Abstract:This article deals with the question as to what makes bioethics a critical discipline. It considers different senses of criticism and evaluates their strengths and weaknesses. A primary method in bioethics as a philosophical discipline is critical thinking, which implies critical evaluation of concepts, positions, and arguments. It is argued that the type of analytical criticism that restricts its critical role to critical thinking of this type often suffers from other intellectual flaws. Three examples are taken to demonstrate this: premature (...) criticism, uncritical self-understanding of theoretical assumptions, and narrow framing of bioethical issues. Such flaws can lead both to unfair treatment of authors and to uncritical discussion of topics. In this context, the article makes use of Häyry’s analysis of different rationalities in bioethical approaches and argues for the need to recognize the importance of communicative rationality for critical bioethics. A radically different critical approach in bioethics, rooted in social theory, focuses on analyses of power relations neglected in mainstream critical thinking. It is argued that, although this kind of criticism provides an important alternative in bioethics, it suffers from other shortcomings that are rooted in a lack of normative dimensions. In order to complement these approaches and counter their shortcomings, there is a need for a bioethics enlightened by critical hermeneutics. Such hermeneutic bioethics is aware of its own assumptions, places the issues in a wide context, and reflects critically on the power relations that stand in the way of understanding them. Moreover, such an approach is dialogical, which provides both a critical exercise of speech and a normative dimension implied in the free exchange of reasons and arguments. This discussion is framed by Hedgecoe’s argument that critical bioethics needs four elements: to be empirically rooted, theory challenging, reflexive, and politely skeptical. (shrink)

In the present paper, we focus on the role that the concept of geneticization has played in the discussion about health care, bioethics and society. The concept is discussed and examples from the evolving discourse about geneticization are critically analyzed. The relationship between geneticization, medicalization and biomedicalization is described, emphasizing how debates about the latter concepts can inspire future research on geneticization. It is shown how recurrent themes from the media coverage of genetics portray typical traits of geneticization and thus (...) contribute to the process. We look at examples of small-scale studies from the literature where geneticization of medical practice has been demonstrated. Methodological disputes about the relevance of empirical evidence for the geneticization thesis and the normative status of the concept are discussed. We consider arguments to the effect that ideas from mainstream bioethics have facilitated geneticization by emphasizing individualistic notions of autonomy and responsibility while ignoring the role of genetics in the wider social context. It is shown how a concept like geneticization, which can be used to draw the attention of philosophers, social scientists and others to challenges that tend to be neglected by mainstream bioethics, also has the potential to move people’s attention away from other pertinent issues. This may happen if researchers become preoccupied with the transformative effects of genetics, and we argue that a wider reading of geneticization should inspire critical analysis of the sociocultural preconditions under which genetics is currently evolving. (shrink)