Turns out the story ABC was doing on Warnock did run – and included part of Art Caplan’s remarks:
When Dr. Jonathan Groner, a surgeon and ethicist at Ohio State University, heard of a suggestion by a well-known British philosopher that those with dementia have a “duty to die” in order to minimize the burden they place on society and their families, he was troubled.
A few paragraphs later, they share the reactions of other players:
Groner is not alone in his opinion. Ethicists and Alzheimer’s advocacy groups alike are expressing outrage over Warnock’s comments last week, which echoed the opinion she put forth in an article she authored for a Norwegian periodical, titled “A Duty to Die?”
The article leaves the impression that the condemnation of Warnock’s statements are nearly universal in the bioethics community. Obviously, they didn’t talk to AJOB blog editor Summer Johnson.
It might be better, IMO, if the public was aware that there are ethicists in this country ready to defend this public policy proposal by Warnock. –Stephen Drake
This case highlights the problem I have with “bioethics” as an academic field and expert “bioethicists” having a bully pulpit in our society.
To be sure, ethical and moral questions in health care must be addressed and will drive public policy. The issue for me is that I don’t recognize any particular group of people either by educational background, experience, or training to be better qualified at formulating ethics than me or the general population. I recognize, for example, that a corporate lawyer knows more than me about corporate law, a GP knows more than me about personal health, a medical physicist knows more than me about medical physics, etc. I do *not* recognize any particular person to know more than me (or the average citizen) about ethics or have better judgement about how to formulate ideas of right/wrong and apply them to health care scenarios.
There are really 2 requirements for proper moral reasoning. One has to start out with a moral set of presuppositions and then be able to think logically and clearly to expand upon them and apply them to individual situations. *Maybe* a bioethicist might be a little better at the 2nd part than the first, but that’s largely irrelevant because the first part is so important. As the cliche goes, “garbage in, garbage out”. If one starts out with a morally bankrupt set of presuppositions, then all of the most rigorous logical reasoning skills will not prevent a morally bankrupt result.
The bottom line is that we all have to justify our worldview and assertions about right and wrong with one another and let it play out in the marketplace of ideas. All of our ideas are affected by religion, philosophy, personal experience, etc. I inherently object to the idea of elevating someone else’s worldview above our own and cloaking it as being “expert” with a title of “ethicist” or “bioethicist”.
roger,
First, thanks for posting.
Second, I’ve expressed similar sentiments when talking to audiences, but I don’t think I’ve ever constructed anything quite this articulate.
Could you email me with your name, etc.? I would like to quote you and give you the attribution you deserve. –Stephen
Email: sndrake at aol.com
(You can find it elsewhere on the site, but I thought I’d make it easy)
Roger:
The bigger problem is that they DO know what we think. They know all the morals, the philosophies, the ideals. Their job is to deflect these known things, not to embody them.
The best example I can think of is a dedicated young person going into a university biology program. He likes nature and wants to protect it. He can’t be any more good and knows that as a good person he has something to offer. This person is ETHICS. He is complete and consummate at the start.
Ok so he goes on into the world. What job does he actually get?
On any day, he will find himself on a river, lake or waterway somewhere with a test tube in hand. What is he doing to make the world a better place?
This person (ETHICS personified and now, graduated) is testing the water to see how much more pollution it can take before life in it dies. He is testing its limits to corruption and abuse. This is his use after all his training. He learned what the facts were so that he could be used to fiddle around with them.
So too, ethicists. The fact that good and moral is something fixed and not in need of change, you have to wonder why ethicists go to work everyday. What are they doing?
They are testing, testing… seeing how much cr@p consumers will absorb before they object. The title ethicist should be changed to “Barometer.” They are choreographers to a grimy business.