Bioethics as a field emerged in post WWII America during an era of American political stability and international economic and military dominance. Those of us working in the field of bioethics for past few decades, as beneficiaries of this setting, take for granted the American democratic political system and its traditions as the natural context and moral framework for scientific discovery and ethical decision-making. Though we might invoke normative ethical approaches at times on particular issues, from both various philosophical and religious traditions, generally speaking most major ethical dilemmas both at the broader policy level and in particular settings of individual patient care and research issues, must proceed according to well-established procedural rules and standards. The goal of ethical resolution in our democratic context is not to arrive at the ultimate, final, or “the” canonical ethical answer, but to reach a consensus between opposing moral perspectives that preserves a plurality of moral values based on well-established moral and legal democratic principles and values. Thus, bioethics as a field that deals with living, practical ethical conflicts depends on a stable, democratic political system in which people with diverse values and beliefs can find non-violent, indeed peaceful means of finding resolutions to their moral differences. It is in this light that bioethicists should find very concerning what is happening in our presidential election cycle.
Bombast and lack of substance have always been part of American political rhetoric. Normally I would see the role of bioethicists to advocate for policy positions within the political process, but try to remain relatively neutral in attacking or supporting particular political candidates and speaking out so candidly about issues.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.