Political Bioethics. Issue 4 (4th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gregg, Benjamin
• Is Part Of: Journal of medicine and philosophy. Volume 47:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 516
• Page End: 529
• Publication Date: 2022-05-04
• Subjects: deliberative democracy -- expert committees -- germline gene editing -- politics in bioethics -- proceduralism -- thick and thin norms; Medicine -- Philosophy -- Periodicals; Medical ethics -- Periodicals; Ethics, Medical -- Periodicals; Philosophy, Medical -- Periodicals; 616.001
• DOI: 10.1093/jmp/jhac008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0360-5310

Abstract

Abstract: If bioethical questions cannot be resolved in a widely acceptable manner by rational argument, and if they can be regulated only on the basis of political decision-making, then bioethics belongs to the political sphere. The particular kind of politics practiced in any given society matters greatly: it will determine the kind of bioethical regulation, legislation, and public policy generated there. I propose approaching bioethical questions politically in terms of decisions that cannot be "correct" but that can be "procedurally legitimate." Two procedures in particular can deliver legitimate bioethical decisions, once combined: expert bioethics committees and deliberative democracy. Bioethics so understood can exceed bioethics as a moral project or as a set of administrative principles to regulate medical practice; it can now aspire to a democratic project that involves ordinary citizens as far as reasonably possible. I advance this argument in four steps: (1) using the example of human germline gene editing, (2) I propose a general understanding of proceduralism, and (3) then combine two types and (4) conclude with a defense of majoritarian proceduralism. I develop this argument in terms of one example: germline gene editing.