The "wider view": André Helleger's passionate, integrating intellect and the creation of bioethics

This article provides an account of how André Hellegers, founder and first Director of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University, laid medicine open to bioethics. Helleger's approach to bioethics, as to morality generally and also to medicine and biomedical science, involved taking the "wider view" -- a value-filled vision that integrated and gave meaning to what otherwise was disparate, precarious, and conflicting. This article shows how Helleger's wider view of bioethics was shaped by events in his own life, his resultant sense of the precariousness of life and health, his commitment to religious inclusiveness, his research in fetal medicine, his clinical experience in obstetrics, his role in the struggle to change the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on fertility control, and his developing concepts of health and disease. Hellegers was committed to and worked toward bioethics as a self-consciously interdisciplinary field in which the contributing disciplines adapt to each other -- rather than sustain themselves as autonomous disciplines -- to create a dynamic and complex intellectual, clinical, and social activity.     

The rebirth of bioethics: extending the original formulations of Van Rensselaer Potter

Van Rensselaer Potter's original concept of bioethics as a global integration of biology and values was designed to guide human survival. His attention to the creation of human knowledge and the incorporation of ecological concepts and values into medicine and health remain important, yet largely neglected, contributions deserving of further elaboration. Bioethicists should heed his warning about unsustainable progress, particularly in health care systems, and work toward changing their behaviors. Incorporating life-affirming spiritual values and extending Potter's global bioethics to a deeper bioethics seem essential.     

Bioethics and Pastoral Concern: Some Possible New Directions in Pastoral Theology

This special issue of the journal is comprised of papers given at a conference in May 2011 at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston on the theme of “Social Justice and the Health Professions.” This article offers the following rationale for this special issue in particular and for pastoral theologians to contribute to bioethics in general: (1) two contemporary theological thinkers in bioethics, Karen Lebacqz and Lisa Cahill, argue that theological discussions of justice broaden and deepen discussions of justice in mainstream bioethics—thus the focus on social justice provides an area for interdisciplinary and intersectional work; (2) pastoral theologians have not, to a great extent, contributed to discussions of religion and bioethics—this has been the territory of theological ethicists, especially during the 1970s; (3) one influential pastoral theologian, Bonnie Miller-McLemore, has called for (a) a broader concern for health in pastoral theology beyond psychological health and (b) more disciplinary approaches within pastoral theology beyond psychology so as to attend to “the living human web”; and (4) one way to advance the theological contributions in bioethics is by inviting pastoral theologians to focus on matters of social justice (an established area of intersection) as identified by health professionals, thus providing (a) new areas for inquiry and (b) new theological perspectives in bioethics. This article also suggests that pastoral theologians can contribute to bioethics by focusing on both “macro” issues (issues relating to structures and groups) and “micro” issues (issues relating to persons and experiences) as a way of pursuing the topic of justice in bioethics. The bulk of this article focuses on “macro” issues, but, in closing, the author articulates how he has been addressing “micro” issues in his own work. The author argues that both of these approaches—“macro” and “micro”—are legitimate ways for pastoral theologians to express pastoral concerns in bioethics.     

Bioethics in the twenty-first century: why we should pay attention to eighteenth-century medical ethics.

Those of us who work in the field of bioethics tend to think that, because the word "bioethics" is new, so too the field is new in all respects, but we are not the first to do bioethics. John Gregory (1724-1773) did bioethics just as we do it, at least two centuries before we thought to do it. He deployed philosophical methods as sophisticated as our own. Indeed, Gregory took up the very best moral philosophy available to thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment, namely, David Hume's moral philosophy and its core concept of sympathy. Gregory also responded in a conceptually powerful and clinically applicable way to the problems of his time, just as we do. I want here to outline Gregory's accomplishment and to identify some aspects of its importance for bioethics in the twenty-first century.     

On Hope and Hard Choices

In Handle with Care (2009), novelist Jodi Picoult presents a heartbreaking case involving the question of wrongful birth. This essay examines Ronald M. Green's writings in the field of bioethics to see what wisdom they might bring to this case. I argue that Green's contributions to bioethics exemplify some of the best of ethical argumentation: attention to facts, discernment of morally relevant differences, enunciation and justification of principles, originality, and compassion. I then draw from his work three foci that illuminate aspects of the dilemma presented by Picoult: the importance of parental love, the possibility that the dilemma might be reframed away from wrongful birth, and the need to shift our focus to questions of justice. While appreciating Green's contributions to bioethics, I also indicate several places of nuanced disagreement.     

Fritz Jahr's 1927 concept of bioethics

In 1927, Fritz Jahr, a Protestant pastor, philosopher, and educator in Halle an der Saale, published an article entitled "Bio-Ethics: A Review of the Ethical Relationships of Humans to Animals and Plants" and proposed a "Bioethical Imperative," extending Kant's moral imperative to all forms of life. Reviewing new physiological knowledge of his times and moral challenges associated with the development of secular and pluralistic societies, Jahr redefines moral obligations towards human and nonhuman forms of life, outlining the concept of bioethics as an academic discipline, principle, and virtue. Although he had no immediate long-lasting influence during politically and morally turbulent times, his argument that new science and technology requires new ethical and philosophical reflection and resolve may contribute toward clarification of terminology and of normative and practical visions of bioethics, including understanding of the geoethical dimensions of bioethics.     

What Really Happened: A Tribute to John C. Fletcher

John C. Fletcher, a pioneer in the field of bioethics and friend and mentor to many generations of bioethicists, died tragically on May 27th at the age of 72. The son of an Episcopal priest from Bryan, TX, Fletcher graduated in 1953 with a degree in English Literature from the University of the South in Sewanee, TN. After completing a Masters in Divinity degree from the Virginia Theological Seminary and a stint as a Fulbright scholar at the University of Heidelberg in 1956, he was ordained in the Episcopal Church and received a doctorate in Christian ethics from the Union Theological Seminary in New York. After ordination, Fletcher worked in various Episcopal churches and founded the Interfaith Metropolitan Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C. However, despite his religious faith, he was also a skeptic, and renounced his ordination in the mid-1990s due to his need for ‘intellectual honesty.’

Fletcher began his bioethics contributions in the early 1970's, when he became a founding Fellow of the Hastings Center and eventually the first Chief of the Bioethics Program at the Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health. At the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, he was the Founding Director of the Center for Bioethics and a professor of biomedical ethics at the medical school, and became the Kornfeld Professor of Biomedical Ethics until his retirement in 1999. Fletcher was a prominent authority and voice in the national and international bioethical dialogue through his talks, his testimonies before scientific and congressional panels, his many articles, and his bioethical and religiously-orientated books, including: An Introduction to Clinical Ethics (1997), Coping with Genetic Disorders: a Guide for Clergy and Parents (1982), Ethics and Human Genetics: A Cross-Cultural Perspective (1989), which he wrote with sociologist Dorothy C. Wertz. Dr. Fletcher received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities in 2000. With the passing of Dr. John C. Fletcher, bioethics has lost one of its great voices, a dedicated teacher and mentor, and a friend and colleague to scholars in bioethics and a host of other fields. Below is a touching tribute from one of his former students.     

Gert's moral theory and its application to bioethics cases

Bernard Gert's theory of morality has received much critical attention, but there has been relatively little commentary on its practical value for bioethics. An important test of an ethical theory is its ability to yield results that are helpful and plausible when applied to real cases. An examination of Gert's theory and his own attempts to apply it to bioethics cases reveals that there are serious difficulties with regard to its application. These problems are sufficiently severe to support the conclusion that Gert's theory is unacceptable as an approach for resolving bioethics cases, even relatively noncontroversial cases.     

The word "bioethics": the struggle over its earliest meanings.

An article by Warren Reich in the December 1994 issue of this journal concludes that the word "bioethics" and the field of study it names experienced a "bilocated birth" in 1970/1971 under Van Rensselaer Potter, at the University of Wisconsin, and André Hellegers, at Georgetown University. Further historical inquiry confirms (1) that there were, from the start, some major differences -- even clashes -- between the Potter and the Hellegers/Georgetown understandings of bioethics; and (2) that the Hellegers/Georgetown approach came to be the more widely accepted meaning of the term, while Potter's idea of bioethics remained largely marginalized. However, this inquiry also results in a third, unanticipated, conclusion: that Hellegers (in contrast to the dominant model offered by the Georgetown scholars) actually proposed a global approach to bioethics, bringing his vision much closer to Potter's evolving view than previously has been acknowledged.     

Pragmatism as a research program--a reply to Arras

This paper is a reaction to an article by John Arras published earlier in this journal. In this article Arras argues that freestanding pragmatism has little new to offer to bioethics. We respond to some of Arras' arguments and conclude that, although he overstates his case at certain points, his critique is, broadly speaking, correct. We then introduce and discuss an alternative approach to pragmatist ethics, one which puts to work the ideas and insights of pragmatism conceived as a broad philosophical movement, without lapsing into a canon dependent approach. The approach we propose exhibits a number of characteristics that differ from Arras'saccount of freestanding pragmatism and offers something new to bioethics.     

What happened to our free bioethics search service? The terrible and premature death of BIOETHICSLINE

BIOETHICSLINE, in existence from 1973 thorough 2000, was a bibliographic database covering the English-language literature on bioethical issues. It reflected the cross-disciplinary field of bioethics. During 2001, the National Library of Medicine is expected to dismantle BIOETHICSLINE and incorporate its data into two of their other databases, PubMed and LOCATORplus. Once this is completed, BIOETHICSLINE, as a unified database, will be discontinued. The users of BIOETHICSLINE will no longer have access to this important and useful resource specifically targeted to the vocabulary and cross-disciplinary nature of the bioethics literature. As a scholar and student of bioethics, and as a trained and former reference librarian, I feel it is important to examine these changes and their consequences. There are good reasons to integrate BIOETHICSLINE into these other databases on the NLM Gateway, but I argue that, in addition this integration, BIOETHICSLINE should be continued as a distinct database.     

Christian Bioethics in a Western Europe after Christendom

Europe has taken on a new, post-Christian, if not a somewhatanti-Christian character. The tension between Western Europe'sever more secular present and its substantial Christian pastlies at the heart of Western Europe's current struggle to articulatea coherent cultural and moral identity. The result is that WesternEuropean mainline churches are themselves in the midst of anidentity crisis, thus compounding Western Europe's identitycrisis. Christian bioethics in Europe exists against the backdropof these profound cultural cross currents that define the Europeancondition, engender conflicts regarding the meaning of beingWestern European and being Christian, and bring the public significanceand role of Western European bioethics, especially Western EuropeanChristian bioethics, into question. The dominant culture ofthe public forum is post-Christian and post-traditional, althoughtraditional Christianity still asserts its voice. Denis Müllerin his paper has clarified the choice between a traditional-fundamentalistChristian Bioethics and a revisionist, progressive ChristianBioethics.     

The mettle of moral fundamentalism: a reply to Robert Baker

This article is a reply to Robert Baker's attempt to rebut moral fundamentalism, while grounding international bioethics in a form of contractarianism. Baker is mistaken in several of his interpretations of the alleged moral fundamentalism and findings of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments. He also misunderstands moral fundamentalism generally and wrongly categorizes it as morally bankrupt. His negotiated contract model is, in the final analysis, itself a form of the moral fundamentalism he declares bankrupt.     

Continuing the dialogue: a reply to Bernard Gert

Continuing the dialogue begun in the March 2006 issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, I suggest that Bernard Gert's response to my paper does not adequately address the criticisms I make of his theory's application to bioethics cases.     

`Watching' Medicine: Do Bioethicists Respect Patients' Privacy?

Agich has identified `watching' – the formal orinformal observation of the medical setting – as oneof the four main roles of the clinical bioethicist. By an analysis of a case study involving a bioethicsstudent who engaged in watching at an HIV/AIDS clinicas part of his training, I raise questions about theethical justification of watching. I argue that theinvasion of privacy that watching entails makes theactivity unacceptable unless the watcher has receivedprior consent from the patients who are beingobserved. I conclude that, even though it isimportant for bioethics students to understand thecomplexities of actual medical practice, watchingshould play a prominent role in bioethics educationonly if the privacy problems in it can be resolved.     

European Bioethics II--Disparate Hopes and Fears: An Introduction

This introduction supplies further bearing points for the conceptualmap, which the introduction to the previous issue on Europeanbioethics (2008/1) had provided for sorting out the variousdimension in which the essays collected in these issues resembleand differ from each other. Special attention is devoted tocommunication, as diverse Christianities attend to differentpurposes, problems, and opportunities for normatively engaging(persuading, influencing, ruling, opposing, and converting)their surrounding secularized cultures. These differences reflectincompatible ways of conceiving Christ's acts of healing, asthese provide a model for His disciples' bioethics. These differencesalso reflect diversely rationalist and noetic epistemologies.The subtext concerns the haunting question about the enduringsustainability of a specifically Christian bioethics in Europe.As Schotsmans opts for a Roman Catholicism that is not recognizedas such by his Magisterium, as Muller transforms Protestantisminto a religiously nonhostile laicity, as Messer and Silva daBarbosa hope for the prophetic impact of communal "cities onthe hill," and as the Orthodox pursue the conversion of WesternEurope in Greek, Russian, and Rumanian, ongoing Divine miraclespresent the most realistic hope.     

On the Structure of Bioethics as a Pragmatic Discipline

This article analyzes certain aspects of the structure of bioethics as a discipline. It begins by arguing that bioethics is an academic discipline of a pragmatic nature and then puts forward a classification of the main problems, issues, and concerns in bioethics, using this classification as a way to outline the limits and framework of the field. Pushing further, it contends that comprehensive treatment of any topic in bioethics requires that three normative dimensions (the ethical, the moral, and the political) be taken into account. It concludes that the classification of the issues and analysis of each issue's normative dimensions can provide valuable contributions toward understanding the sui generis structure of bioethics as a pragmatic discipline.     

Scholarship, consensus and advocacy: a comment on Cameron

While Cameron is right about the need for Christians to contribute more visibly to medical ethical debates, he is wrong in his analysis of bioethics. Marsha D.M. Fowler and Andrew Jameton find specific problems in several points of Cameron's argument, particularly where the Hippocratic Oath and patient autonomy are concerned.