The Troubled Identity of the Bioethicist
- Nicky Priaulx
- … show all 1 hide
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
This paper raises questions about bioethical knowledge and the bioethical ‘expert’ in the context of contestation over methods. Illustrating that from the perspective of the development of bioethics, the lack of unity over methods is highly desirable for the field in bringing together a wealth of perspectives to bear on bioethical problems, that same lack of unity also raises questions as to the expert capacity of the ‘bioethicist’ to speak to contemporary bioethics and represent the field. Focusing in particular on public bioethics, the author argues that we need to rethink the concept of bioethicist, if not reject it. The concept of the bioethicist connotes a disciplinary or theoretical unity that is simply not present and from the perspective of public policy, it is incredibly misleading. Instead, bioethical expertise would be a capacity of a broader community, and not an individual. Such a conception of bioethics as an expert community rather than as an individual capacity, focuses our attention on the more functional question of what knowledge and skill set any individual possesses.
- Adler, D., & Zlotnik Shaul, R. (2012). Disciplining bioethics: Towards a standard of methodological rigor in bioethics research. Accountability in Research, 19, 187–207.
- Appiah, K. A. (2008). Experiments in ethics. London: Harvard University Press.
- Archard, D. (2011). Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics, 25, 119–127. CrossRef
- Baron, J. (2006). Against Bioethics. London: MIT Press.
- Bennett, R., & Cribb, A. (2003). The relevance of empirical research to bioethics: Reviewing the debate. In M. Häyry & T. Takala (Eds.), Scratching the surface of bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
- Dawson, Angus. (2010). The future of bioethics: Three dogmas and a cup of hemlock. Bioethics, 24, 218–225. CrossRef
- De Vries, R., & Gordijn, B. (2009). Empirical ethics and its alleged meta-ethical fallacies. Bioethics, 23, 193–201. CrossRef
- Dunn, M., Maughan, D., Hope, T., Canvin, K., Rugkåsa, J., Sinclair, J., & Burns, T. (2012). Threats and offers in community mental healthcare. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 204–209.
- Fox, R. C., Swazey, J. P., & Watkins, J. C. (2008). Observing bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
- Frith, L. (2012). Symbiotic empirical ethics: A practical methodology. Bioethics, 26, 198–206. CrossRef
- Galbraith, K. (2012). My problems with the ‘B’ word. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 21, 122–124. CrossRef
- Harris, J. (2001). Introduction: The scope and importance of bioethics. In J. Harris (Ed.), Bioethics. Oxford: OUP.
- Häyry, M. (2011). Rationality and the genetic challenge revisited. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, 468–483. CrossRef
- Häyry, M., & Takala, T. (2003). Scratching the Surface of Bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
- Hedgecoe, A. (2004). Critical bioethics: Beyond the social science critique of applied ethics. Bioethics, 18(2), 120–143. CrossRef
- Hedgecoe, A. (2010). Bioethics and the reinforcement of socio-technical expectations. Social Studies of Science, 40, 163–186. CrossRef
- Herrera, C. (2008). Is it time for bioethics to go empirical? Bioethics, 22, 137–146. CrossRef
- Hoffmaster, B., & Hooker, C. (2009). How experience confronts ethics. Bioethics, 25, 214–225. CrossRef
- Hoffmaster, B. Bioethics in social context (Temple University Press, 2001).
- Hurst, S. (2010). What ‘Empirical Turn in Bioethics’? Bioethics, 24, 439–444.
- Ives, J., & Draper, H. (2009). Appropriate methodologies for empirical bioethics: It’s all relative. Bioethics, 23, 249–258. CrossRef
- Ives, J., & Dunn, M. (2010). Who’s arguing? A call for reflexivity in bioethics. Bioethics, 24, 256–265. CrossRef
- Leget, C., Borry, P., & De Vries, R. (2009). Nobody tosses a dwarf! The relation between the empirical and the normative reexamined. Bioethics, 23, 226–235. CrossRef
- Levitt, M. (2003). Better together: Sociological and philosophical perspectives on bioethics. In M. Häyry & T. Takala (Eds.), Scratching the surface of bioethics. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
- Louhlin, M. (2011). Criticizing the data: Some concerns about empirical approaches to ethics. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17, 970–975. CrossRef
- McMillan, J. (2012). Psychiatric ethics and the methodological virtues of bioethics. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38, 194. CrossRef
- Moore, A. (2010). ‘Public bioethics and public engagement: The politics of “Proper Talk”. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 197–211. CrossRef
- Priaulx, N. (2011). Vorsprung durch technic: On biotechnology, bioethics and its beneficiaries. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, 174–184. CrossRef
- Schicktanz, S., Schweda, M., & Wynne, B. (2012). The ethics of ‘public understanding of ethics’—why and how bioethics expertise should include public and patients’ voices. Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy, 15, 129–139. CrossRef
- Sherwin, S. (2011). Looking backwards, looking forward: Hopes for bioethics’ next twenty-5 Years. Bioethics, 25, 75–82. CrossRef
- Verkerk, M., & Lindemann, H. (2009). Epilogue: Naturalized Bioethics in Practice. In: Toward responsible knowing and practice. (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
- The Troubled Identity of the Bioethicist
Health Care Analysis
Volume 21, Issue 1 , pp 6-19
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer US
- Additional Links
- Empirical insights
- Public bioethics
- Nicky Priaulx (1)
- Author Affiliations
- 1. Cardiff Law School, Cardiff University, Law Building, Museum Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3AX, UK