Department of Philosophy, St. Edward's University, 3001 S. Congress Ave., Austin, TX, USA.
HEC Forum. 2022 Jun;34(2):103-114. doi: 10.1007/s10730-022-09482-y. Epub 2022 May 23.
Bioethicists often remind health care professionals to pay close attention to issues of diversity and inclusion. Approaches to ethics consultation, where the perspective of the bioethicist is taken to be more morally correct or necessarily authoritative, have been critiqued as inappropriately authoritarian. Despite such apparent recognition of the importance of respecting moral diversity and the inclusion of different viewpoints, authoritarianism is all too often the approach adopted, especially as bioethics has shifted evermore into concerns for public policy. Yet, secular values and philosophical principles are not morally neutral; nor are the private moral convictions of bioethicists. Such analysis is always grounded in particular understandings of the right and the good, the virtuous and the just. Critical examination of common treatments and new alternatives is essential for the careful scientific practice of medicine. The same is true with regard to bioethics. Stagnating in customary or accepted claims of a common secular morality or a standard set of bioethical principles out of an unwillingness to explore the real diversity of moral thought, including traditional religious and cultural worldviews, fails to tap the human capacity to find innovative solutions to the complex challenges facing medicine.
生物伦理学家经常提醒医疗保健专业人员密切关注多样性和包容性问题。伦理咨询方法认为生物伦理学家的观点在道德上更为正确或具有权威性,这种方法已受到批评,被认为是不适当的专制主义。尽管人们显然认识到尊重道德多样性和纳入不同观点的重要性,但专制主义往往是采取的方法,尤其是当生物伦理学越来越关注公共政策时。然而,世俗价值观和哲学原则在道德上并非中立;生物伦理学家的私人道德信念也是如此。这种分析总是基于对正确和正义、美德和公正的特定理解。批判性地审查常见的治疗方法和新的替代方法对于医学的谨慎科学实践至关重要。生物伦理学也是如此。由于不愿意探索道德思想的真正多样性,包括传统的宗教和文化世界观,而停留在对共同的世俗道德或一套标准的生物伦理原则的习惯或公认的主张上,未能挖掘出人类创新解决医学面临的复杂挑战的能力。