In 2022, the Research Center for Islamic Legislation & Ethics (CILE) and the World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) submitted a proposal to host the 17th edition of the World Congress of Bioethics. After announcing that the CILE‐WISH proposal was the winning bid, concerns were raised by bioethicists based in Europe and the USA. To address these concerns, the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) developed a dedicated FAQ section, in coordination with the host institutions, for the first time (...) in IAB history. One‐to‐one communication ensued and individual responses were shared with these colleagues. As a continuation of this conversation, we (CILE Acting Director, WISH Research Fellow and Head of Content, and WISH CEO) address the concerns raised in the Letter‐to‐the‐Editor of Bioethics by Graaf et al. As we support the call to revisit some contentious issues within the global community of bioethicists, we maintain that this should be based on meticulously discussed, informed, consistent and equitable criteria. We also argue that mutual learning from diverse cultures and moral traditions is the optimal way for our scholarly community to be truly global and to eschew the flaws ensuing from ethnocentric discourses. (shrink)

The upcoming World Congress of Bioethics (WCB) will take place in Qatar in 2024. In response to criticism regarding this location, The international Association of Bioethics (IAB) board members exp...

Bioethics, Volume 36, Issue 5, Page 479-481, June 2022.

This paper opens a critical conversation about the ethics of international bioethics conferencing and proposes principles that commit to being anti-discriminatory, global, and inclusive. We launch this conversation in the Section, Case Study, with a case example involving the International Association of Bioethics’ (IAB’s) selection of Qatar to host the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics. IAB’s choice of Qatar sparked controversy. We believe it also may reveal deeper issues of Islamophobia in bioethics. The Section, Principles for (...) International Bioethics Conferencing, sets forth and defends proposed principles for international bioethics conferencing. The Section, Applying Principles to Site Selection applies the proposed principles to the case example. The Section, Applying Principles Beyond Site Selection addresses other applications of the proposed principles. The Section, Objections responds to objections. We close (in the Section, Conclusion) by calling for a wider discussion of our proposed principles.One-Sentence Capsule Summary: How should bioethicists navigate the ethics of global bioethics conferencing? (shrink)

In a commentary published in Bioethics I defended Qatar as the location of the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics (Schuklenk 2023). I have since, reluctantly, changed my views on this.This brief resp...

Philosophers should be wary of using the methods they use in philosophy when engaging in discussions about policy makingThe beginning of November last year was a busy time in the bioethics calendar with four conferences taking place in New Zealand and Australia. The Fifth International Conference on Priorities in Health Care took place in Wellington; the Fifth Feminist Approaches to Bioethics congress, the Seventh World Congress of Bioethics, and the meeting of the Australasian Bioethics Association were (...) all in Sydney.One of the interesting features of these meetings was a move to a deeper exploration of the relations between ethics and political theory and political philosophy. The factors that drive this exploration are manifold but the four most important seem to be: 1) that ethicists often comment on, or propose political action and regulation; 2) that there is a growing awareness that the basic national and international societal and legal structures profoundly influences ethical issues; 3) the growing interest in global and third world issues, and 4) the move in many countries toward greater public participation in decision making concerning ethically contentious issues. All of these developments move the focus from the traditional subject matter of medical ethics—that is, the individual ethically charged action, to the question of how ethics should influence political action and regulation.To …. (shrink)

Historically, the preconditions for the emergence of bioethics in China. were political reforms and their applications. The Hanzhong Euthanasia Case and the publication of Qiu Ren-zong's academic work Bioethics played a significant role in the development of bioethics in China. Other contributory factors include the establishment of the Chinese Society of Medical Ethics/Chinese Medical Association (C.M.A), the publication of the Journal of Chinese Medical Ethics, and the teaching and education of bioethics in China. Major achievements of (...) bioethics in China include the establishment of ethics committee and ethics review system, active international communication and cooperation among the academic circles, and the successful management of the 8th World Congress of Bioethics in Beijing in 2006. Chinese bioethics focus on native Chinese realities and conditions, absorb the international research achievements in relevant fields, and combine international ideas with traditional Chinese doctrines. Admittedly, there are still some aspects to be improved, yet bioethics has attracted a lot of attention from the core leadership in China and has gained sound financial support, which augers well for its further development. This article also briefly introduces the development of bioethics in Hong Kong and Taiwan, China. (shrink)

Some of my colleagues will sadly not be attending the IAB World Congress in Qatar. Amongst other things, they wish to take a stand against Qatar’s human rights record and the treatment of women and...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Clinical Bioethics at NIH:History and A New VisionJohn C. Fletcher (bio)On July 3, 1995, Dr. John I. Gallin, Director of the Magnuson Clinical Center of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), convened a one-day "Conference on the Future of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health Intramural Program." Conferees included NIH officials and a panel of consultants from bioethics programs around the nation.1 The subject (...) was the future of NIH's intramural bioethics program and specifically a vision of a new multi-component program, presented by Dr. Gallin, the first speaker. Dr. Harold Varmus, Director of NIH, was there to assure his support for Dr. Gallin's vision. This author, honored to be second speaker, was invited to sketch a brief history of bioethics at NIH. The present article reviews some of this history and then reports on Dr. Gallin's proposal, points of consensus among speakers and conferees, and the search for a Chief of the Clinical Bioethics Program.History of Bioethics at NIHIt is often said that NIH is a well-kept secret as the nation's leading biomedical research facility. Also, few people know that NIH has a long history in bioethics. Some key events in that history are shown in Figure 1, beginning with two that occurred prior to the birth of bioethics. NIH made an early policy response to protect human subjects of research and to find acceptable limits for scientific freedom. The Clinical Center (CC), a 550-bed research hospital, opened in 1953. A subcommittee of the Medical Board, the Clinical Research Committee (CRC), was formed for prior group review of all studies with normal volunteers. The traditional practice was for researchers themselves to decide when studies would begin, which subjects to recruit, and whether informed consent would be sought. The CRC intervention bit into this tradition. In addition, patient studies that posed significant risks or departed widely from medical practice were reviewed by referral from the Clinical Directors of the various Institutes. Was this CRC an early institutional review [End Page 355] board (IRB)? As a guest researcher, I was permitted to observe the CRCs meetings between 1966 and 1969. It functioned much like an IRB but had no community or non-scientist members. Other IRB-like review groups undoubtedly existed prior to the CRC. Robert Levine (personal communication, September 7, 1995) recalls that Beth Israel Hospital in Boston had one in 1938. Historical research is clearly needed on the earliest forms of research review.Table 1. Bioethics at NIHEventYearClinical Research Committee1953Surgeon-General's PPO #1291966NIGMS funds Hastings Genetics Group1973OPRR's Mission1974NLM's grant to KennedyInstitute for Bibliography of Bioethics1974Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee1974STEP Series Bioethics Speakers1975Pre-IRBs at the CC1975-76Assistant for Bioethics to Director, CC1977RAC-Human Gene Therapy Subcommittee1983Lipsett Proposal (ICD)1983Liaison Group, CC1983Bioethics Program, CC1985Durable Power of Attorney for Researchwith Incapacitated Subjects1985-86NLM funds National Reference Centerfor Bioethics Literature1985National Institute for Nursing Research1986Bioethics Post-Doctoral Fellows Program1989ELSI Program1989Bioethicists on CC-IRBs1989CC-Ethics Committee1990Office of Human Subjects Research1992 [End Page 356]Between 1963 and 1967, the media exposed instances of ethically troubling research, and Beecher (1966) and Pappworth (1967) published sharp criticisms of the weak state of research ethics. In 1966, Surgeon-General William Stewart and NIH Director James Shannon issued a policy requiring local group review of all research involving human subjects before making an application for NIH peer review (Surgeon General 1966). The policy was the first in any nation to mandate ethics committees for clinical research. However, it did not apply to the NIH intramural program until Congress passed the National Research Act in 1974 (Public Law 93-348; 202, 88 Stat. 342, 1974). This lag permitted NIH intramural investigators the luxury of feeling above the norms imposed on ordinary mortals and guaranteed more resistance to the inevitable change to come. Resistance to change marked the intramural program from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s... (shrink)

In 2022, the International Association of Bioethics (IAB) announced that the 17th World Congress of Bioethics would be held in Doha, Qatar. In response to ethical concerns expressed about the Qatar selection, the IAB Board of Directors developed and posted to the IAB website a response using a Q&A format. In this Letter, we (the IAB President and Vice President) address concerns about the ethics of bioethics conferencing raised in a 2023 Letter to the Editor of (...) class='Hi'>Bioethics by Van der Graaf et al. We do not represent the Board of Directors, and this Letter expresses solely our own views. (shrink)

Jecker et al. (2024) propose seven ethical principles to guide international bioethics conferencing, applying them to the selection of Qatar as the location for the 2024 World Congress of Bioethics...

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Another Bioethics Commission?Renie Schapiro (bio)Ever Since the Ill-Fated Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee (BEAC) ended almost before it began a few years ago, bioethicists and the members of Congress who take an interest in them have wondered whether a governmental commission is still a feasible way to address bioethics issues.The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the 1970s, and the (...) President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research in the early 1980s, have generally received high marks for their work. But since the expiration of the President's Commission in 1983, no federal body has been able to sustain the momentum.Tempers around the abortion issue couldn't be tamed enough even to elect a board chairman for the BEAC, or for the body to begin studying the issues. From its inception, abortion politics threatened to dog its work.Both the National Commission and the President's Commission studied issues touching on the abortion question. The President's Commission reported on genetic screening. The National Commission looked at fetal research. Both were able to produce respected reports that largely steered clear of the abortion acrimony.But that was then. The question facing policy makers inside the Beltway is how we can learn from the past experiences to make some new body work now. The question extends far beyond the abortion issue, of course.When certain people in Washington start asking questions, the answer usually comes by way of a study. Sometimes, as in this case, more than one study.In the March 1992 issue, this Journal reported on an Institute of Medicine study on ethics commissions. That study is still underway. It is scheduled to be completed in January 1994.More recently, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an arm of Congress, also took on the issue. The OTA project is intended to be a quicker, more confined study. It began last fall and a final report is expected later this month.The primary force behind the OTA study is Senator Mark Hatfield. In a September 8, 1992 letter, co-signed by Senators Edward Kennedy and Dennis DeConcini, he asked OTA to prepare a background report to assist Congress in [End Page 77] "determining what is the best approach to explaining policy problems with biomedical and ethical dimensions."The letter noted: "As the 21st Century approaches, Congress will face policy dilemmas for which an informed decision can only be made through understanding not just the legal or economic dimensions of the questions, but the ethical considerations as well."Hatfield's interest in bioethics issues over the past few years has centered largely on biotechnology, and particularly patent rights. He had planned to introduce legislation to put a moratorium on patenting of genetically altered organisms, which according to Hatfield staffer Douglas Pahl caused a "firestorm" in the biotechnology community.As a result, Kennedy and DeConcini said they would hold hearings on the issue if Hatfield would withdraw the amendment. The three agreed to request a short-term OTA report on possible governmental structures for dealing with bioethics issues and a longer report looking at patenting issues.In their letter, the three senators asked OTA to prepare a history of bioethics in public policy. Referring specifically to the past commissions, they asked, "What lessons can we learn from each of these—or similar—entities? What worked, or did not work, and why?" The request also asked OTA to examine international institutions.In response to the request, OTA held a workshop entitled "Biomedical Ethics in U.S. Public Policy" on December 4, 1992. It brought together 15 people who had participated in commissions—from local to international—as well as observers of these bodies and health professionals who used their products.1According to project director Robyn Nishimi, the workshop was meant to be a free-wheeling discussion. Although there was no total consensus, the focus of the discussion tended to be on how to make a commission function effectively, rather than on whether there should be one. That workshop will be part of a report of about 40-60 pages OTA hopes to... (shrink)

The monograph includes works of specialists and scientists - active members of the bioethical movement In Ukraine, and regular participants in national congresses on bioethics in Kyiv for the last 20 years. Over the years, bioethics has become widely used our lives It is evidenced, in particular, by the list of topics that are presented in the collective monographs, namely: philosophical and philosophical aspects of bioethics and dissemination bioethical norms and rules in various spheres of human (...) activity. Most articles include both theoretical aspects of bioethics and examples of practical application of bioethical principles. The book is intended for scientists, doctors, philosophers, jurists, teachers and students of higher educational institutions, as well as a wide range of readers who are interested in bioethical issues. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:An Egg Takes Flight: The Once and Future Life of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission*Alexander Morgan Capron (bio)Attempting to describe the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) is comparable to the surreal feat performed by the artist in a famous painting by René Magritte. The artist (Magritte himself) sits with his back to the viewer, a palette in his left hand. The brush in his right hand is (...) raised to a canvas, blank except for a bird in flight that he is in the process of painting. The artist is looking to his left at a tabletop, bare except for a single, plain egg.Having held its second formal meeting in mid-January, NBAC is certainly still embryonic, its future mysterious within its shell. Yet answers to four major questions that will determine not just what kind of bird the Commission turns out to be but the heights to which it will fly should be evident by April or May 1997. First, will the White House take the sort of interest in NBAC that is needed if it is to succeed? Second, will the Commission’s term be extended beyond October 1997—and will the decision come early enough to allow it to start soon on projects that will take more than a single year to complete? Third, will the Commission take a broad view of the issues it addresses, reexamining widely accepted assumptions and going back to basic premises, or will it respond primarily in bureaucratic terms, guided by its charter’s focus on improving the policies and practices of federal departments and agencies? Fourth, will the Commission move beyond its initially mandated topics—the rights and welfare of human research subjects and the management and use of genetic information—and become what its name promises, the nation’s advisory body on the full range of bioethical issues that arise in the organization and management of health services and research?The Origins of the Egg: NBAC’s PredecessorsThe creation of a national bioethics commission has been demanded for years, at the least since its most recent predecessor, the Biomedical Ethics [End Page 63] Advisory Committee (BEAC) finally expired in 1990. BEAC’s statutory authority lapsed after the hapless committee had spent several years itself like an in vitro embryo in a vat of liquid nitrogen. BEAC’s opponents in Congress froze its appropriation and forbad it to meet until the Biomedical Ethics Board of six senators and six representatives to which it was supposed to report resolved the chaos resulting from the Board members’ ideological differences and personal distrust; this never occurred, and the Board proved unable even to choose its chairman. 1 BEAC, which met only twice, had laid preliminary plans to study the issues raised by the new genetics, but the politics of abortion—which had greatly complicated and slowed the Board’s naming of the BEAC members—was strong enough to interfere even with the topic of genetics, on which the difference among committee members actually gave no sign of dividing on pro-life/pro-choice grounds.The disappearance of BEAC left the nation without a mechanism for “public bioethics,” and several efforts were undertaken in the early 1990s to generate a new commission that could carry on in the tradition of the two previous, successful bioethics commissions. (The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research operated under a Congressional mandate in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from 1974 to 1978, and the President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which had been authorized by Congress in 1978, actually operated as an independent body with government-wide purview from January 1980 to March 1983.) The Institute of Medicine established a committee to assess the mechanisms available not only to the federal government but also to states, professional bodies, and the public for deliberating about and resolving ethical issues stemming from developments in biomedicine (Bulger, Bobby, and Fineberg 1995). In September 1992, Senators Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR), Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), and Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ) requested that the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) evaluate the... (shrink)

Globalizing Feminist Bioethics is a collection of new essays on the topic of international bioethics that developed out of the Third World Congress of the International Association of Bioethics in 1996. Rosemarie Tong is the primary editor of this collection, in which she, Gwen Anderson, and Aida Santos look at such international issues as female genital cutting, fatal daughter syndrome, use of reproductive technologies, male responsibility, pediatrics, breast cancer, pregnancy, and drug testing.

Severally, issues in bioethics generate tensions on the ground that, while life is generally accepted to be valuable, the basis for this value is not often universally acceptable to all people. As result of this, theories of life and the basis, on which life should be found as valuable, often hinge differently on religion, morality, culture, customs etc., and are reliable only to the extent that they do not disagree or contradict one’s own standpoint as anchored on any of (...) these. In this wise then, religion, culture or customs strongly provide the grounds on which literatures on bioethics flourish. In this paper I intend to locate a fresh basis on which alternative theories of bioethics from the African worldview could be explored; one which will improve the literature on bioethics as well as diversify the ethical basis for life and, thereby, mediate in the tensions that define bioethical principles. I shall do this through an analysis of the important essay of the South African philosopher Thaddeus Metz “African and Western theories in a bioethical context”. Through a critical study of this essay and by providing the insight it offers on bioethics, I shall demonstrate how this theory provides positions that strongly suggest alternative but valuable basis for bioethical principles, anchored on African worldview and its theoretical and practical potentials in promoting the growth of literature on bioethics. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:President’s Council on BioethicsEdmund D. Pellegrino (bio) and F. Daniel Davis (bio)Approximately two weeks before what was to have been its final meeting, the White House dissolved the President’s Council on Bioethics by terminating the appointments of its 18 members. The letters of dismissal, dated 10 June 2009, informed the members that their service on the Council would end with the close of business the next day.The Council’s (...) term was set to expire on 30 September 2009. After President Obama’s election in November and during the transition, we were advised to proceed on the assumption that the Council would be permitted to cease on that date. Reasons for the abrupt move to disband the Council are unknown. We have accepted the fact that we Council members served at the pleasure of the President and that he simply exercised his rightful prerogative. No explanation is therefore required.Some observers have speculated that the action was retaliatory. They related to the fact that several members of the Council disagreed with the President’s stem cell policy in a signed statement published in the Hastings Center’s Bioethics Forum. Others have speculated that the move was pre-emptive. At its final meeting, scheduled for 25–26 June, the Council was set to sign-off on two of its final publications. One was a comprehensive report on the ethics of organ transplantation, and the other a white paper entitled Health Care and the Common Good. The aim was immediately to release the latter as a contribution to the intensifying debate about health care reform. Health Care and the Common Good could well have aided rather than impeded the President’s drive to better control health care costs and achieve universal coverage. The Council report attempted to ground both goals in the ethical framework of, as the title indicates, the common good of all Americans.In his letter terminating the members’ appointments, Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel Don Gips said that the President “recognizes the values of having a commission of experts in bioethical issues to provide objective and non-ideological bioethics advice to his administration.” Gips went on to say that the President is “currently rethinking the purposes and goals of such a bioethics commission, and is carefully considering a revitalized mission and mandate.” And, [End Page 309] responding to media enquiries, White House press officer Reid Cherlin explained that the President’s Council was terminated because it was a “philosophically leaning advisory group” and, according to a New York Times account by Nicholas Wade, “because it favored discussion over developing a shared consensus.” As for the ultimate outcome of the President’s “rethinking,” Cherlin indicated that President Obama will appoint a new commission with the mandate of offering “practical policy options” in bioethics.In the light of our experiences with the Council, we leave it with hopes that certain questions of national importance will be addressed. In light of the nature of federal advisory commissions, what is or are the proper roles of a national bioethics commission? If the aim is to provide advice and counsel to the President or, perhaps to the U. S. Congress, is that advice best rendered as a group consensus or as an in-depth exploration of the inevitably conflicting ethical perspectives on a given issue? How should such a commission be constituted—with what sorts of individuals? And what is the nature of the expertise that they individually and collectively bring to the commission’s functions? If the commission is to promote public debate and discussion, how exactly should it go about that task? And how is the efficacy of a commission to be assessed? Such questions inevitably lead us deep into contested territory, as the experience of this Council has shown: into the intersections of politics, religion, and science and into the relations between practice and theory—between policy and what some seem to deride as “philosophy.” Indeed, policy without an underlying philosophy is an edifice without a foundation; philosophy without policy is a foundation without an edifice.At the last meeting of the Council in March 2009, we launched a discussion of these questions with the... (shrink)

The advance of medical and biological science and technology has presented us with new ethical and legal issues. Is embryonic stem cell research morally justified and legally allowed? What moral status do embryos have? Who can be a morally appropriate user of In Vitro fertilization? Who can use donated sperm and/or egg? What is the scope of reproductive liberty?” What is the meaning of a family and that of reproduction? How far does our genetic intervention go?”Scientists, lawyers, and laymen are (...) waiting for clear answers from philosophers. Unfortunately, philosophers have not seemed to give satisfactory answers to them. We may have various reasons. One of main reasons, however, seems to me that the above philosophical questions have not been the main research topics for philosophers since philosophy gave up metaphysical and/or religious questions. Thus, I argue that biomedical ethical issues urge philosophers tochange the philosopher’s attitude of doing philosophy. Those issues make them consider and rethink our fundamental concepts of life, death, family, and values pursued by human beings. In addition, it is easy to find conflicting ethical and philosophical answers to the above questions. Thus, it is very hard to reach consensus on the above ethical issues. This makes philosophers consider how we make a group decision over ethical issues showing conflicting but reasonable ethical answers in a plural society. This requires philosophers, especially scholars of ethics, develop a new ethics and its relevant concepts. This ethics must be able to work in a plural society where reasonable comprehensive belief systems coexist. In these respects, I argue that bioethics has to struggle with a newchallenge to philosophy. (shrink)

Since their initial authorization by Congress in 1985, the Bio‐medical Ethics Board and its advisory body, the Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee, have led a precarious and often politically troubled existence. Today, they are poised to take up their mandate to examine “the ethical, social, and legal implications of advances in biomedical research and technology.”.

The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, of which I was a member, was established by a 1995 executive order that identified its “first priority” as “the protection of the rights and welfare of human research subjects.” Not surprisingly, then, most of NBAC's work focused on research involving human subjects or participants. A second priority concerned “issues in the management and use of genetics information, including but not limited to, human gene patenting.” NBAC's charter (in contrast to the executive order) listed (...) this charge as “part B” of the “first priority.” Nonetheless, NBAC never fully developed it. In addition to responding to requests and recommendations from the National Science and Technology Council, NBAC could accept suggestions from Congress and the public for bioethical issues it should consider, and it could also identify other issues to consider and set priorities among them. From its first meeting on October 4, 1996, until its charter expired on October 3, 2001, NBAC produced six reports, with 120 recommendations. In this essay, I make a few observations about principles and moral reasoning in NBAC's deliberations and about NBAC's attention to religious beliefs in the context of two bioethical controversies, provide a rough evaluation of NBAC's impact, and consider three possible models for future public bioethics directed at federal public policy. (shrink)

This work presents the diverse fields of expertize, various viewpoints, ideas and rich experiences in this field. This collection stresses on importance of the perception of Gift of Life in a Pluralistic Society .

This paper describes and discusses overlapping interests and concerns of art and bioethics and suggests that bioethics would benefit from opening to contributions from the arts. There is a description of recent events in bioethics that have included art, and trends in art that relate to bioethics. The paper outlines art exhibits and performances within two major international bioethics congress programs alongside a discussion of the work of leading hybrid and bio artists who experiment with (...) material (including their own bodies) at the ambiguous intersections between art, bio art and bioethics. Their work seeks to engage audiences in challenging ethical precepts and assumptions about life and existence. We consider the response of art and social theorists and compare these with the responses of bioethicists to comparable cases in bioethics. We note divergent views within the arts and within bioethics in relation to some pivotal questions including questions about what limits, if any, can apply in particular cases and on what basis. This approach allows for a transfer of information and perspectives, challenges assumptions in both art and bioethics and opens up a space for future exchange and dialogue along the shifting borders between these genres. (shrink)

The idea of integrative bioethics undoubtedly represents both an intellectual product of the region of Southeast Europe and a certain novum, most certainly when it comes to the theoretical and practical limits of bioethics, which streams from principles. The conceptual footholds of integrative bioethics are characterized by historical-philosophical connections to an intellectual heritage of most European thinkers. This paper will, thus, focus on three authors: St. Francis of Assisi, Fritz Jahr and Albert Schweitzer. Their intentions can generally (...) be defined as a search for guidelines − non-anthropocentric, non-reciprocal and not simply formal ones − which should underline our everyday actions. The intended overview wishes to provide grounds for a reconstruction of the specific tradition of bioethics thought in Europe. This overview also wishes to emphasize the history of an idea rather than its geographical settings. Nevertheless, the idea of integrative bioethics reveals itself as a solid alternative to the reduced, principle-oriented bioethics that has grown from an effort embedded in the works of North America’s authors. (shrink)