Ethical issues in healthcare and biomedical research are often a matter of public debate. This entry will explore several prominent views on how such debate should be conducted within pluralistic democratic societies. It begins by considering John Rawls’s account of public reason. It then examines how this account applies to the controversial issues of abortion and physician-assisted suicide, where one can see why some have objected to this view, especially with regard to the way it requires citizens to bracket their comprehensive moral, religious, and philosophical doctrines. Next, this entry will consider some alternative approaches that endorse more expansive forms of public reason that allow greater room for appeals to comprehensive doctrines. While one might expect that many of the controversial issues in bioethics will continue to be a matter of public debate going forward, it will be seen that a necessary step towards making progress in these debates is to get clear on how such debate should be conducted.
KeywordsPublic debate Public reason Public policy Bioethics Religion and politics Abortion Physician-assisted suicide Liberalism Natural law ethics John Rawls John Finnis Michael Sandel Charles Taylor
- Dworkin, R., Nagel, T., Nozick, R., Rawls, J., Scanlon, T., & Thomson, J. J. (1997). Assisted suicide: The Philosophers’ brief. The New York review of books. March 27, 1997 issue. Accessed online at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1997/mar/27/assisted-suicide-the-philosophers-brief/. Last accessed: 15 Dec 2014.
- Finnis, J. (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Finnis, J. (2000). Abortion, natural law, and public reason. In R. P. George & C. Wolfe (Eds.), Natural law and public reason (pp. 75–105). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- George, R. P. (2001). The clash of orthodoxies: Law, religion, and morality in crisis. Wilmington: ISI Books.Google Scholar
- Lee, P., & George, R. P. (2005). The wrong of abortion. In A. I. Cohen & C. H. Wellman (Eds.), Contemporary debates in applied ethics (pp. 13–26). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1993 ). Political liberalism (Expanded ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Sandel, M. J. (2005). Public philosophy: Essays on morality in politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self: The making of modern identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (1995). Philosophical arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (2003). Ethics and ontology. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(6), 305–320.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C. (2011). Dilemmas and connections: Selected essays. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(1), 47–66.Google Scholar
- Thomson, J. J. (1995). Abortion. Boston Review, 20 (Summer, 1995). Accessed online at: http://new.bostonreview.net/BR20.3/thomson.php. Last accessed: 15 Dec 2014.
- Dworkin, R. (1993). Life’s dominion: An argument about abortion, euthanasia, and individual freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
- George, R. P., & Wolfe, C. (Eds.). (2000). Natural law and public reason. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, C., & Maclure, J. (2011). Secularism and freedom of conscience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Weithman, P. J. (Ed.). (1997). Religion and contemporary liberalism. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar