Ortiz-Millán Gustavo
Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Coyoacán, Mexico City, Mexico.
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2024 Mar 11:1-15. doi: 10.1017/S0963180124000161.
This article aims at raising awareness about the intersection of populism and bioethics. It argues that illiberal forms of populism may have negative consequences on the evolution of bioethics as a discipline and on its practical objectives. It identifies at least seven potential negative effects: (1) The rise of populist leaders fosters "epistemological populism," devaluing the expert and scientific perspectives on which bioethics is usually based, potentially steering policies away from evidence-based foundations. (2) The impact of "moral populism" is evident in legislative prioritization of the "morality of common people," often solicited through popular consultations on issues like abortion, drug legalization, or LGBT issues. (3) Populist distrust in autonomous governmental agencies and advisory bodies, including national bioethics commissions, can compromise expert advice, challenging both their authority and decisions. (4) Populists may erode transparency by undermining institutions responsible for it, hindering access to vital information for bioethical research. (5) "Medical populism" creates adversarial dynamics, prompting politicians to make simplistic healthcare policy decisions based on political rather than informed criteria, adversely affecting vulnerable populations. (6) Radical-right populist parties' "welfare chauvinism" may shape healthcare policies, impacting service access and resource allocation, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as migrants, but indirectly affecting the rest of the population. (7) Nationalist sentiments associated with populism may obstruct international collaborations, posing challenges for global bioethics that seeks to address ethical concerns beyond national borders. In summary, these dynamics raise significant bioethical concerns encompassing evidence-based decision-making, transparency, healthcare equity, and global collaboration. How bioethicists may respond to these challenges is discussed.
本文旨在提高人们对民粹主义与生物伦理学交叉领域的认识。文章认为,非自由形式的民粹主义可能会对生物伦理学作为一门学科的发展及其实际目标产生负面影响。它至少指出了七种潜在的负面影响:(1)民粹主义领导人的崛起助长了“认识论民粹主义”,贬低了生物伦理学通常所基于的专家和科学观点,有可能使政策偏离基于证据的基础。(2)“道德民粹主义”的影响在将“普通人的道德”列为立法优先事项方面很明显,这通常是通过就堕胎、毒品合法化或 LGBT 问题等进行公众咨询来征求意见的。(3)民粹主义对包括国家生物伦理委员会在内的自主政府机构和咨询机构的不信任,可能会损害专家建议,挑战其权威和决策。(4)民粹主义者可能会破坏负责透明度的机构,从而削弱透明度,阻碍获取生物伦理研究所需的重要信息。(5)“医疗民粹主义”制造对抗性动态,促使政治家基于政治而非明智标准做出简单化的医疗保健政策决策,对弱势群体产生不利影响。(6)极右翼民粹主义政党的“福利沙文主义”可能会塑造医疗保健政策,影响服务获取和资源分配,对移民等弱势群体产生不成比例的影响,但也会间接影响其他人群。(7)与民粹主义相关的民族主义情绪可能会阻碍国际合作,给试图解决超越国界的伦理问题的全球生物伦理学带来挑战。总之,这些动态引发了重大的生物伦理问题,包括基于证据的决策、透明度、医疗保健公平性和全球合作。文中还讨论了生物伦理学家可能如何应对这些挑战。