Hastings Center Report.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2017 May;47 Suppl 1(Suppl Suppl 1):S2-S3. doi: 10.1002/hast.709.
I once heard John Arras, who was one of bioethics' bright lights and, toward the end of his life, a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, remark that it is hard for an ethics commission not to "do paint-by-numbers ethics." What I think Arras had in mind is an approach that, in the set of essays that make up this special report, Rebecca Dresser describes as a listing of "general, often relatively uncontroversial" moral positions to support largely procedural recommendations. Arras was calling attention to one of the challenges and sometimes frustrations of commission thinking. It is a recurring topic in this special report, Goals and Practices of Public Bioethics, which features a series of reflections about how national bioethics commissions around the world have contributed to public understanding and public policy about bioethical issues. Both the topic and the authors are drawn from the final two public meetings of the PCSBI, which was the most recent U.S. example of a national bioethics commission and whose winding down created an occasion for pondering the different forms and functions of bioethics commissions.
我曾听过约翰·阿拉斯(John Arras)的一番言论,他是生命伦理学领域的一颗璀璨明星,也是总统生物伦理问题委员会(Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues)的成员之一。他在生命的最后阶段表示,伦理委员会很难避免“做按部就班的伦理工作”。我认为,阿拉斯所指的是一种方法,这种方法在构成这份特别报告的一系列文章中,被丽贝卡·德雷瑟(Rebecca Dresser)描述为列出“通常相对无争议的一般性道德立场”,以支持主要的程序性建议。阿拉斯提请人们注意委员会思考的挑战之一,有时还会感到沮丧。这是本特别报告“公共生物伦理学的目标与实践”的一个反复出现的主题,该报告的特色是对世界各地的国家生物伦理委员会如何为公众对生物伦理问题的理解和公共政策做出贡献进行了一系列反思。该主题和作者都来自 PCSBI 的最后两次公开会议,该委员会是美国最近的国家生物伦理委员会的范例,其解散为思考生物伦理委员会的不同形式和功能提供了一个契机。