Abstract

Bioethics promises a considered, unprejudicial approach to areas of medical decision-making. It does this, in theory, from the perspective of moral philosophy. But the promise of fairly considered, insightful commentary fails when word choices used in ethical arguments are prejudicial, foreclosing rather than opening an area of moral discourse. The problem is illustrated through an analysis of the language of The Royal Society Expert Panel Report: End of Life Decision Making advocating medical termination