Skip to main content

European values in bioethics: Why, what, and how to be used

Abstract

Are there distinctly European values in bioethics, and if there are, what are they? Some Continental philosophers have argued that the principles of dignity, precaution, and solidarity reflect the European ethos better than the liberal concepts of autonomy, harm, and justice. These principles, so the argument goes, elevate prudence over hedonism, communality over individualism, and moral sense over pragmatism. Contrary to what their proponents often believe, however, dignity, precaution, and solidarity can be interpreted in many ways, and it is not clear which reading would, or should, be favored by popular opinion. It is therefore dangerous to think that any one understanding of ``European'', or any other, values could be legitimately imposed on those who have different ideas about morality in health care and related fields. Bioethical principles should be employed to promote discussion, not to suppress it.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Aquinas, T. On Law, Morality and Politics. Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Baier, A. Moral Prejudices. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bayertz, K., ed. “Solidarity and the Welfare State.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1998): 293–392.

  5. Beauchamp, T.L., Childress, J.F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (1979), Fifth edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beauchamp, T.L. “Principlism and its Alleged Competitors.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1995): 181–198.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beauchamp, T.L. “The Mettle of Moral Fundamentalism: A Reply to Robert Baker.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8 (1998): 389–401.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bentham, J. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789). London and New York: Methuen, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Black, M., Mooney, G. “Equity in Health Care from a Communitarian Standpoint.” Health Care Analysis 10 (2002): 193–208.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chadwick, R. “Playing God.” Cogito 3 (1989): 186–193.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clouser, K.D. “Common Morality as an Alternative to Principlism.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1995): 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Clouser, K.D., Gert, B. “A Critique of Principlism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (1990): 219–236.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dennis, C., Gallagher, R., Campbell, P. “Everyone's Genome.” Nature 409 (2001): 813.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Devlin, P. “The Enforcement of Morals (1959).” Reprinted (as “Morals and the Criminal Law”). In: Devlin, P., ed. The Enforcement of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1965, pp. 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Frankena, W.K. Ethics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gillon, R., ed. Principles of Health Care Ethics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.

  17. Gillon, R. “Defending ‘The Four Principles’ Approach to Biomedical Ethics.” Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (1995): 323–324.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gillon, R. Philosophical Medical Ethics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Green, R.M., Gert, B., Clouser, K.D. “The Method of Public Morality Versus the Method of Principlism.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 18 (1993): 179–197.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hansson, S.O. “The Limits of Precaution.” Foundations of Science 2 (1997): 293–306.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Harris, J. “Cloning and Bioethical Thinking.” Nature 389 (1997): 433.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Harris, J. “Is Cloning an Attack on Human Dignity?” Nature 387 (1997): 754.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Häyry, M. “Categorical Objections to Genetic Engineering – A Critique.” In: Dyson, A., Harris, J., eds. Ethics and Biotechnology. London and New York: Routledge, 1994, pp. 202–215.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Häyry, M. Liberal Utilitarianism and Applied Ethics. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Häyry, M. “But What if we Feel that Cloning is Wrong?” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (2001): 205–208.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Häyry, M. “Another Look at Dignity.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, forthcoming.

  27. Häyry, M. “Precaution and Solidarity.” In: Thomasma, D., Novak, D., Weisstub, D., eds. The Foundations of Health Care. Dordrect: Kluwer Academic Publishers, forthcoming.

  28. Häyry, M., Takala, T. “Genetic Engineering and the Risk of Harm.” Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 1 (1998): 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hermitte, M.-A. “Le Principe de Précaution à la lumière du drame de la transfusion sanguine en France.” In: Godard, O., ed. Le Principe de Prècaution dans la Conduite des Affaires Humaines. Coèditions INRA, MSH et Association Natures, Sciences, Société-Dialogues, 1997, pp. 179–189.

  30. Holm, S. “Not Just Autonomy – The Principles of American Biomedical Ethics.” Journal of Medical Ethics 21 (1995): 332–338.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Houtepen, R., ter Meulen, R., eds. “Solidarity in Health Care.” Health Care Analysis 8 (2000): 329–411.

  32. Houtepen, R., ter Meulen, R. “New Types of Solidarity in the European Welfare State.” Health Care Analysis 8 (2000): 329–340.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Husserl, E. Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Translated by Cairns D. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Jonas, H. Das Prinzip Verantwortung: Versus einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation, Seventh edition. Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Jonsen, A. “Casuistry: An Alternative or Complement to Principles?” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1995): 237–251.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kahn, A. “Cloning, Dignity and Ethical Revisionism.” Nature 388 (1997): 320.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kaiser, M. “ ‘The Precautionary Principle and its Implications for Science’ – Introduction.” Foundations of Science 2 (1997): 201–205.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kant, I. Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (1785). Translated by Ellington, J.W. and reprinted in: Kant, I. Ethical Philosophy, Second edition. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kant, I. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre (1797). Translated by Ladd, J. and reprinted in: Kant, I. Metaphysical Elements of Justice, Second edition. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kant, I. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Tugendlehre (1797). Translated by Ellington, J.W. and reprinted in: Kant, I. Ethical Philosophy, Second edition. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Labib, K. “Don't Leave Dignity Out of the Cloning Debate.” Nature 388 (1997): 15.

    Google Scholar 

  42. MacIntyre, A. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (1981), Second edition. London: Duckworth, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Martin, P.H. “ ‘If You Don't Know How to Fix It, Then Please Stop Braking It!’ The Precautionary Principle and Climate Change.” Foundations of Science 2 (1997): 263–292.

    Google Scholar 

  44. McFaden, A. The Call to Personhood: A Christian Theory of the Individual in Social Relationships Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mill, J.S. On Liberty (1859). Reprinted in: Mill, J.S. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth, 1996, pp. 1–114.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mill, J.S. Utilitarianism (1861). Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pascal, B. Pensées. Paris: Le livre de poche, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pellegrino, E.D. “Toward a Virtue-Based Normative Ethics for the Health Professions.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1995): 253–277.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Pellegrino, E.D., Thomasma, D.C. For the Patient's Good: The Restoration of Beneficence in Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pellegrino, E.D., Thomasma, D.C. The Virtues of Medical Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rendtorff, J.D., Kemp, P., eds. Basic Ethical Principles in European Bioethics and Biolaw 1 & 2. Copenhagen and Barcelona: Centre for Ethics and Law & Institut Borja de Bioètica, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Shapiro, D. “Cloning, Dignity and Ethical Reasoning.” Nature 388 (1997): 511.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Takala, T. “Justice For all? The Scandinavian Approach.” In: Rhodes, R., Battin, M.P., Silvers, A., eds. Medical and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, pp. 183–190.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Takala, T. “The (Im)morality of (Un)naturalness.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, forthcoming.

  56. Takala, T. “What is Wrong with Global Bioethics? On the Limitations of the Four Principles Approach.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 10 (2001): 72–77.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Tonti-Filippini, N. “The Concept of Human Dignity in the International Human Rights Instruments.” In: de Dios Valdo Correa, J., Sgreccia, E., eds. Identity and Statute of Human Embryo. Città del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1998, pp. 381–404.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, adopted by the General Conference of UNESCP at its 29th session on 11 November 1997.

  59. Veatch, R.M. “Resolving Conflicts Among Principles: Ranking, Balancing, and Specifying.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (1995): 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  60. von Nell-Breuning, O. Baugesetze der Gesellschaft. Freiburg: Herder, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Häyry, M. European values in bioethics: Why, what, and how to be used. Theor Med Bioeth 24, 199–214 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024814710487

Download citation

  • dignity
  • ethics
  • European values
  • morality
  • precaution
  • principles
  • solidarity