernant la terre, la vie sauvage, la surpopulation, la consommation, etc. Cet article vise à amorcer un nouveau chantier d’analyse de la pensée de Potter en s’appuyant sur l’héritage de Leopold en biologie. Une synthèse de cette vision potterienne est proposée de manière à considérer son œuvre comme un tout cohérent s’intégrant aux grands débats qui transcendent les XXe et XXIe siècles. Sa vision apparaît comme une sagesse collective et prospective sous la forme d’une science de la survie et d’un code de bioéthique. Dépassant l’éthique de l’environnement, son association avec Leopold offre un modèle de la complexité s’imposant comme cas indissociable du contexte qui l’englobe, en améliorant nos façons d’intervenir en pratique dans un monde en constante transformation, à titre de gouvernance adaptative et de sagesse de la responsabilité. (shrink)

Depuis 2020, le monde a connu une situation sanitaire exceptionnelle à la suite de la pandémie de Covid-19, faisant face à une incertitude dans le monde médical clinique, de la recherche et dans l’ensemble des domaines connexes en santé publique. Le caractère imprévisible et l’absence de données fiables en lien avec ce virus ont fait émerger une quantité d’enjeux éthiques concrets, cela a donc révélé un domaine particulier, la bioéthique, et plus particulièrement une profession, les bioéthiciens. Les « bioéthiciens » (...) se sont fait connaître du grand public en se dressant parfois comme des garde-fous contre des dérives sanitaires, à d’autres moments comme des lanceurs d’alertes face à des injustices naissantes, ou comme critiques, polémistes et parfois même militants dans les médias ou en tant qu’acteurs de première ligne dans les systèmes politico-sanitaires. Ces divers rôles et pratiques illustrent bien la diversité et l’hétérogénéité du domaine de la bioéthique. Toutefois, l’absence de professionnalisation traditionnelle et formelle de la bioéthique complexifie la compréhension de ce champ disciplinaire. Même en Amérique du Nord, où la pratique de la bioéthique est professionnalisée, il ne s’agit toujours pas d’une profession officiellement reconnue et le terme « bioéthicien » lui-même peut être controversé. La forte présence de cette profession durant la pandémie de Covid-19 a révélé l’importance de décrire ce qu’est un bioéthicien, les fonctions qu’il occupe et en quoi consistent ses interventions. Nous apportons cette clarification nécessaire en expliquant la nature de la bioéthique contemporaine dans toute sa diversité. Comme nous l’a démontré la pandémie de Covid-19, les bioéthiciens représentant un soutien et un guide indispensable de nos jours menés par leur esprit critique et leur réflexivité permanente. (shrink)

Over the last two decades, there was an upsurge of research and innovation in biotechnology and related fields, leading to exciting new discoveries in areas such as the engineering of biological processes, gene editing, stem cell research, CRISPR-Cas9 technology, Synthetic Biology, recombinant DNA, LMOs and GMOs, to mention only a few. At the same time, these advances generated concerns about biosafety, biosecurity and adverse impacts on biodiversity and the environment, leading to the establishment of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) at Higher (...) Education and Research Institutions dedicated to reviewing research with implications for biosafety and the environment. -/- These Biosafety and Environment Research Ethics Committees, referred to as EBRECs, are in the early stages of their establishment and formalisation, and there is much uncertainty about their composition, scope, procedures of decision-making and the principles that should guide their deliberations and assessments. In many respects, EBRECs are venturing into uncharted territory, facing a very wide range of complex research fields, far-reaching research practices and deep concerns new to Review Boards, raising the question to what extent EBRECs can fall back on the fairly well-established principles and procedures of RECs focusing on Human, Health or Animal research, and to what extent they need new or adapted principles and procedures. -/- Against this background, I set out to answer the following three main research questions in this thesis: 1. What is the current state of ethical principles for ethics reviews in the field of environmental and biosafety research ethics? Which principles are currently used in this context, and how? 2. What are the shortcomings of the current principles used by EBRECs and how can they be overcome? 3. What ethical principles must be adopted by environmental and biosafety research ethics committees and guide them in their decision-making? -/- In order to prepare the ground and set the scene for my discussion of these questions, I also formulated four supporting research questions: i. What is environmental research ethics in action? ii. What is biosafety research ethics in action? iii. How are environmental and biosafety ethics related to one another? iv. How should the guidelines and ethical principles related to these two overlapping fields be implemented in the ethics review process? Following my introduction and problem statement in Chapter 1, I devoted Chapters 2 and 3 to an overview of my supporting questions to set the scene for Environmental and Biosafety Research Ethics. In Chapter 4, I turned to my main research question with a discussion of national and international declarations, frameworks and legislation and an investigation of principles in the different research areas to get a picture of applicable principles that can guide EBRECs. -/- The main finding of my thesis is that due to the complexity of EBR, different categories of principles could be the solution for EBRECs. I elaborate on this in Chapter 5, my concluding chapter, in which I also propose a list of core principles that can serve as an accessible and easy-to-use guide for EBRECs in their decision-making. In this proposal, I cluster different kinds of principles in terms of four categories: 1. Principles as a Moral Concept 2. Principles as a Social Concept 3. Principles as a Legal Concept 4. Principles as a Safety Concept . (shrink)

About 1970, Van Rensselaer Potter coined the term bioethics to bring under one heading broad questions of human survival, environment, and biology. In 1971, Potter outlined a statement of principles that linked the ethics of the biological sciences with the ethics of environmental concern. Regrettably, the field that adopted his rubric bioethics immediately diverged from Potter’s interests. Bioethics has become for the most part identified with medical ethics or health care ethics and in so doing has developed few ethical principles (...) and analyses in relationship to environmental ethics. Similarly, environmental ethics seldom touches on clinical or health care issues, even though the field of environmental health has grown greatly in recent decades. It is the purpose of this article to indicate briefly some of the topics that could be treated effectively as part of a project to reconnect medical ethics and environmental ethics into what may be called sustainable bioethics. (shrink)

https://revistes.uab.cat/enrahonar/article/view/v53-leyton.

This article introduces one type of comprehensive complex systems model to explain why humanity continues to be frustrated by its lack of progress toward sustainability. Human overconsumption has now raised concern over the depletion of resources and environmental decay to critical levels that threaten the integrity of the human species, the planet's biodiversity and the global ecosystem in general. The focus on biopsychosocial explanations of human unsustainability is framed to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to problem solving towards a global bioethics. (...) This framework relies on three essential elements: the first concerns the notion that human overconsumption behavior is principally driven by an unconscious set of evolutionary predispositions to survive and prosper; the second element focuses on our unique psychological make-up, which at its core is universal and naturally selected over a geologic period that spans at least the 200–250 million-year natural history of mammals; the third component of the biopsychosocial model is the human evolutionary predisposition to seek out and participate in social behavior. This third element is selected because of the reciprocal benefits of cooperating with others for the purpose of enhancing everyone's survival. These three components have an evolved interrelationship and interdependence from which the full complement of human behavior emerges. Moreover, these three factors constitute the root causes of human overconsumption behavior and the basis for our unsustainable nature. This article argues that the biopsychosocial explanation of human unsustainability can adequately characterize virtually any kind of human and social phenomena that involve the exploitation of resources. Examples, such as the origins and effects of media and advertising, politics, education and religion on overconsumption, are discussed. The final section attempts to demonstrate that a comprehensive approach that unifies biological, psychological and social parameters toward solving the human unsustainability problem can be achieved. (shrink)

Adaptive success and evolution are determined by how we interact with the natural environment and all other forms of life. Yet in our pursuit to dominate the natural world, we have lost sight of this basic premise and continue to exploit natural resources, to contaminate, to consume more than necessary and to misuse our reproductive capacities. For this reason, global bioethics emerged in the 1980s, a culmination of mental resistance on the part of many observers who sought to readdress the (...) balance between humankind and nature – a balance which must be reinstated if we are to survive. Corrective measures are required, which should be free from purely religious or political influences because their ideologies are frequently founded on strategies of power, with little regard for the general well-being of all living species. Global bioethics, as opposed to bioethics, was formulated by myself, Van Rensselaer Potter, Antonio Moroni, Laura Westra and others, to transcend the restraints of science, uniting it with the humanities to create a new expanded consciousness, an alliance between life and the environment in which all factors – environmental, biological, physical, psychological, social and economic – recognize that they are inderdependent. (shrink)

In this paper I revisit previous critiques that I have made of much, though by no means all, bioethical discourse. These pertain to faithfulness to dualistic ontology, a taken-for-granted normative anthropocentrism, and the exclusion of a consideration of how political economy shapes the conditions for bioethical discourse (Twine Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8(3):285-295, 2005; International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 16(3):1-18, 2007, 2010). Part of my argument around bioethical dualist ontology is to critique the assumption of a (...) division between the “medical” (human) and “agricultural” (nonhuman) and to show various ways in which they are interrelated. I deepen this analysis with a focus on transnational pharmaceutical companies, with specific attention to their role in enhancing agricultural production through animal drug administration. I employ the topical case of antibiotics in order to speak to current debates in not only the interdisciplinary field of bioethics but also that of animal studies. More generally, the animal-industrial complex (Twine Journal for Critical Animal Studies 10(1):12-39, 2012) is underlined as a highly relevant bioethical object that deserves more conceptual and empirical attention. (shrink)

The concept of moral distress can be extended from clinical settings to larger environmental concerns affecting health care. Moral distress—a common experience in complex societies—arises when individuals have clear moral judgments about societal practices, but have difficulty in finding a venue in which to express concerns. Since health care is large in scale and climate change is proving to be a major environmental problem, scaling down health care is inevitably a necessary element for mitigating climate change. Because it is extremely (...) challenging to discuss these concerns in health care settings, those concerned about climate change and health care experience distress. This article outlines some philosophical concepts and perspectives that may be useful in mitigating this distress. (shrink)

This thesis explores the concept of "Sanctity of Life" from the perspective of what "life," in particular human life, means today. With the rapid advances in science and modern medical practice, the concept of life has undergone many changes, shaking the foundations of what before made us view life as sacred. Modern thought has brought new forms of understanding to the concept of life.

FAO has a unique and essential rolein addressing the ethical problems facinghumanity and in making these problems intoopportunities for practical resolution. A broadrange of ethical issues in agriculture,fisheries, and forestry were identified byanalysis of the literature and by interviewswith FAO staff. Issues include sharing accessto and preserving natural resources,introduction of new technology, conservatismover the use of genetic engineering, ethics inanimal agriculture, access to information, foodsecurity, sustainable rural development,ensuring participation of all people indecision making and in receiving benefits ofagriculture, reducing corruption, (...) andinvolvement of private and public sectors indecision making. Rather than viewing theseissues as problems, they should be viewed asopportunities for debate, learning aboutothers' views, and resolution. The UnitedNations has an important role to play in howdecisions are made in the global ethical debatein food and agriculture. The ethical role ofFAO is to promote global food security,balanced conservation, management andutilization of natural resources, andsustainable rural development. FAO should fullyand publicly assume its ethicalresponsibilities, gathering and sharinginformation on ethics in its areas of mandate,acting as an interactive forum, and providingexpert guidance on policy options and choicesbased on practical ethical analysis. (shrink)

In their article “The Bioethics of Environmental Injustice: Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Implications of Unhealthy Environments,” Ray and Cooper (2024) invite us to prioritize environmental health...

In “The Bioethics of Environmental Injustice: Ethical, Legal, and Clinical Implications of Unhealthy Environments,” Ray and Cooper (2024) advocate for environmental law efforts, with a focus on the...

This paper analysed the nature of autonomy, in particular respect for autonomy in medical ethics/bioethics in Japan. We have undertaken a literature survey in Japanese and English and begin with the historical background and explanation of the Japanese wordJiritsu (autonomy). We go on to identify patterns of meaning that researchers use in medical ethics / bioethics discussions in Japan, namely, Beauchamp and Childress’s individual autonomy, relational autonomy, and O’Neill’s principled autonomy as the three major ways that autonomy is understood. We (...) examine papers discussing these interpretations. We propose using the term ‘a form of autonomy’ first used by Edmund Pellegrino in 1992 and examine the nature of ‘a form of autonomy.’ We finally conclude that the crux of what Pellegrino calls ‘something close to autonomy,’ or ‘a form of autonomy' might best be understood as the minimization of physician paternalism and the maximization of respect for patient preference. Simultaneously, we introduce a family-facilitated approach to informed consent and respond to criticism by Laura Sullivan. Finally, we discuss cross-cultural approaches and global bioethics. Furthermore, we use the term ‘Bioethics across the Globe’ instead of ‘Global Bioethics’, calling for international scholars to write works to provide an in-depth understanding of each country. We conclude that deep understanding of others is pivotal for dialogue to be of value. We hope this article will deepen the reader’s understanding of Japan and will contribute to the progress of bioethics worldwide. (shrink)

Belief in human exceptionalism—the idea that humans are not bound by the same evolutionary constraints and biophysical limitations as other organisms—is rampant in society. To ignore human nature in favor of such a constructivist perspective is foolhardy because it compromises prospects for achieving sustainability. Human activity already exceeds Earth's long-term carrying-capacity, yet many governments and ordinary citizens alike are focused on fostering a new round of material growth. Few academics pay more than lip service to the causal drivers behind such (...) unsustainable behavior. In particular, the sociological model for dealing with overshoot focuses on the shortcomings of social institutions, effectively decoupling the problem from H.sapiens' innate expansionist tendencies and such instinctive drives as competition for social status, mates, territory, and other resources. Understanding human unsustainability depends as much on insights from the behavioral and biological sciences as from the social sciences. Merging bioevolutionary, psychological, and sociological explanations into a unified framework is an essential step in moderating human consumption. Humanity is now dangerously close to global collapse; as academics we have the obligation to investigate humanity's unsustainability conundrum through an interdisciplinary lens and apply our new understanding to solving global and local problems before solutions become moot. (shrink)

A rational and naturalistic definition of ethical norms must stipulate the preservation of the DNA typical of the species and the maintenance of its intra specific variability. Indeed, this aim of preserving the DNA of the species and preserving its intra specific variability is the basic principle of bioethics. The historically limited behaviour can be related to morality which can assume different norms in different hostorical contexts. Morality could therefore be governed by religion or normalized by discipline. Ethics, instead of (...) that, would be a purely biological and ecological discipline. (shrink)

With regards to its origin, foundation and development, bioethics is a relatively new discipline, scientific and theoretical field, where different and even contradicting definition models and methodological patterns of its formation and application meet. In some philosophical orientations, bioethics is considered to be a sub-discipline of applied ethics as a traditional philosophical discipline. Yet in biomedical and other sciences, bioethics is designated as a specialist scientific discipline, or a sort of a new medical ethics. The concept of integrative bioethics as (...) an interdisciplinary scholarly and pluriperspectivistic area goes beyond such one-sided determinations, both philosophical and scientistic, and intends to integrate the philosophical approach to bioethics with its particular scientific contents, as well as different cultural dimensions and perspectives. This concept of integrative bioethics has gradually developed at philosophical and interdisciplinary conferences and institutions on the “bioethical islands” of the Croatian Mediterranean. In this paper, the author follows the formation, development and prospects of integrative bioethics in the wider region of the Mediterranean and Southeast Europe. (shrink)

Reflection on the development of bioethics in pharmaceutical professional organizations. Professional excellence Reflexão sobre o desenvolvimento da Bioética nas organizações profissionais farmacêuticas. A excelência profissional For some years, the collegiate organizations of the pharmaceutical profession are being challenged, not only by external agents, but also by the professionals themselves. There is a certain criticism in the response, especially in aspects that have to do with the role they must play in the development and activity of professional practice, in their domestic, (...) external and internal purposes and in the characteristics they must possess as organizations in service of these professionals and society. We understand that the development, revision and updating of Bioethics, as well as training in this field in professional organizations, contributes to that transcendent excellence in the profession, provokes a real knowledge of it in all its dimensions and with the power to act in total freedom from threats or internal or external restrictions. Para citar este artículo / To reference this article / Para citar este artigo Centenera-Jaraba JI, López-Guzmán J. Reflexión acerca del desarrollo de la bioética en las organizaciones profesionales farmacéuticas. La excelencia profesional. Pers Bioet. 2019; 23: 49-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5294/pebi.2019.23.1.4 Recepción: 15/02/2018 Aceptación: 16/04/2019. (shrink)

Contemporary biomedical ethics and environmental ethics share a common ancestry in Aldo Leopold's and Van Rensselaer Potter's initial broad visions of a connected biosphere. Over the past five decades, the two fields have become strangers. Public health ethics, a new subfield of bioethics, emerged from the belly of contemporary biomedical ethics and has evolved over the past 25 years. It has moved from its traditional concern with the tension between individual autonomy and community health to a wider focus on social (...) justice and solidarity. Public health has a broad focus that includes individual, community, and environmental health. Public health ethics attends to these broad commitments reflected in the increasing concern with the connectedness of health of individuals to the health of populations, to the health of animals, to the health of the environment; it is well situated to reconnect all three “fields” of ethics to promote a healthier planet. (shrink)

Most modern ethicists and ethics textbooks assert that religion holds little or no place in ethics, including fields of professional ethics like medical ethics. This assertion, of course, implicitly refers to ethical reasoning, but there is much more to the ethical life and the practice of ethics—especially professional ethics—than reasoning. It is no surprise that teachers of practical ethics, myself included, often focus on reasoning to the exclusion of other aspects of the ethical life. Especially for those with a philosophical (...) background, reasoning is the most patent and pedagogically controllable aspect of the ethical life—and the most easily testable. And whereas there may be powerful reasons for the limitation of religion in this aspect of ethics, there are other aspects of the ethical life in which recognition of religious belief may arguably be more relevant and possibly even necessary. I divide the ethical life into three areas—personal morality, interpersonal morality, and rational morality—each of which I explore in terms of its relationship to religion, normatively characterized by the qualities of devotion, diversity, and reasoning, respectively. (shrink)

This article looks at the evolution of bioethics a discipline from its initial focus, concerned with issues of personal autonomy and the conflicts around the use of complex technology in medicine, to where it is now; focused on major population issues in public health, with a focus on equality, justice and the right to health. As part of this it considers the 18 guiding principles and issues in bioethics contained in the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights of UNESCO.

An increasing number of contemporary voices in both bioethics and environmental ethics have grown dissatisfied with the schisms, abysses, and raging torrents that continue to flow between those two...

Today, it is widely accepted that the first to conceive the term and the discipline of bioethics was the German theologian and teacher Fritz Jahr from the city of Halle. Without knowing Jahr's ideas, the American oncologist Van Rensselaer Potter from Madison, Wisconsin, invented the notion of bioethics which, unlike in the case of Fritz Jahr, had a deep impact and spread all over the world. Although Jahr's bioethics somehow differed from that of Potter, they did share many crucial aspects, (...) one of which was their globality. Without explicit reference to it, nevertheless, Fritz Jahr's “globality” was based upon his broad readings including Far-Eastern sources and thinkers, while Van Rensselaer Potter explicitly formed his global bioethics, in the late 1980s, as a reaction to the narrowing-down of his earlier ideas. In that way, Jahr and Potter, like on many other points, came to the same result via different motives and pathways. (shrink)

Bioethics coverage of the recent Ebola outbreak neglected the ethical issues associated with aspects of the outbreak having environmental significance. The neglect of environmental dimensions is symptomatic of the way that the current institutionalization of bioethics as a field of inquiry separates medical and environmental expertise. As visionaries who are recognizing the need for better integration of human and veterinary medicine with environmental health are starting to call for “One Health”, it is now time to recognize the need for “One (...) Bioethics.”. (shrink)

This paper explores the role of ‘community’ in the context of global bioethics. With the present globalization of bioethics, new and interesting references are made to this concept. Some are familiar, for example, community consent. This article argues that the principle of informed consent is too individual-oriented and that in other cultures, consent can be community-based. Other references to ‘community’ are related to the novel principle of benefit sharing in the context of bioprospecting. The application of this principle necessarily requires (...) the identification and construction of communities. On the global level there are also new uses of the concept of community as ‘global community.’ Three uses are distinguished: (1) a diachronic use, including past, present, and future generations, (2) a synchronic ecological use, including nonhuman species, and (3) a synchronic planetary use, including all human beings worldwide. Although there is a tension between the communitarian perspective and the idea of global community, this article argues that the third use can broaden communitarianism. The current development towards cosmopolitanism is creating a new global community that represents humanity as a whole, enabling identification of world citizens and evoking a sense of global solidarity and responsibility. The emergence of global bioethics today demonstrates this development. (shrink)

Christian bioethics springs from the worship that is the response of the Church to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Such worship is distinctively political in nature, in that it acknowledges Christ as Lord. Because it is a political worship, it can recognize no other lords and no other prior claims on its allegiance: these include the claims of an allegedly universal ethics and politics determined from outside the Church. However the Church is called not just to be a contrast society, (...) but also to witness to the freeing of the world from salvific pretensions in order that it may embrace its proper temporality. The implications of this for the distinctiveness of Christian bioethics are brought out in three movements: first, the Church's itself learning how it is to conceive bioethics; second, the Church's role in unmasking the idols of secular bioethics; and third, the Church's witnessing to the freeing of medicine from idolatrous aspirations. (shrink)

Recent advances in biology hold out the real possibility of significant progress in the treatment of disease. At the same time however these technological discoveries have posed serious challenges to policy makers, the decision by the UK Court of Appeal in Zain Hashmi being a case in point. Judges and legislators have traditionally tried to apply principles of justice in the matters that lie before them. Future issues that involve genetic technology have the potential to involve more than this since (...) they imply an imperative to redefine ethical perimeters. However the new genetics goes beyond this and necessitates redefining human perimeters as well. This paper considers a position broadly known as consequentialism – in which outcomes are to be as good as possible - and argues instead on behalf of an approach to bioethical issues which demands consideration of the fairness of the procedures employed. (shrink)

A clinical ethics fit for the Anthropocene—our current geological era in which human activity is the primary determinant of environmental change—needs to incorporate environmental ethics to be fit for clinical practice. Conservationist Aldo Leopold’s essay ‘The Land Ethic’ is probably the most widely-cited source in environmental philosophy; but Leopold’s work, and environmental ethics generally, has made little impression on clinical ethics. The Land Ethic holds that “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of (...) the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” I argue that a Land Ethic helps to re-frame problems in clinical ethics that more common philosophical approaches struggle to handle, and that it can be incorporated into clinical ethics without succumbing to “environmental fascism”. I motivate viewing problems in clinical ethics from the perspective of the ‘integrity of the biotic community’, then illustrate how this perspective can offer guidance where more commonly-invoked theories—such as consequentialism and Kantian-inspired approaches—struggle, using antimicrobial resistance in nosocomial infection as a case study. The Land Ethic equips us to understand human values as arising within and inseparable from a social-ecological context, and by treating communities as valuable in themselves rather than just through the aggregate welfare of their individual participants, we can avoid problems with the ‘repugnant conclusion’ and utility monster that plague utilitarian accounts. (shrink)