Political Bioethics

Author:

Gregg Benjamin1

Affiliation:

1. University of Texas at Austin , Austin, Texas , USA

Abstract

Abstract If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political decision-making, then bioethics belongs to the political sphere. The particular kind of politics practiced in any given society matters greatly: it will determine the kind of bioethical regulation, legislation, and public policy generated there. I propose approaching bioethical questions politically in terms of decisions that cannot be “correct” but that can be “procedurally legitimate.” Two procedures in particular can deliver legitimate bioethical decisions, once combined: expert bioethics committees and deliberative democracy. Bioethics so understood can exceed bioethics as a moral project or as a set of administrative principles to regulate medical practice; it can now aspire to a democratic project that involves ordinary citizens as far as reasonably possible. I advance this argument in four steps: (1) using the example of human germline gene editing, (2) I propose a general understanding of proceduralism, and (3) then combine two types and (4) conclude with a defense of majoritarian proceduralism. I develop this argument in terms of one example: germline gene editing.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Philosophy,General Medicine,Issues, ethics and legal aspects

Reference49 articles.

1. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification;Baltimore;Science,2015

2. The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics

3. Broad societal consensus’ on human germline editing;Baylis;Harvard Health Policy Review,2016

4. Human germline genome editing and broad societal consensus;Baylis;Nature Human Behaviour,2017

Cited by 6 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Bioethics Should Not Seek to Reflect Public Opinion;The American Journal of Bioethics;2024-09

2. Public Bioethics Amidst a Pluralist People: A Project of Presumption, Despair, or Hope?;The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine;2024-07-11

3. Governance of research and product improvement studies in consumer mental health apps. Interviews with researchers and app developers;Accountability in Research;2023-11-09

4. AI-Based Medical Solutions Can Threaten Physicians’ Ethical Obligations Only If Allowed to Do So;The American Journal of Bioethics;2023-08-30

5. Genetic Engineering Revolution;Handbook of the Anthropocene;2023

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3