There is tension in bioethics between two strains of pragmatism. The most prominent strain, following John Dewey, proposes a content-rich ethos of controlled, collective moral inquiry. A second strain, descending from Charles Peirce and Josiah Royce, favors an open-ended approach where diverging moral communities evolve without extensive inter-communal oversight. This essay defends the second strain. The Deweyan approach, I argue, exhibits a problematic quasi-foundationalist character insofar as it canonizes a dubious constellation of “liberal” political values and seeks to establish these values by interposing a consensus of moral experts where genuine inter-communal dialogue, and compromise, would be more fruitful. I hold that the alternative approach of Peirce and Royce is preferable, and truer to the fundamental commitments of classical American pragmatism. Recognizing the epistemic fallibility of various content-rich moral-political formulations, Peirce and Royce hope to cultivate and sustain moral inquiry by allowing each moral community (1) to generate and test its own moral system (as long as it does so peaceably) and (2) to freely make or refuse to make collaborative arrangements with other moral communities. This approach is illustrated in a brief discussion of the Oregon Medicaid Experiment.

Students' Meningitis Shots Should Be Required
Americans hate to be told what to do, but we hate losing our kids more.

by Arthur L. Caplan

Ensuring voting rights for the aging and mentally ill
At what point is someone too impaired to cast a ballot?
by Arthur L. Caplan

An Introduction to Bioethics
Scopes of the field and a brief history of bioethics
by Arthur L. Caplan, Glenn McGee

Economic Issues
Ethical issues in health care allocation and resources
by Arthur L. Caplan, Glenn McGee

Society vs. the Individual
Conflict posed by individual and society on issues such as assisted suicide and religious reasons
by Arthur L. Caplan, Glenn McGee

More Articles...

"Study ethics, NIH!"
Nov 19 (The Scientist) The government agency tasked with funding crucial life science research needs to focus more attention on ethical quandaries and nefarious business practices that often obscure the path from discovery to public benefit, says a strongly worded letter to Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), signed by more than 100 biomedical researchers, journal editors, and health care administrators in the US.

Medical Schools Quizzed on Ghostwriting
Nov 18 (New York Times) Senator Charles E. Grassley wrote to 10 top medical schools Tuesday to ask what they are doing about professors who put their names on ghostwritten articles in medical journals — and why that practice was any different from plagiarism by students.

When Bishops Meet
Nov 17 (Commonweal) The agenda of the November 16-19 General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops takes up a number of hotly contested issues, including a pastoral letter on marriage and revised ethical guidelines regarding the medical provision of hydration and nutrition to patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).

AMA: Government policies hazardous to gay health
Nov 11 (Houston Chronicle) Weighing in on two contentious gay-rights issues, the nation's largest group of doctors sent the message Tuesday that government policy is hazardous to homosexuals' health.

Biometrics: Enhancing Security or Invading Privacy?
Nov 10 (Tech Central) The Irish Council for Bioethics (ICB) has launched its report entitled "Biometrics: Enhancing Security or Invading Privacy?" The report advises that these technologies, though powerful, must be used appropriately to avoid resentment and paranoia among users.

More News...