After the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people died, America has been convulsed with arguments about gun control. Where is the input from bioethicists, asks Craig Klugman, of DePaul University.
Although gun-related violence is a major public health issue in the United States, Klugman complains that bioethicists have shown little interest in it. He searched PubMed for “bioethics” plus “gun,” “firearm,” violence,” or “control” and found only handful of articles and blog posts.
Bioethics is supposed to be the great facilitator of moral discourse on issues of health in the modern era. After all, we came into being as activists to bring autonomy into medical decision-making, to bring to light wrongs in human subjects research, and to help people make difficult health care decisions, usually difficult because of the existence of a new technology. Bioethics has taken a public role, applying ethical analysis and discussion on issues in the public arena in such areas as human subjects research, stem cells, cloning, neuroscience, Ebola, secondary findings, genome sequencing, synthetic biology, abortion and much more.
Our expertise is in facilitating difficult conversations and moral deliberations. We can provide strong ethical analysis, engage in debate and conversation, weigh arguments, and help create consensus. These are valuable tools in the hospital and they are valuable tools in the public.
While bioethics has been criticized for shying away from issues of public health and social justice, the discourse on firearms is near silent. It is time for that silence to end.
This article is published by
and BioEdge 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.