Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Growth of Bioethics as a Second-Order Discipline

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Development of Bioethics in the United States

Part of the book series: Philosophy and Medicine ((PHME,volume 115))

Abstract

This chapter offers a historically-grounded analysis of the nature of bioethics as a field of inquiry and practice. It begins with a detailed history of the evolution of early bioethics organizations, including the Society for Health and Human Values, the American Association of Bioethics, and the Society for Bioethics Consultation, and traces this history into the period in which these organizations merged as the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. This rich recounting offers both first-person and third-person observations of these organizations’ development, membership, problems, and mergers. With this historically-informed background in place, the author proceeds analytically to consider four basic approaches to characterizing the nature of bioethics: (1) bioethics as pure public discourse, with no experts, core texts, common methods, or common standards; (2) bioethics as unique to a single existing discipline (e.g., philosophy, medicine, etc.), with bioethics expertise limited to those who have undertaken extensive study in that field; and (3) bioethics as evolving into a new, independent discipline with its own core texts, methods, area of expertise, and common standards for scholarship and consultation. These three views are rejected in favor of the view that (4) bioethics is an interdisciplinary and second-order discipline with no unique area of expertise. Four key pieces of evidence support this analysis: bioethicists (1) tend to expand their subject matter (unlike most new fields, which splinter off from, and narrow the subject matter of, existing disciplines), (2) think of bioethics problems as complex and solutions as interdisciplinary, (3) welcome various perspectives from different professions, and (4) allow those various professions to set their own standards of competency.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
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

References

  • American Society for Bioethics and Humanities. 1998. ‘Task force on standards for bioethics consultation’, core competencies for health care ethics consultation. Glenview: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, R. 2005. A draft model aggregate code of ethics for bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T. 2005. What can a model professional code for bioethics hope to achieve? The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 42–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, T., and J.F. Childress. 1979, 1983, 1989, 1994, 2001, 2008. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, S. 1996. The oxford dictionary of philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. 2003. Taking issue: Pluralism and casuistry in bioethics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. 1990. What kind of life: The limits of medical progress. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. 1999. Ethics from the top down: A view from the well. In Building bioethics, ed. L.M. Kopelman, 25–35. London: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, D. 2005. Bioethics and the culture wars. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14: 424–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Childress, J.F. 1970. Who shall live when not all can live? Soundings 53: 339–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clouser, K.D. 1978. Bioethics. In Encyclopedia of bioethics, 1st ed, ed. W.T. Reich, 124–125. New York: The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clouser, K.D., and B. Gert. 1990. A critique of principlism. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15: 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. 2004. Historical keywords: Bioethics. The Lancet 364: 1749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, N. 1985. Just health care. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. 2001. Throwing a bone to the watchdog. The Hastings Center Report 31: 9–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, C. 2005. The soul of a new machine: Bioethicists in the bureaucracy. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14: 379–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H.T. 1992. The search for a universal system of ethics: Post-modern disappointments and contemporary possibilities. In Ethical problems in dialysis and transplantation, ed. C.M. Kjellstrand and J.B. Dossetor. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H.T., and S. Spicker. 1975. Evaluation and explanation in the biomedical sciences. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Faden, R., T.L. Beauchamp, and N. King. 1986. A history and theory of informed consent. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. 1966. Situation ethics. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, R.C., and J.P. Swazey. 2005. Examining American bioethics: Its problems and prospects. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 14: 361–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankena, W.K. 1973. Ethics, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, R.G. 1978. Moral experts. The Personalist 59: 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gert, B. 1998. Morality: Its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, J.M. 1973. Mongolism, parental desires, and the right to life. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 17: 529–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, R.L. 1990. The limited relevance of analytical ethics to the problems of bioethics. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15: 143–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, B. 1998. Moral expertise. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward Craig, 509. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaggar, A.M. 2000. Feminist ethics. In The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, ed. H. LaFollette, 348–374. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jahr, F. 1927. Bio-Ethik: Eine Umschau über die ethischen Beziehungen des Menschen zu Tier und Pflanze. Kosmos: Handweiser für Naturfreunde 24: 2–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A.R. 1991. Of balloons and bicycles or the relationship between ethical theory and practical judgments. The Hastings Center Report 21: 14–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A.R. 1998. The birth of bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A.R., and S. Toulmin. 1988. The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonsen, A., M. Siegler, and W. Winslade. 1982. Clinical ethics. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kipnis, K. 2005. The elements of code development. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 48–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L.M. 1995. Philosophy and medical education. Academic Medicine 70: 795–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L.M. 1998. Bioethics and humanities: What makes us one field? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23: 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L.M. 2006. Bioethics as a second-order discipline: Who is not a bioethicist? The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31: 601–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopelman, L.M., and J.C. Moskop (eds.). 1984. Ethics and mental retardation. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantos, J. 2005. Commentary on “a draft model aggregated code for bioethicists”. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 45–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. 1925. Arrowsmith. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, C. 2003. Draft: Model code of ethics for bioethics. In The canadian bioethics societies and Ad Hoc Working Group on employment standards for bioethics [On-line]. http://www.bioethics.ca/resources/PDF%20documents/draftcode.pdf. Accessed Sept 20, 2012.

  • McMahan, J. 2000. Moral intuitionism. In The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, ed. H. LaFollette, 92–110. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, F.G. 2005. The case for a code of ethics for bioethicists: Some reasons for skepticism. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 50–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowell-Smith, P.H. 1957. Ethics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L.S. 2005. Ethical expertise, maternal thinking, and the work of clinical ethicists. In Ethics expertise: History, contemporary perspectives, and applications, ed. L.M. Rasmussen, 165–207. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlman, D. 2005. Bioethics in industry settings: One situation where a code for bioethicists would help. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 62–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, L.M. (ed.). 2005. Ethics expertise: History, contemporary perspectives, and applications. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regenberg, A.C., and D. Mathews. 2005. Resisting the tide of professionalization: Valuing diversity in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 44–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reich, W.T. 1995. Introduction. In Encyclopedia of bioethics, vol. 1, 2nd ed, ed. W.T. Reich, xxi. New York: Simon Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satel, S. 2000. How political correctness is corrupting medicine. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuklenk, U., and J. Gallager. 2005. Status, careers and influence in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 64–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, P. 1972. Moral experts. Analysis 32: 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W.J. 2000. Culture of death: The assault on medical ethics in America. San Francisco: Encounter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. 1981. The tyranny of principles. The Hastings Center Report 11: 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). 2005. Universal declaration on bioethics and human rights [On-line]. http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1883&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html. Accessed Sept 20, 2012.

  • Veatch, R.M. 1999. Contract and critique of principlism: Hypothetical contract or epistemological theory as method of conflict resolution. In Building bioethics, ed. L.M. Kopelman, 121–143. Great Britain: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. 1953, 1961. Philosophical investigations. New York: The Macmillan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S., and J. Kahn. 2005. Bioethics matures: The field faces the future. The Hastings Center Report 35: 22–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioethics and Interdisciplinary Studies (Emeritus), Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, East Fifth Street, Greenville, NC, 27858-4353, USA

    Loretta M. Kopelman Ph.D.

  2. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA

    Loretta M. Kopelman Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Loretta M. Kopelman Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loretta M. Kopelman Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Philosophy, California State University, Sacramento, J Street 6000, Sacramento, 95819, California, USA

    Jeremy R. Garrett

  2. Southwestern Medical Center, Dept. Psychiatry, University of Texas, Harry Hines Blvd. 5323, Dallas, 75390-9070, Texas, USA

    Fabrice Jotterand

  3. Dept. Philosophy, Rice University, S. Main Street 6100, Houston, 77005-1892, Texas, USA

    D. Christopher Ralston

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kopelman, L.M. (2013). The Growth of Bioethics as a Second-Order Discipline. In: Garrett, J., Jotterand, F., Ralston, D. (eds) The Development of Bioethics in the United States. Philosophy and Medicine, vol 115. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4011-2_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation