tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post4707985878279369192..comments2008-10-24T13:34:55.713-07:00Wesley J. Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00087063614354714652wjs@wesleyjsmith.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-41089700521568397522008-10-24T13:34:00.000-07:002008-10-24T13:34:00.000-07:00Bioethics is a "science" that was created by Congress. Dr. Dianne Irving, a former bench scientist at the NIH, was in the first "bioethics" doctoral class at Georgetown. She has written an extensive paper on this called "What is Bioethics?" It can be found here: http://www.hospicepatients.org/prof-dianne-irving-whatisbioethics.htmlThomas A. Szyszkiewiczhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06603573536882807043noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-29932409473244216322008-10-21T05:49:00.000-07:002008-10-21T05:49:00.000-07:00I don't see how Savulescu's principle of 'procreative beneficence' can be reduced to personal autonomy being total. But, maybe it can...<BR/><BR/>And, I seem to recall that Oxford still employs theologians. If they can work at Oxford, so can bioethicists and other philosophers.Joshuahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18166542310875643992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-1681539237424688082008-10-20T20:50:00.000-07:002008-10-20T20:50:00.000-07:00Reading the article, the author seems to be suggesting that bioethics be abolished because it's not a serious discipline.<BR/><BR/>That is, that without a good philosophical grounding, there's nothing to separate what comes out of bioethics chairs from "television evangelists or New Age gurus", to quote the article.<BR/><BR/>The author doesn't list out all of his reasoning, but if Professor Savulescu's philosophical output can in fact be reduced to "Personal autonomy is total, so let's do neat science-fictiony stuff", I fail to see how that rises to the level of an Oxford-funded academic discipline.<BR/><BR/>It's not that people disagree with the conclusions of bioethicists, but that no serious academic work seems to be going on.SparcVarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09243560539148044532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-90773770159922852142008-10-20T20:09:00.000-07:002008-10-20T20:09:00.000-07:00I'm with makarios. If bioethics is not wrong, why should it be scrapped? Just because people don't like it? That's like saying that evolutionary biology should be scrapped just because people don't like it, and not considering whether it is actually true or not.Joshuahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18166542310875643992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-80256059945511553502008-10-20T18:55:00.000-07:002008-10-20T18:55:00.000-07:00Speaking as a philosopher, I strongly agree that bioethics should be scotched. Let the chips fall. The fact that it would be financially bad for Philosophy departments should not weigh. <BR/><BR/>There is nothing particularly professional about ethics. It should not be professionalized. It is not a technical discipline at all. An ordinary person with a clear-eyed understanding of right and wrong is a much better ethicist than Savelescu. That should go without saying. But people think you can get a credential that makes you especially well qualified to decide whether Grandma should die just like you get a credential to decide how to do brain surgery. Which is nonsense.Lydia McGrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00423567323116960820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-30254640039378009742008-10-20T10:02:00.000-07:002008-10-20T10:02:00.000-07:00Wesley, you've reported a string of propositions for which Prof. Savulescu has argued in support. Apart from the fact that you disagree with them, what, exactly, is wrong with them? In other words, would you like to try countering his arguments, or are you satisfied merely to list the things that he supports and dismiss them, as if they're obviously wrong--which they're not.Makarioshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08392249532355639518noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-12835253119018896702008-10-20T09:21:00.000-07:002008-10-20T09:21:00.000-07:00I agree, Wesley.<BR/><BR/>I realize that people in the bio-community come from all different religions, or no religion, but I think that back when there was some acknowledgment or at least pretence of a common Judeo-Christian worldview, that served as a foundation for bioethical principles to spring from and as a brake on the more outrageous ideas. (Of course they weren't calling it bioethics then.) I think we've even cast aside "first do no harm" now.<BR/><BR/>It sometimes seems to me that "bioethicist" means "person who finds a way to rationalize whatever a doctor or researcher wants to do".Laura(southernxyl)http://www.blogger.com/profile/02880277733341078157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-17218380047511809472008-10-20T06:19:00.000-07:002008-10-20T06:19:00.000-07:00The point is that money shouldn't dictate morals of a society which should be protecting the weak among us period and that such extreme educators are actually guilty of diminishing humanity.Donnie Mac Leodhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04903092471284737761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10381465.post-88613783204074792852008-10-19T23:39:00.000-07:002008-10-19T23:39:00.000-07:00This post would benefit from more empirical data, as I hear similar things about excessive bioconservatism, e.g. the President's Council on Bioethics, the influence of the Catholic Church, etc. <BR/><BR/>Do you have figures on the total numbers of people, prestigious positions, and dollars associated with different viewpoints?Carlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16384464120149476437noreply@blogger.com