March
19
 

Fallout continues from infanticide article

The fallout from the “after-birth abortion” article in the Journal of Medical Ethics continues. Writing in an influential conservative American magazine, The Weekly Standard, senior editor Andrew Ferguson says:

“On the list of the world’s most unnecessary occupations—aromatherapist, golf pro, journalism professor, vice president of the United States--that of medical ethicist ranks very high. They are happily employed by pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and other outposts of the vast medical-industrial combine, where their job is to advise the boss to go ahead and do what he was going to do anyway (“Put it on the market!” “Pull the plug on the geezer!”). They also attend conferences where they take turns sitting on panels talking with one another and then sitting in the audience watching panels of other medical ethicists talking with one another. Their professional specialty is the “thought experiment,” which is the best kind of experiment because you don’t have to buy test tubes or leave the office. And sometimes they get jobs at universities, teaching other people to become ethicists. It is a cozy, happy world they live in.”

In many respects Ferguson is quite unfair. He tars all bioethicists with the utilitarian brush wielded by the authors of the article, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva. But it seems clear that immense damage may have been done by the global publicity given to the infanticide article.

Wesley J. Smith, of Secondhand Smoke, a widely-read bioethics blog, lamented the decline in the prestige of bioethics even though he has often been highly critical of some of its practitioners. “Bioethicists could have been contenders. They could have led the country into finding ways to deal with the new difficulties of high tech medicine and resource scarcity without sacrificing the Hippocratic values that patients count on as their protection.”

He reminded readers that:

“The pioneers in the field were very serious men and women who set out to do an honorable thing, that is, work through the difficulties attendant to a medical world of high tech medicine.  Thus men like the late Paul Ramsey, Daniel Callahan, Gilbert Meilander, Leon Kass, H. Tristram Engelhardt, Art Caplan, Al Jonson, and others–some of whom I agree with and some of whom I don’t, and some of whom are my friends–were at least morally serious and dedicated to improving the human condition. Bioethics can be credited, for example, for ensuring that people could say no to unwanted life-sustaining treatment because, as Ramsey noted, that is treating the patient as a person–in the rightful use of the term.”

Unfortunately, the notoriety of “After-birth Abortion: Why should the baby live?” threatens to bring the whole profession into disrepute. If a conservative occupies the White House next year, it could even affect the composition of the presidential bioethics commission and government attitudes towards advice offered by bioethicists.



This article is published by Michael Cook and BioEdge.org under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

comments powered by Disqus
 

 Search BioEdge

 Subscribe to BioEdge newsletter
rss Subscribe to BioEdge RSS feed

 Best of the web

 Recent Posts
Mexico, the new surrogacy hotspot
28 Sep 2014
Genetic testing backfires
28 Sep 2014
When doctors suffer from VIP syndrome
28 Sep 2014
US doctors update gamete donation guidelines
28 Sep 2014
Debate over history of US Christian bioethics
27 Sep 2014