American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W6 – W7 (2009)
Authors |
|
Abstract |
Many commentators today lament the politicization of bioethics, but some suggest distinguishing among different kinds of politicization. This essay pursues that idea with reference to three traditions of political thought: liberalism, communitarianism, and republicanism. After briefly discussing the concept of politicization itself, the essay examines how each of these political traditions manifests itself in recent bioethics scholarship, focusing on the implications of each tradition for the design of government bioethics councils. The liberal emphasis on the irreducible plurality of values and interests in modern societies, and the communitarian concern with the social dimensions of biotechnology, offer important insights for bioethics councils. The essay finds the most promise in the republican tradition, however, which emphasizes institutional mechanisms that allow bioethics councils to enrich but not dominate public deliberation, while ensuring that government decisions on bioethical issues are publicly accountable and contestable
|
Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
Categories | (categorize this paper) |
ISBN(s) | |
DOI | 10.1080/15265160802670992 |
Options |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Download options
References found in this work BETA
Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology.Alan Irwin & Brian Wynne (eds.) - 1996 - Cambridge University Press.
Bioethics and Politics: Rules of Engagement.Jenny Dyck Brian & Adam Briggle - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):59 – 61.
Small-R-Republicans, Big-R-Republicans, and Government Bioethics Councils.Russell DiSilvestro - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):57 – 58.
The Political Condition of Bioethics.Rob Irvine - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):63 – 64.
View all 7 references / Add more references
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Must Research Participants Understand Randomization?”.David Wendler - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (2):W1 – W2.
Deidentification and Its Discontents: Response to the Open Peer Commentaries.Mark A. Rothstein - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (9):W1-W2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Defining the Scope of Implied Consent in the Emergency Department".Mark Graber & Raul Easton - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (12):3-4.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Broader View of Justice”.Nancy S. Jecker - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (10):1-2.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”.Fritz Allhoff - 2009 - American Journal of Bioethics 9 (10):1-2.
Genetic Enhancement Revisited: Response to Open Peer Commentaries.Ruiping Fan - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (4):6-8.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “A Decisional Analysis of Consent”.Jonathan Baron - 2006 - American Journal of Bioethics 6 (3):W51-W53.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Compelled Authorizations for Disclosure of Health Records: Magnitude and Implications".Mark Rothstein & Meghan Talbott - 2007 - American Journal of Bioethics 7 (3):1-3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Why Treat the Wounded?”.Michael L. Gross - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (2):W1 – W3.
Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Visual Bioethics”.Paul Lauritzen - 2008 - American Journal of Bioethics 8 (12):2-3.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2009-02-01
Total views
8 ( #946,870 of 2,411,736 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #539,061 of 2,411,736 )
2009-02-01
Total views
8 ( #946,870 of 2,411,736 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #539,061 of 2,411,736 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads