Chapter

Task Clarification, Saying “No,” and Making the Argument for Jurisdiction

John H. Evans

in The History and Future of Bioethics

Published in print December 2011 | ISBN: 9780199860852
Published online September 2012 | e-ISBN: 9780199932474 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199860852.003.0005
Task Clarification, Saying “No,” and Making the Argument for Jurisdiction

Show Summary Details

Preview

This chapter further clarifies the jurisdictions of the bioethics profession by showing that the profession actually has a subsidiary jurisdiction to science and medicine in the research bioethics, health care ethics consultation and public policy bioethics jurisdictions. In research bioethics and health care ethics consultation the profession has the metaphorical role of the watchdog for the values and ethics of science and medicine. While this subordinate jurisdiction is healthy for these two jurisdictions, in damages the standing of bioethicists in the public policy bioethics jurisdiction, as it limits the ability of the profession to say “no” to any new technological innovation. The second half of the chapter shows how the profession has never made a clear case for why it should have jurisdiction over public policy bioethics, and argue that the strongest case could be made by arguing for a modified form of common morality principlism.

Keywords: bioethics; public policy bioethics; research bioethics; health care ethics consultation; science; democratic legitimation

Chapter.  9026 words. 

Subjects: Moral Philosophy

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Buy this work at Oxford University Press »

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.