Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion: The Liberalism Problem

Leonard M. Fleck

doi:10.1017/9781009086684

Series: Elements in Bioethics and Neuroethics

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion

The Liberalism Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2022

Leonard M. Fleck

Show author details

Leonard M. Fleck: Affiliation:
Michigan State University

Summary

Can religious arguments provide a reasonable, justified basis for restrictive (coercive) public policies regarding numerous ethically and politically controversial medical interventions, such as research with human embryos, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or using artificial wombs? With Rawls, we answer negatively. Liberally reasonable policies must address these controversial technologies on the basis of public reasons accessible to all, even if not fully agreeable by all. Further, public democratic deliberation requires participants to construct these policies as citizens who are agnostic with respect to the truth of all comprehensive doctrines, whether secular or religious. The goal of these deliberations is practical, namely, to identify reasonable policy options that reflect fair terms of cooperation in a liberal, pluralistic society. Further, religious advocates may participate in formal policymaking processes as reasonable liberal citizens. Finally, public reason evolves through the deliberative process and all the novel technological challenges medicine generates for bioethics and related public policies.

Element contents

Summary
References

Get access

Keywords

public reason political liberalism religious restraint bioethics medical research

Type: Element
Information: Series: Elements in Bioethics and Neuroethics

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009086684 [Opens in a new window]

Online ISBN: 9781009086684

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication: 01 September 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berman, Paul. 2003. “The Philosopher of Islamic Terror.” New York Times Magazine (March 23). www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/the-philosopher-of-islamic-terror.html Google Scholar

Blackshaw, Bruce P., and Rodger, Daniel. 2021. “Why We Should Not Extend the 14-day Rule.” Journal of Medical Ethics 47: 712–14.Google Scholar

Blackshaw, Bruce P., and Rodger, Daniel. 2019. “Ectogenesis and the Case Against the Right to the Death of the Foetus.” Bioethics 33: 76–81.Google Scholar

Borysowski, Jan, Ehni, Hans-Jorg, and Gorski, Andrzej. 2017. “Ethics Review in Compassionate Use.” BMC Medicine 15: 136–43.Google Scholar

Castelyn, Grant. 2020. “Embryo Experimentation: Is There a Case for Moving Beyond the 14-day Rule?” Monash Bioethics Review 38 (2): 181–96.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cavaliere, Giulia. 2020. “Gestation, Equality, and Freedom: Ectogenesis as a Political Perspective.” Journal of Medical Ethics 46: 76–82.Google Scholar

Cherry, Mark. 2017. “The Scandal of Secular Bioethics: What Happens When the Culture Acts as if There is No God?” Christian Bioethics 23 (2): 85–99.Google Scholar

Coastal Fertility Specialists. 2017. “Why do Chromosomally Normal Embryos Not Implant in the Uterus?” www.coastalfertilityspecialists.com/resources/blog/why-do-chromosomally-normal-embryos-not-implant-in/ Accessed 3/23/22.Google Scholar

Daniels, Norman. 1996. Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Darrow, Jonathan J., Sarpatwari, Arneet, Avorn, Jerry, and Kesselheim, Aaron. 2015. “Practical, Ethical, and Legal Issues in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs.” New England Journal of Medicine 372: 279–86.Google Scholar

Davis, Dena S. 1995. “Embryos Created for Research Purposes.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (4): 343–54.Google Scholar

Declercq, Eugene and Zephyrin, Laurie. 2021. Severe Maternal Morbidity in the United States: A Primer. The Commonwealth Fund (October). www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20as%20many%20as,avoided%20with%20timely%2C%20appropriate%20care. Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar

DeMarneffe, Per. 1994. “Rawls’s Idea of Public Reason.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 75: 232–50.Google Scholar

Dworkin, Ronald. 1993. Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

Eberle, Christopher. 2002. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Eberle, Christopher and Cuneo, Terence. 2015. “Religion and Political Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/religion-politics/. Accessed 4?30/22.Google Scholar

Engelhardt, H. Tristram. 2017. After God: Morality and Bioethics in a Secular Age. Younkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.Google Scholar

Fleck, Leonard M. 2022. Precision Medicine and Distributive Justice: Wicked Problems for Democratic Deliberation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fleck, Leonard M. 2021. “Alzheimer’s and Aducanumab: Unjust Profits and False Hopes.” Hastings Center Report 51 (4): 9–11.Google Scholar

Freeman, Samuel (ed.). 1999. John Rawls: Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Friberg-Fernros, Henrik. 2015. “A Critique of Rob Lovering’s Criticism of the Substance View.” Bioethics 29 (3): 211–16.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, Kent. 1995. Private Consciences and Public Reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, Kent. 1988. Religious Convictions and Political Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Institute, Guttmacher. 2021. “Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe.” www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe Accessed 1/20/2022.Google Scholar

Haberman, Clyde. 2014. “Baby M and the Question of Surrogate Motherhood.” New York Times (March 23). www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/us/baby-m-and-the-question-of-surrogate-motherhood.html Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar

Hancock, Susan, Taber, Katherine and Goldberg, James. 2021. “Fetal Screening and Whole Genome Sequencing: Where are the Limits?” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 21 (5): 433–35.Google Scholar

Donation, Hatch Egg & Surrogacy. 2022. “The Best U.S. States for Surrogacy in 2022.” www.hatch.us/blog/best-worst-states-for-surrogacy Accessed 3/31/22.Google Scholar

Hendricks, Perry. 2018. “There is No Right to the Death of the Fetus.” Bioethics 32: 35–97.Google Scholar

Hurlbut, Benjamin J. 2015. “Religion and Public Reason in the Politics of Biotechnology.” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 29: 101–28.Google Scholar

Hyun, Insoo, Bredenoord, Annelien, Briscoe, James, Klipstein, Sigal, and Tan, Tao. 2021. “Human Embryo Research Beyond the Primitive Streak.” Science 371 (6533): 998–1000.Google Scholar

Jacob, Julie A. 2015. “Questions of Safety and Fairness Raised as Right-To-Try Movement Gains Steam.” JAMA 314: 768–60.Google Scholar

Jiang, Lijing. 2011. “Robert Geoffrey Edwards and Patrick Christopher Steptoe’s Clinical Research in Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, 1969-80.” The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (May 12). https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/robert-geoffrey-edwards-and-patrick-christopher-steptoes-clinical-research-human-vitro Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar

Johnson, Stephen. 2018. “Is the New ‘Right to Try’ Law Libertarian Quackery or Lifesaving Hope?” Politics and Current Affairs (May 31). https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/trump-signs-right-to-try-bill-that-lets-the-terminally-ill-take-experimental-drugs/ Accessed 3/20/22.Google Scholar

Jones, Bradley. 2020. “What is a Super Responder?” Cancer Today (June 26). www.cancertodaymag.org/Pages/cancer-talk/What-is-a-Super-Responder.aspx Accessed 3/31/22.Google Scholar

Kaczor, Christopher. 2018. “Ectogenesis and a Right to the Death of the Prenatal Human Being: A Reply to Rasanenr.” Bioethics 32: 634–38.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kass, Leon. 1997. “The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans.” The New Republic 216 (22): 17–27.Google Scholar

Kendal, Evie. 2020. “Pregnant People, Inseminators and Tissues of Human Origin: How Ectogenesis Challenges the Concept of Abortion.” Monash Bioethics Review 38: 197–204.Google Scholar

Lafont, Cristina. 2009. “Religion and the Public Sphere: What Are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35 (1–2): 127–50.Google Scholar

Levinson, Sanford. 1992. “Religious Language and the Public Square.” Harvard Law Review 105 (8): 2061–79.Google Scholar

Lovering, Rob. 2012. “The Substance View: A Critique.” Bioethics 27 (5): 263–70.Google Scholar

Mackay, Kathryn. 2020. “The ‘Tyranny of Reproduction’: Could Ectogenesis Further Women’s Liberation?” Bioethics 34: 346–53.Google Scholar

Mahant, Vijay. 2020. “‘Right to Try’ Experimental Drugs: An Overview.” Journal of Translational Medicine 18: 253–59.Google Scholar

Mathison, Eric and Davis, Jeremy. 2017. “Is There a Right to the Death of the Foetus?” Bioethics 31: 313–20.CrossRef Google Scholar

McCully, Sophia. 2021. “The Time has Come to Extend the 14-day Limit.” Journal of Medical Ethics 47: e66. http://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106406.Google Scholar

Miller, Eric C. 2015. “The Drama of American Religious Freedom.” Politics and Religion 8: 818–25.Google Scholar

Murphy, Timothy J. 2012. “Research Priorities and the Future of Pregnancy.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 78–89.Google Scholar

Medicine, Onyx Integrative. 2022. Naturopathic Treatment Approach. https://onyxintegrative.com/is-a-naturopathic-doctor-a-real-doctor/ Accessed 2/02/2022.Google Scholar

Oyez. 1965. Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 US 479 (1965). www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496 Accessed 1/20/ 2022.Google Scholar

Parker, Michael. 2007. “The Best Possible Child.” Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5): 279–83.Google Scholar

Perry, Michael J. 1997. Religion in Politics: Constitutional and Moral Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Perry, Michael J. 1988. Morality, Politics, and Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Plant, Raymond. 2009. “Citizenship, Religion, and Political Liberalism.” In Religious Voices in Public Places, edited by Biggar, Nigel and Hogan, Linda. New York: Oxford University Press, 37–57.Google Scholar

Quinn, Philip L. 1997. “Political Liberalisms and Their Exclusions of the Religious.” In Religion and Contemporary Liberalism, edited by Weithman, Paul J.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 138–61.Google Scholar

Quinn, Philip L. 1995. “Political Liberalisms and the Exclusions of the Religious.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 69 (2): 35–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Quong, Jonathan. 2014. “On the Idea of Public Reason.” In A Companion to Rawls, edited by Mandle, Jon and Reidy, David. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 265–80.Google Scholar

Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism Without Perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rasanen, Joona. 2017. “Ectogenesis, Abortion and the Right to the Death of the Fetus.” Bioethics 31: 697–702.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Rawls, John. 1999. Collected Papers. Edited by John Freeman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. 2018. “Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications.” Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 751–55.Google Scholar

Savulescu, Julian. 2001. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.” Bioethics 15: 413–26.Google Scholar

Scharf, Amy and Dzeng, Elizabeth. 2017. “‘I’m Willing to Try Anything’: Compassionate Use Access to Experimental Drugs and the Misguided Mission of Right-To-Try Laws.” Health Affairs (March 27). www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20170327.059378/ Accessed 3/2/22.Google Scholar

Schmidt, Alvin J. and Babchuk, Nicholas. 1973. “The Unbrotherly Brotherhood: Discrimination in Fraternal Orders.” Phylon 34 (3): 275–82.Google Scholar

Segers, Seppe, Pennings, Guido, and Mertes, Heidi. 2020. “The Ethics of Ectogenesis-Aided Foetal Treatment.” Bioethics 34: 364–70.Google Scholar

Simkulet, William. 2016. “A Critique of Henrik Friberg-Fernros’s Defense of the Substance View.” Bioethics 30 (9): 767–73.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Smajdor, Anna. 2011. “In Defense of Ectogenesis.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 90–103.Google Scholar

Smajdor, Anna. 2007. “The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16: 336–45.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Swancutt, Katherine. 2019. “Animism.” Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/animism Accessed 3/21/22.Google Scholar

Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 47–66.Google Scholar

Vallier, Kevin. 2012. “Liberalism, Religion and Integrity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1): 149–65.Google Scholar

Vallier, Kevin. 2011. “Against Public Reason Liberalism’s Accessibility Requirement.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 8: 366–89.Google Scholar

Jeremy, Williams. 2015. “Public Reason and Prenatal Moral Status.” The Journal of Ethics 19(1): 23–52.Google Scholar

Wolterstorff, Nicholas and Audi, Robert. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2012. Understanding Liberal Democracy: Essays in Political Philosophy. Edited by Terence Cuneo. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Element contents

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion

Summary

Keywords

Access options

References

Save element to Kindle

Save element to Dropbox

Save element to Google Drive