If funding allocation is an indicator of a field’s priorities, then the priorities of the field of bioethics are misaligned because they perpetuate injustice. Social justice mandates priority for the factors that drive systematic disadvantage, which tend not to be the areas supported by funding within academic bioethics. Current funding priorities violate social justice by overemphasizing technologies that aim to enhance the human condition without addressing underlying structural inequalities grounded in racism, and by deemphasizing areas of inquiry most frequently pursued (...) by Scholars of Color. This lack of attention to upstream determinants of health in bioethics research perpetuates a gap in the resources needed to understand the experiences of communities disproportionately experiencing poor health, which is itself a form of epistemic injustice. Both social and epistemic injustices are apparent in the impact of these funding priorities on people of color, both in the public and in the bioethics community. (shrink)

End-of-life decision making constitutes a major challenge for bioethical deliberation and political governance in modern democracies: On the one hand, it touches upon fundamental convictions about life, death, and the human condition. On the other, it is deeply rooted in religious traditions and historical experiences and thus shows great socio-cultural diversity. The bioethical discussion of such cultural issues oscillates between liberal individualism and cultural stereotyping. Our paper confronts the bioethical expert discourse with public moral attitudes. The paper is based on (...) a qualitative study comprising 12 focus group discussions with religious and secular persons in the USA, Germany, and Israel. Considering the respective socio-political and legal frameworks, the thematic analysis focuses on moral attitudes towards end-of-life decision making and explores the complex interplay between individual preferences, culture, and religion. Our findings draw attention to the variety and complexity of cultural and religious aspects of end-of-life decision making. Although there is local consensus that goes beyond radical individualism, positions are not neatly matched with national cultures or religious denominations. Instead, the relevance of the specific situatedness of religious beliefs and cultural communities becomes visible: Their status and role in individual situations, for example, as consensual or conflicting on the level of personal perspectives, family relationships, or broader social contexts, e.g., as a majority or minority culture within a political system. As the group discussions indicate, there are no clear-cut positions anchored in “nationality,” “culture,” or “religion.” Instead, attitudes are personally decided on as part of a negotiated context representing the political, social and existential situatedness of the individual. Therefore, more complex theoretical and practical approaches to cultural diversity have to be developed. (shrink)

In many industrialized countries ethicists and lawyers favour advance directives as a tool to guarantee patient autonomy in end-of-life-decisions. However, most citizens seem reluctant to adopt the practice; the number of patients who have an advance directive is low across most countries. The article discusses the key argument for seeing such documents as an instrument of self-interpretation and life-planning, which ultimately have to be interpreted by third parties as well. Interpretation by third parties and the process of self-reflection are conceptually (...) linked by a qualitative concept of identity. Identity is conceived here as constructed in a processual dialogue between a personal and a cultural perspective. How the cultural dimension comes into play in understanding the motivation, rejection or content of wished for end-of-life-decisions, is shown by a brief review of empirical and cultural studies. Understanding advance directives as a culturally embedded tool of self-interpretation should help to overcome urgent moral problems in clinical settings: how to interpret such documents, how to deliberate on the content and on the best form. (shrink)

Central to this essay is the understanding that varied communities may have an inherent and unrecognised culture of their own and this culture may be detrimental to their core. Bioethics constitutes one such community and is embedded in norms and values comprising its own culture. I use exclusion of religion or simply ‘irreligion’ as an example of a cultural element that may be established and so shape the culture of bioethics. Irreligious bioethics includes both overt religious preclusion and the more (...) pervasive form of religious marginalisation. This norm is narrated into the culture of bioethics with justifications sustaining it. Irreligious bioethics is inadmissible as it claims illegitimate neutrality, is a misuse of expertise and results in a variety of harms. As bioethics is influential in society, those engaged should be critically reflective and aware of harmful cultural elements whilst also possessing the honesty, courage and capacity to change them. (shrink)

Bioethics Education in the Anglo-European context developed since 1970 and was incorporated into the undergraduate and postgraduate education, residency training, and continuous education. In the Asia-Pacific region, bioethics education is less structured and often dependent on contextual constraints. This paper provides a cross-sectional analysis, describing institutional experiences in developing bioethics curriculum at two medical schools in Malaysia and Hong Kong. The medical programmes of the two institutions are distinctive in terms curriculum framework, teaching approach, and topic selection, and common challenges (...) include implementation of bioethics courses, students’ resistance to bioethics, and limited teaching capacity, emerged as they evolve. The reported experiences revealed that there is room for improvement regarding how medical schools integrate bioethics education in regions where curriculum development remains at an early stage. At least, a bioethics education requires both top-down support from the faculty to improve teaching and educational quality, as well as from the bottom-up approach to empower students to raise awareness and concerns toward bioethics, and helps students developing reasoning through challenging issues. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungKulturelle Zugehörigkeit und die Möglichkeit, diese auch in der Situation von Krankheit erleben zu können, wird als wesentliches Element kultursensibler Krankenversorgung gesehen. Hierfür scheint ein grundlegendes Verständnis kultureller Besonderheiten, wie auch die Reflexion auf die eigenen kulturellen Wurzeln besonders wichtig. Gleichzeitig besteht Konsens, dass kulturessentialistische Ansätze, die auf das Verbindende innerhalb einer Kultur in Abgrenzung zu anderen Kulturen rekurrieren, zu problematischen Vereinfachungen und stereotypen Zuschreibungen führen können. Vor diesem Hintergrund erscheinen Aussagen über Gruppen von Patienten mit ähnlichem kulturellen Hintergrund als (...) problematisch. Interkulturelle Bioethik bewegt sich in diesem Spannungsfeld, das sich auch auf theoretischer Ebene widerspiegelt: Aspekte wie Fremdheitserfahrungen und Missverständnisse werden im Kontext kultureller Verschiedenheit gedeutet. Der Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie im Kontext von Medizin und Kultur Differenzen gesetzt und verstetigt werden und welche Rolle bioethisches Nachdenken dabei haben kann und soll. Aus der Perspektive der Ethik werden dabei zwei Aspekte besonders beleuchtet, zum einen, wie die bestehenden Differenzsetzungen strukturell verankert sind und mit Fragen von Macht und Interesse zusammenhängen. Hier wird untersucht, welche Fragen nach kultureller Identität insbesondere aus der Perspektive von Patienten hilfreich sind. Zum anderen wird in Bezug auf konkrete Handlungsfelder der Krankenversorgung untersucht, welche Ansätze einer kultursensiblen Ethik vor diesem Hintergrund gestärkt werden können, so dass im Alltag der Krankenversorgung ein Umgang mit Fragen von Kultur gefördert wird, der Raum für widersprüchliche Aspekte von kultureller Identität eröffnet. (shrink)

The differences in clinical bioethics between the Mediterranean and Latin American cultures have not been analyzed. The objective of the study is to compare the ethical conflicts that internists in Spain, Mexico and Argentina have. Cross-sectional observational study through a survey directed at internists from Spain, Argentina and Mexico. The survey was administered to affiliated members of the National Societies of Internal Medicine across three countries via an online platform. 762 internists participated, 261 from Spain, 154 from Argentina and 347 (...) from Mexico. The main ethical conflicts that internists in Spain, Argentina and Mexico have are related (in order) to the end of life, to the clinical relationship and to the patient’s autonomy. Withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is the most frequent conflict in Spain and Argentina and the second in Mexico. Internists from Spain and Argentina identify very similar ethical conflicts. Furthermore, they consider them more frequent and difficult than in Mexico. In Argentina they are less satisfied with the way they are resolved. To explain these differences, socio-cultural factors are postulated, among others: paternalism, individualism, masculinity, organization of the health system, formal training in bioethics and assessment of death. (shrink)

This paper addresses three factors that have contributed to shifts in decision making in health care. First, the notion of patient autonomy, which has changed due to the rise of patient-centred approaches in contemporary health care and the re-conceptualization of the physician-patient relationship. Second, the understanding of patient autonomy has broadened to better engage patient participation. Third, the need to develop cross-cultural health care ethics. Our paper shows that the shift in the West from the individual to the relational self (...) indicates an important change in the understanding of autonomy through the lens of culture. Practices that recognize the notion of the relational self allow for a more balanced view of autonomy and a richer conception of moral agency. (shrink)

End-of-life decisions concerning euthanasia, stopping life-support machines, or handling advance directives are very complex and highly disputed in industrialized, democratic countries. A main controversy is how to balance the patient’s autonomy and right to self-determination with the doctor’s duty to save life and the value of life as such. These EoL dilemmas are closely linked to legal, medical, religious, and bioethical discourses. In this paper, we examine and deconstruct these linkages in Germany and Israel, moving beyond one-dimensional constructions of ethical (...) statements as “social facts” to their conflicting and multifaceted embedding within professional, religious, and cultural perspectives. (shrink)

When the world's first face transplant was performed in France in 2005, the complex medical procedure and accompanying worldwide media attention sparked many ethical issues, including how the media covered the story. This study uses framing theory to examine what happens when media ethics intersect with bioethics by analyzing French, American, and British media coverage on the transplant and its aftermath. This study looks at how this story was framed and which bioethical issues were focused upon. The media ethical implications (...) of these findings are then discussed. By doing so, this article attempts to contribute to the debate on how complex medical stories with bioethical components can be reported in an ethical manner. (shrink)

Neuroethics applies cognitive neuroscience for prescribing alterations to conceptions of self and society, and for prescriptively judging the ethical applications of neurotechnologies. Plentiful normative premises are available to ground such prescriptivity, however prescriptive neuroethics may remain fragmented by social conventions, cultural ideologies, and ethical theories. Herein we offer that an objectively principled neuroethics for international relevance requires a new meta-ethics: understanding how morality works, and how humans manage and improve morality, as objectively based on the brain and social sciences. This (...) new meta-ethics will simultaneously equip neuroethics for evaluating and revising older cultural ideologies and ethical theories, and direct neuroethics towards scientifically valid views of encultured humans intelligently managing moralities. Bypassing absolutism, cultural essentialisms, and unrealistic ethical philosophies, neuroethics arrives at a small set of principles about proper human flourishing that are more culturally inclusive and cosmopolitan in spirit. This cosmopolitanism in turn suggests augmentations to traditional medical ethics in the form of four principled guidelines for international consideration: empowerment, non-obsolescence, self-creativity, and citizenship. (shrink)

The moral discourse surrounding end-of-life (EoL) decisions is highly complex, and a comparison of Germany and Israel can highlight the impact of cultural factors. The comparison shows interesting differences in how patient’s autonomy and doctor’s duties are morally and legally related to each other with respect to the withholding and withdrawing of medical treatment in EoL situations. Taking the statements of two national expert ethics committees on EoL in Israel and Germany (and their legal outcome) as an example of this (...) discourse, we describe the similarity of their recommendations and then focus on the differences, including the balancing of ethical principles, what is identified as a problem, what social role professionals play, and the influence of history and religion. The comparison seems to show that Israel is more restrictive in relation to Germany, in contrast with previous bioethical studies in the context of the moral and legal discourse regarding the beginning of life, in which Germany was characterized as far more restrictive. We reflect on the ambivalence of the cultural reasons for this difference and its expression in various dissenting views on passive euthanasia and advance directives, and conclude with a comment on the difficulty in classifying either stance as more or less restrictive. (shrink)