Skip to main content

Bioethics as Politics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Bioethics and Biopolitics

Part of the book series: Advancing Global Bioethics ((AGBIO,volume 8))

Abstract

Bioethics has never been far removed from politics or political agendas. For instance, many of the early contributors argued fiercely for the rights of women, or the rights of unborn babies, depending on which side of the political debate their thinking fell. The empowerment of patients against the prevailing medical paternalism was similarly politically motivated. What separated the early bioethical contributions from the purely political ones was that they were using established theories and methodologies of their own disciplines to argue for their case. The scientific validity of these claims was something that could be assessed against the theoretical background of the respective disciplines. Bioethics has always been an inter- and multidisciplinary enterprise and this tendency has become more and more prevalent. The ever-changing realities of medicine and biomedical sciences, available resources and the views, values and beliefs of the various stakeholders are playing an increasingly important role in bioethical deliberations. Widening and deepening the understanding of the complex issues by utilizing a wide variety of approaches is, of course, laudable. However, when the aim is not only to describe, but to prescribe, the multidisciplinarity becomes a methodological problem. Politics can be defined as the practice and theory of influencing people and that is, I would argue, what most bioethicists are trying to do. They have a moral stance and related policy recommendations that they are trying to convince people to accept. This tendency is further strengthened by the expectation from the funding bodies for research to yield practically relevant results. The chapter substantiates the claim that (much of) bioethics is politics by looking at the kind of work that is being carried out in bioethics, the speculative nature of the cost-benefit analyses at the heart of bioethics debates and the problems caused by inter- and multidisciplinary approaches with an emphasis on new technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-8519/homepage/best_practice_in_conceptual_philosophical_bioethics.htm

  2. 2.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291467-8519/homepage/the_role_of_philosophy_and_philosophers_in_bioethics.htm

  3. 3.

    Green (1990).

  4. 4.

    Ibid.

  5. 5.

    Häyry and Takala (1998).

  6. 6.

    Gigerenzer and Edwards (2003).

  7. 7.

    Obviously democratic decision-making has all sorts of problems, the least of these not being very able to protect minority views.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Playing God: The Rock Opera, an attempt to reach people and get them engaged in bioethical deliberations. playinggodrocks.com

  9. 9.

    Häyry and Takala (1999).

  10. 10.

    Häyry (2005). A more detailed formulation would be: “When our actions could be harmful, but this harmfulness cannot be verified or falsified by scientific inquiry, the burden of proof is, according to the principle, on those who propose such actions. Until further research shows that the actions do not have the suspected ill effects, they should be disallowed. Häyry (2010).

  11. 11.

    Holm and Takala (2007).

  12. 12.

    See note 11, p. 3.

  13. 13.

    Häyry (2010), p. 193.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Chadwick (1982) and Häyry (2011).

  17. 17.

    The ideas of playing god and naturalness have also been seen in the literature to form a partnership: “The charges of ‘acting unnaturally’ or ‘playing god’ evoke lofty images of environmental disaster and divine punishment. If we change the course of rivers or move mountains, the long-term cumulative consequences can be catastrophic in ways which we cannot precidely define in the light of our current knowledge. And if we choose to create ‘abominations’ like animal-human hybrids, clones or parentless children, not only are the material outcomes unpredictable, but we can also have to confront the wrath of gods.” Häyry (2010, p. 132).

  18. 18.

    Takala (2004).

  19. 19.

    Some go even further and argue, not only should we allow the technologies to be developed, but that we should actively aid in making this happen by becoming research subjects. Harris (2005).

  20. 20.

    Takala and Häyry (2014).

  21. 21.

    Takala (2015).

  22. 22.

    For a philosopher’s critical take on this, see e.g. Häyry (2015).

  23. 23.

    Habermas (2003). See also, Fukuyama (2002); Kass (2002) and Sandel (2007).

  24. 24.

    Harris (2007). See also, Agar (2004); de Grey and Rae (2007) and Glover (2006).

  25. 25.

    Takala (2005).

References

  • Agar, N. 2004. Liberal eugenics: In defence of human enhancement. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chadwick, R. 1982. Cloning. Philosophy 57: 201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Grey, A., and M. Rae. 2007. Ending aging: The rejuvenation breakthroughs that could reverse human aging in our lifetime. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fukuyama, F. 2002. Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. London: Profile Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G., and A. Edwards. 2003. Simple tools for understanding risks: From innumeracy to insights. British Medical Journal 327: 741–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glover, J. 2006. Choosing children: The ethical dilemmas of genetic intervention. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Green, R.M. 1990. Method in bioethics: A troubled assessment. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15: 179–197. 194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J.. 2003. The Future of Human Nature. Trans. W. Rehg, M. Pensky, and H. Beister. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 2005. Scientific research is a moral duty. Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 242–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Enhancing evolution: The ethical case for making better people. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Häyry, M. 2005. Precaution and solidarity. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14: 199–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2010. Rationality and the genetic challenge: Making people better? 191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011. Playing god: Essays on bioethics, 47–54. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. What do you think of philosophical bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24: 139–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häyry, M., and T. Takala. 1998. Genetic engineering and the risk of harm. Medicine Health Care and Philosophy 1: 61–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. Biotechnology and the environment: From moral objections to ethical analyses. In Ethics: Proceedings of the 20th world congress of philosophy, ed. K. Brinkmann, 169–178. Bowling Green: Philosophy Documentation Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, S., and T. Takala. 2007. High hopes and automatic escalators: A critique of some new arguments in bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 33: 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kass, L.R. 2002. Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: The challenge for bioethics. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandel, M. 2007. The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic engineering. Cambridge/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takala, T. 2004. The (im)morality of (un)naturalness. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 13: 15–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Demagogues, firefighters and window-dressers: Who are we and what should we be? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14: 385–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Get to the point! Philosophical bioethics and the struggle to remain relevant. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24: 149–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takala, T., and M. Häyry. 2014. Neuroethics and animals, methods and philosophy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 23: 182–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This chapter was produced as a part of two Academy of Finland projects, Methods in Philosophical Bioethics (SA 131030, 2009–2014) and Synthetic Biology and Ethics (SA 272467, 2013–2017), and of the Finnish Cultural Foundation Argumenta project Justice and Its Alternatives in a Globalizing World. The author acknowledges the Academy’s, and the Cultural Foundation’s, support with gratitude.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tuija Takala .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Takala, T. (2017). Bioethics as Politics. In: Kakuk, P. (eds) Bioethics and Biopolitics. Advancing Global Bioethics, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66249-7_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics