Academic Bioethics Research Articles

Racial Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Bioethics: Recommendations from the Association of Bioethics Program Directors Presidential Task Force

Recent calls to address racism in bioethics reflect a sense of urgency to mitigate the lethal effects of a lack of action. While the field was catalyzed largely in response to pivotal events deeply rooted in racism and other structures of oppression embedded in research and health care, it has failed to center racial justice in its scholarship, pedagogy, advocacy, and practice, and neglected to integrate anti-racism as a central consideration. Academic bioethics programs play a key role in determining the field’s norms and practices, including methodologies, funding priorities, and professional networks that bear on equity, inclusion, and epistemic justice. This article describes recommendations from the Racial Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (REDI) Task Force commissioned by the Association of Bioethics Program Directors to prioritize and strengthen anti-racist practices in bioethics programmatic endeavors and to evaluate and develop specific goals to advance REDI.

Translational bioethics: Reflections on what it can be and how it should work.

Translational ethics (TE) has been developed into a specific approach,which revolves around the argument that strategies for bridging the theory-practice gap in bioethics must themselves be justified on ethical terms. This version of TE incorporates normative, empirical and foundational ethics research and continues to develop through application and in the face of new ethical challenges. Here, I explore the idea that the academic field of bioethics has not yet sufficiently analysed its own philosophical foundation for how it can, and should, be practically relevant; neither has it comprehensively discussed the limitations on what impacts bioethicists should pursue. As a result, there has not been adequate training on how to suitably and appropriately impact real-world practices. Moreover, bioethical perspectives are often competing with other strong interests, for example, economic and political, which may weaken their impact on policy-making. The TE approach I propose can not only facilitate practical impacts of academic bioethics by being better informed by real-world ethical issuesbut it also supports targeted and ethical justifications of the actual impact of academic work in real-world contexts. In this paper, I clarify the premises for this TE approach, identify further challenges and sketch out potential solutions for the implementation of this methodological framework.

At the confluence of ethics, laws and society: global working theory merging bio-ethics

The pressing global challenges facing humanity highlight the urgency of reconciling medicine, society and ecology. By shedding light on the role of theories of translation and justification, the intention here is to show the potential usefulness of an in situ bioethics that reconciles practices in medicine and ecology. Science and policy should be reassembled in hybrid working theories developed, adopted and reframed by/for Society. Yet, a major challenge emerges from translating ethics, sciences, and economics claims, both within expert and lay milieus. This paper proposes foundational pillars for operationalizing the Potterian view of global bioethics. Van Rensselaer Potter challenged the perspective that compartmentalizes values, knowledge and laws, proposing ways to bridge them by linking appreciative, descriptive, and normative knowledge. The missing link, however, is a coherent governance process that coordinates the thinking, ordering, and enacting in the world. Based on an extensive revision of the Potterian legacy and action-research case studies, this article applies the Global theoretical view in the complex in situ practice of bioethics. Little known outside the world of academic bioethics, Potter’s primarily scientific curriculum helps translate and operationalize the socio-political reflections of notable contemporary philosophers of science and critical social theoreticians such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, John Rawls, Bruno Latour and Jürgen Habermas. In this era of mass communication, government education programs, and large-scale research funding, I propose a conceptual framework for operating a Community-based Global Bio-Ethics, echoing the 60th anniversary of Habermas’ call for The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (1962).

Providing ethics advice in a pandemic, in theory and in practice: A taxonomy of ethics advice.

The pandemic significantly raised the stakes for the translation of bioethics insights into policy. The novelty, range and sheer quantity of the ethical problems that needed to be addressed urgently within public policy were unprecedented and required high-bandwidth two-way transfer of insights between academic bioethics and policy. Countries such as the United Kingdom, which do not have a National Ethics Committee, faced particular challenges in how to facilitate this. This paper takes as a case study the brief career of the Ethics Advisory Board (EAB) for the NHS Covid-19 App, which shows both the difficulty and the political complexity of policy-relevant bioethics in a pandemic and how this was exacerbated by the transience and informality of the structures through which ethics advice was delivered. It analyses how and why, after EAB's demise, the Westminster government increasingly sought to either take its ethics advice in private or to evade ethical scrutiny of its policies altogether. In reflecting on EAB, and these later ethics advice contexts, the article provides a novel framework for analysing ethics advice within democracies, defining four idealised stances: the pure ethicist, the advocate, the ethics arbiter and the critical friend.

Bioethics Without Theory?

The question that this paper tries to answer is Q: "Can good academic bioethics be done without commitment to moral theory?" It is argued that the answer to Q is an unequivocal "Yes" for most of what we could call "critical bioethics," that is, the kind of bioethics work that primarily criticizes positions or arguments already in the literature or put forward by policymakers. The answer is also "Yes" for much of empirical bioethics. The second part of the paper then provides an analysis of Q in relation to "constructive bioethics," that is, bioethics work aimed at providing an argument for a particular position. In this part, it is argued that a number of the approaches or methods used that initially look like they involve no commitment to moral theory, nevertheless, involve such a commitment. This is shown to be the case for reflective equilibrium, mid-level theory, the use of theory fragments, and argument by analogy.

Abortion, euthanasia, and the limits of principlism.

Principlism is an ethical framework that has dominated bioethical discourse for the past 50years. There are differing perspectives on its proper scope and limits. In this article, we consider to what extent principlism provides guidance for the abortion and euthanasia debates. We argue that whilst principlism may be considered a useful framework for structuring bioethical discourse, it does not in itself allow for the resolution of these neuralgic policy discussions. Scholars have attempted to use principlism to analyse the ethics and legality of abortion and euthanasia; but such efforts are methodologically problematic. We close with a consideration of the proper scope of principlism in bioethics-a vision that is more modest than the manner in which principlism is often deployed in contemporary academic bioethics and medical education.

Relational approaches in bioethics: A guide to their differences.

Contemporary critical approaches to bioethics increasingly present themselves as "relational," though the meaning of relationality and its implications for bioethics seem to be many and varying. I argue that this confusion is due to a multiplicity of relational approaches originating from distinct theoretical lineages. In this article, I identify four key differences among commonly referenced relational approaches: the scope and nature of relationships considered, the extent of the determining influence on individual selfhood, and the integrity of individual selfhood. Importantly, these four differences carry consequences for the usage of relational approaches within academic and clinical bioethics. I show that these differences attach to multiple objects of critique within mainstream bioethics and imply distinct metaethical commitments. Although I issue a cautionary note about combining relational approaches from distinct lineages, I close by suggesting that many such approaches may have their use, drawing on Susan Sherwin's sense of bioethical theories as lenses.

Methodological and Discursive Considerations for Islamic Bioethics Research and Writing

The past two decades have witnessed a substantial interest in Islamic bioethics research and writing. As more papers are published and a greater number of conferences are held, it is important to reflect on the concepts and concerns that frame the emerging discourse and its nascent academic literature. Accordingly, this paper begins by reflecting on the term Islamic bioethics and the motivations that spur Islamic bioethical deliberation. In so doing, it calls for paying attention to the normative and methodological implications of uniting the disparate discourses represented by the conjunctive term. To further assist consumers in distinguishing various types of Islamic bioethics research and writing, three general categories of scholarly work—Islamic bioethics, Muslim bioethics, and applied Islamic bioethics—are introduced. Next, the paper outlines several lacunae in the extant academic Islamic bioethics literature that emerge from an incomplete engagement with the foundations, elements, and nature of contemporary bioethics discourse. Finally, in order to advance the field and better engage with contemporary bioethical questions, the paper closes by underscoring the need for Islamic bioethics research and writing to become multidisciplinary and involve multilevel ethical analysis.

A Critique of Principlism

A Critique of Principlism

Operationalizing Equity in Surgical Prioritization

The allocation of critical care resources and triaging patients garnered a great deal of attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is a paucity of guidance regarding the ethical aspects of resource allocation and patient prioritization in ‘normal’ circumstances for Canadian healthcare systems. One context where allocation and prioritization decisions are required are surgical waitlists, which have been globally exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we detail the process used to develop an ethics framework to support prioritization for elective surgery at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, a tertiary pediatric hospital. Our goal was to provide guidance for the more value-laden aspects of prioritization, particularly when clinical urgency alone is insufficient to dictate priority. With this goal in mind, we worked to capture familial, relational, and equity considerations. As part of our institution’s concerted efforts to ethically and effectively address our surgical backlog, an ethics working group was formed comprising clinicians from surgery, anesthesiology, intensive care, a hospital bioethicist, a parent advisor, and an academic bioethics researcher. A reflective equilibrium process was used to develop an ethics framework. To this end, the same methodology was used to create a support for patient prioritization that identifies clinically and morally relevant factors for prioritization among medically similar surgical cases, with a substantive goal being to identify and redress health inequities in surgical prioritization, inasmuch as this is possible. While further steps are needed to validate several aspects of the framework, our research suggests that an ethics framework grounded in the practical realities of hospital operations provides consistency, transparency, and needed support for decisions that are often left to individual clinicians, as well as an opportunity to reflect upon the presence of health inequities in all domains of healthcare delivery.

The many metaphysical commitments of secular clinical ethics: Expanding the argument for a moral-metaphysical proceduralism.

The rich moral diversity of academic bioethics poses a paradox for the practice of giving moral recommendations in secular clinical ethics: How are ethicists to provide moral guidance in a pluralistic society? The field has responded to this challenge with a "procedural approach," but defining this term stirs debate. Some have championed a contentless proceduralism, where ethicists work only to help negotiate resolutions among stakeholders without making any moral recommendations. Others have defended a moral proceduralism by claiming that ethicists should make moral recommendations that are grounded in bioethical consensus (e.g., relevant law, policy, professional consensus statements, and bioethics literature), which is secured using moral principles such as respect for persons or justice. In contrast, we develop a moral-metaphysical proceduralism by identifying many metaphysical commitments in points of secular bioethical consensus. The moral-metaphysical view of secular clinical ethics is important because it challenges the discipline to accept the substantive philosophical foundations required to support giving moral recommendations in a pluralistic context, which may lead to further insights about the nature of the field.

Competencies and Milestones for Bioethics Trainees: Beyond ASBH’s Healthcare Ethics Consultant Certification and Core Competencies

Clinical ethics training programs are responsible for preparing their trainees to be competent ethics consultants worthy of the trust of patients, families, surrogates, and healthcare professionals. While the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities (ASBH) offers a certification examination for healthcare ethics consultants, no tools exist for the formal evaluation of ethics trainees to assess their progress toward competency. Medical specialties accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) use milestones to report trainees’ progress along a continuum of professional development as a means of “operationalizing and implementing” medical competencies. Utilizing the Core Competencies for Healthcare Ethics Consultation and the ACGME and American Board of Pediatrics’ (ABP) Pediatric Milestones Project, we developed milestones for 17 subcompetencies in clinical ethics consultation and academic bioethics. As the field of clinical ethics becomes more standardized, such tools will be needed to promote the development of robust training programs and to certify that their graduates are competent practitioners.

Profesjonalna etyka lekarska: Uzasadnienie jej odrębności oraz miejsca w edukacji etycznej studentów medycyny i lekarzy

W artykule w trojaki sposób dowodzę odrębności profesjonalnej etyki lekarskiej, mianowicie: 1. ukazując różnice pozycji normatywnej obowiązków (zachowań, wartości, cnót) w etyce profesjonalnej i ogólnej, 2. uzasadniając przynależność lekarskiej etyki profesjonalnej do modelu zapożyczenia jako typu etyki aplikacyjnej, 3. podając racje za profesjonalizmem historycznym jako etyką właściwą dla stanu lekarskiego.
 Odrębność profesjonalnej etyki lekarskiej stanowi ważny argument za jej umieszczeniem w planie edukacji etycznej studentów medycyny i lekarzy. W końcowej części pracy rekonstruuję rzeczywiste i postulowane relacje między etyką profesjonalną a profesjonalizmem, bioetyką akademicką i bioetyką publiczną. Celem rekonstrukcji jest wskazanie optymalnego dla edukacji etycznej miejsca etyki profesjonalnej w systemie kształcenia etycznego profesjonalistów.

Bioethics, (Funding) Priorities, and the Perpetuation of Injustice

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.

Ventilator Triage Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic at U.S. Hospitals Associated With Members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.

Background:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has or threatens to overwhelm health care systems. Many institutions are developing ventilator triage policies.Objective:To characterize the development of ventilator triage policies and compare policy content.Design:Survey and mixed-methods content analysis.Setting:North American hospitals associated with members of the Association of Bioethics Program Directors.Participants:Program directors.Measurements:Characteristics of institutions and policies, including triage criteria and triage committee membership.Results:Sixty-seven program directors responded (response rate, 91.8%); 36 (53.7%) hospitals did not yet have a policy, and 7 (10.4%) hospitals' policies could not be shared. The 29 institutions providing policies were relatively evenly distributed among the 4 U.S. geographic regions (range, 5 to 9 policies per region). Among the 26 unique policies analyzed, 3 (11.3%) were produced by state health departments. The most frequently cited triage criteria were benefit (25 policies [96.2%]), need (14 [53.8%]), age (13 [50.0%]), conservation of resources (10 [38.5%]), and lottery (9 [34.6%]). Twenty-one (80.8%) policies use scoring systems, and 20 of these (95.2%) use a version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Among the policies that specify the triage team's composition (23 [88.5%]), all require or recommend a physician member, 20 (87.0%) a nurse, 16 (69.6%) an ethicist, 8 (34.8%) a chaplain, and 8 (34.8%) a respiratory therapist. Thirteen (50.0% of all policies) require or recommend those making triage decisions not be involved in direct patient care, but only 2 (7.7%) require that their decisions be blinded to ethically irrelevant considerations.Limitation:The results may not be generalizable to institutions without academic bioethics programs.Conclusion:Over one half of respondents did not have ventilator triage policies. Policies have substantial heterogeneity, and many omit guidance on fair implementation.

Genethics and Human Reproduction: Religious Perspectives in the Academic Bioethics Literature

The successes of the human genome project and genomics research programs portend great potential to improve upon health and enhance life. As scientific advancements continue, bioethicists and policy makers deliberate over the social and ethical implications of genetic and genomic technologies and information (ggT/I). The application of ggT/I to human reproduction raises conceptual and moral questions about being human and the links between offspring, parents, and society. Given ggT/I’s ability to significantly affect the biological constitution of humans and future human generations thinking through such issues is fundamental to ethical and policy analysis. By means of a systematic literature review and accompanying content analysis, this paper highlights the dominant ethical concerns raised within recent bioethics discourse over the use of ggT/I for human reproduction. Based on these findings it aso offers a framework through which, and demarcates where, religious perspectives can add value to genethics debates and policy deliberation.

Bioethics and activism: A natural fit?

Bioethics is a practically oriented discipline that developed to address pressing ethical issues arising from developments in the life sciences. Given this inherent practical bent, some form of advocacy or activism seems inherent to the nature of bioethics. However, there are potential tensions between being a bioethics activist, and academic ideals. In academic bioethics, scholarship involves reflection, rigour and the embrace of complexity and uncertainty. These values of scholarship seem to be in tension with being an activist, which requires pragmatism, simplicity, certainty and, above all, action. In this paper I explore this apparent dichotomy, using the case example of my own involvement in international efforts to end forced organ harvesting from prisoners of conscience in China. I conclude that these tensions can be managed and that academic bioethics requires a willingness to be activist.

Comparison of philosophical concerns between professionals and the public regarding two psychiatric treatments

Background: Psychiatric interventions are a contested area in medicine, not only because of their history of abuses, but also because their therapeutic goal is to affect emotions, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors that are regarded as pathological. Because psychiatric interventions affect characteristics that seem central to who we are, they raise issues regarding identity, autonomy, and personal responsibility for one’s own well-being. Our study addresses two questions: (1) Do the public and academic researchers understand the philosophical stakes of these technologies in the same way? Following from this, (2) to what extent does the specific type of psychiatric technology affect the issues these two groups raise? This study compares how ethical issues regarding neurosurgical and pharmaceutical psychiatric interventions are discussed among the public and in the professional community of academic medicine and bioethics. Methods: We analyzed (1) online public comments and (2) the medical and bioethics literature, comparing the discussions of pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions in psychiatry in each source. Results: Overall, the public discussed philosophical issues less frequently than academics. For the two types of psychiatric interventions, we found differences between the academic literature and public comments among all themes, except for personal responsibility. Conclusions: These findings reveal some of the similarities and discrepancies in how philosophical issues associated with psychiatric treatments are discussed in professional circles and among the public. Further research into what causes these discrepancies is crucial.

Strategies to Improve Health Care Ethics Consultation: Bridging the Knowledge Gap.

Strategies for improving health care ethics consultation should appeal to key stakeholders in hospitals and not just the academic bioethics community.

Undignified Arguments

Something strange has happened to the concept of dignity in bioethics. After a long period in which U.S. pragmatist and U.K. consequentialist philosophers have argued that the concept is useless and vacuous, and in which they have been reasonably successful in expunging it from mainstream English-language academic bioethics, dignity has suddenly become popular again in debates about the legalization of physician-assisted dying (PAD). And, even stranger, it is deployed not by conservatives but by liberals. In the debates about PAD, liberal proponents of legalization seem to accept without question that there is such a state or process as "death with dignity," which is juxtaposed to "undignified dying." It also seems to be accepted that both of these states can be fairly easily identified and that they carry great moral weight. This article provides an analysis of the current resurgence of "undignified" arguments and argues on the basis of that analysis (1) that a proper understanding of the concept of dignity shows that the previous reductive arguments against dignity are partially incomplete and therefore partially misguided and (2) that, despite dignity having meaning, the idea of an undignified death cannot carry the moral weight it is given by proponents of the legalization of PAD.