Global bioethics and communitarianism

Article

Abstract

This paper explores the role of ‘community’ in the context of global bioethics. With the present globalization of bioethics, new and interesting references are made to this concept. Some are familiar, for example, community consent. This article argues that the principle of informed consent is too individual-oriented and that in other cultures, consent can be community-based. Other references to ‘community’ are related to the novel principle of benefit sharing in the context of bioprospecting. The application of this principle necessarily requires the identification and construction of communities. On the global level there are also new uses of the concept of community as ‘global community.’ Three uses are distinguished: (1) a diachronic use, including past, present, and future generations, (2) a synchronic ecological use, including nonhuman species, and (3) a synchronic planetary use, including all human beings worldwide. Although there is a tension between the communitarian perspective and the idea of global community, this article argues that the third use can broaden communitarianism. The current development towards cosmopolitanism is creating a new global community that represents humanity as a whole, enabling identification of world citizens and evoking a sense of global solidarity and responsibility. The emergence of global bioethics today demonstrates this development.

Keywords

Benefit sharing Common heritage of humankind Community Community benefit Community consent Future generations Global bioethics Global health Van Rensselaer Potter 

References

  1. 1.
    Potter, V.R. 1988. Global bioethics: Building on the Leopold legacy. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Potter, V.R. 1971. Bioethics: Bridge to the future. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dwyer, J. 2009. How to connect bioethics and environmental ethics: Health, sustainability, and justice. Bioethics 23(9): 497–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ehrlich, P.R. 2009. Ecoethics: Now central to all ethics. Bioethical Inquiry 6: 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gruen, L., and W. Ruddick. 2009. Biomedical and environmental ethics alliance: Common causes and grounds. Bioethical Inquiry 6: 457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garrett, L. 2007. The challenge of global health. Foreign Affairs 86: 14–38.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bozorgmehr, K. 2010. Rethinking the “global” in global health: A dialectic approach. Globalization and Health 6: 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Reich, W.T. 1995. The word “bioethics”: The struggle over its earliest meanings. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5(1): 19–34.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holm, S., and B. Williams-Jones. 2006. Global bioethics: Myth or reality? BMC Medical Ethics 7: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hellsten, S.K. 2008. Global bioethics: Utopia or reality? Developing World Bioethics 8(2): 70–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Illingworth, P., and W.E. Parmet. 2009. The ethical implications of the social determinants of health: A global renaissance for bioethics. Bioethics 23(2): ii–v.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sherwin, S. 2011. Looking backwards, looking forward: Hopes for bioethics’ next twenty-five years. Bioethics 25(2): 72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Christakis, N.A. 1992. Ethics are local: Engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Social Science and Medicine 35(9): 1079–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jegede, S. 2009. African ethics, health care research and community and individual participation. Journal of Asian and African Studies 44(2): 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson, K. 2009. The problem of dual loyalty: Through African eyes. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 2(1): 4–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Metz, T. 2010. An African theory of bioethics: Reply to Macpherson and Macklin. Developing World Bioethics 10(3): 158–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    IJsselmuiden, C.B., and R.R. Faden. 1992. Research and informed consent in Africa: Another look. New England Journal of Medicine 326(12): 830–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graboyes, M. 2010. Fines, orders, fear …, consent? Medical research in East Africa, C. 1950s. Developing World Bioethics 10(1): 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ezeome, E.R., and P.A. Marshall. 2009. Informed consent practices in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics 9(3): 138–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DeCosta, A., N. D’Souza, S. Krishnan, M.S. Chhabra, L. Shihaam, and K. Goswami. 2004. Community based trials and informed consent in rural north India. Journal of Medical Ethics 30(3): 318–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molyneux, C.S., D.R. Wassenaar, N. Peshu, and K. Marsh. 2005. “Even if they ask you to stand by a tree all day, you will have to do it (laughter)…!”: Community voices on the notion and practice of informed consent for biomedical research in developing countries. Social Science and Medicine 61: 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    CIOMS. 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    World Medical Association. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/17c.pdf. Accessed January 24, 2011.
  24. 24.
    Emanuel, E.J., D. Wendler, J. Killen, and C. Grady. 2004. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 189: 930–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tausig, M., S. Subedi, and J. Subedi. 2007. The bioethics of medical research in very poor countries. Health 11(2): 145–161.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thiessen, C., R. Ssekubugu, J. Wagman, et al. 2007. Personal and community benefits and harms of research: Views from Rakai, Uganda. AIDS 21(18): 2493–2501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Barsdorf, N., S. Maman, N. Kass, and C. Slack. 2010. Access to treatment in HIV prevention trials: Perspectives from a South African community. Developing World Bioethics 10(2): 78–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lynch, J., and M. Mitchell. 2010. Community engagement and the ethics of global, translational research: A response to Sofaer and Eyal. American Journal of Bioethics 10(8): 37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ataguba, J.E., and G. Mooney. 2010. A communitarian approach to public health. Health Care Analysis 19(2): 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Marshall, P.A., and C. Rotimi. 2001. Ethical challenges in community-based research. American Journal of Medical Sciences 322(5): 241–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    HUGO Ethics Committee. 2000. HUGO ethics committee statement on benefit sharing. Clinical Genetics 58: 364–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morgera, E., and E. Tsioumani. 2010. The evolution of benefit sharing: Linking biodiversity and community livelihoods. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law 19(2): 150–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    MacQueen, K.M., E. McLellan, D.S. Metzger, et al. 2001. What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health 91(12): 1929–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hayden, C. 2007. Taking as giving: Bioscience, exchange, and the politics of benefit sharing. Social Studies of Science 37(5): 729–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Weijer, C. 1999. Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 8: 501–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Green, S. 2004. Indigenous people incorporated? Culture as politics, culture as property in pharmaceutical bioprospecting. Current Anthropology 45(2): 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Korthals, M., and B. de Jonge. 2009. Two different ethical notions of benefit sharing of genetic resources and their implications for global development. New Genetics and Society 28(1): 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    ten Have, H.A.M.J., and M.S. Jean (eds.). 2009. The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: Background principles, and application. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    UNESCO. 1997. Declaration on the responsibilities of the present generations towards future generations. Paris: UNESCO. http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/generations.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2010.
  40. 40.
    Agius, E. 2005. Environmental ethics: Towards an intergenerational perspective. In Environmental ethics and international policy, ed. H.A.M.J. ten Have, 89–115. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weiss, E.B. 1990. Our rights and obligations to future generations for the environment. American Journal of International Law 84(1): 198–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Levine, B.R. 2007. Toward a broader notion of community. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50(1): 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Callahan, D. 2003. Individual good and common good: A communitarian approach to bioethics. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46(4): 496–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kuczewski, M.G. 2009. The common morality in communitarian thought: Reflective consensus in public policy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30: 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Etzioni, A. 2003. Organ donation: A communitarian approach. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13(1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Etzioni, A. 2011. Authoritarian vs. responsive communitarian bioethics. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sandel, M.J. 1996. Democracy’s discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Byk, C. 1998. A map to a new treasure island: The human genome and the concept of common heritage. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 23(3): 234–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Knoppers, B.M., and Y. Joly. 2007. Our social genome? Trends in Biotechnology 25(7): 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dower, N. 2007. World ethics: The new agenda. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Healthcare EthicsDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations