Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T22:22:21.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Philosophy in Global Bioethics

Introducing Four Trends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

SIRKKU K. HELLSTEN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article examines the relationship between philosophy and culture in global bioethics. First, it studies what is meant by the term “global” in global bioethics. Second, the author introduces four different types, or recognizable trends, in philosophical inquiry in bioethics today. The main argument is that, in order to make better sense of the complexity of the ethical questions and challenges we face today across the globe, we need to embrace the universal nature of self-critical and analytical philosophical analysis and argumentation, rather than using seemingly philosophical approaches to give unjustified normative emphasis on different cultural approaches to bioethics.

Keywords

global bioethicsculturephilosophyethnophilosophyOdera Oruka
Type
Special Section: Philosophical Bioethics—Its State and Future
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 185 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Notes

1. For the scope of global bioethics, see, e.g., Cook, RJ, Dickens, BM, Fathalla, MF, eds. Reproductive Health and Human Rights: Integrating Medicine, Ethics, and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Widdows, H, Dickenson, D, Hellsten, S. Global bioethics. New Review in Bioethics 2003;1:101–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Farmer, P. Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press; 2004Google Scholar; Kuhse, H, Singer, P, eds. A Companion to Bioethics. 2nd ed. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. For more analysis of what “global” means in the context of global ethics, see Hutchings, K. Thinking ethically about the global in “global ethics.” Global Ethics 2014;10(1):26–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See note 2, Hutchings 2014; for a normative global ethics account, see, e.g., Widdows, H. Global Ethics: An Introduction. Durham: Acumen; 2011.Google Scholar

4. Ten Have, H. The diversity of bioethics. Medicine, Heath Care and Philosophy 2013;16(4):635–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; see also the Universal Declaration of Bioethics and Human Rights; available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/bioethics/bioethics-and-human-rights/ (last accessed 11 June 2014).

5. For more about the recent debate on non-Western criticism of the Western universalized concept of bioethics, see, e.g., Bracanovic, T. Against culturally sensitive bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 2013;16(4):647–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Chattopadnayay, S, De Vries, R. Respect for cultural diversity in bioethics is an ethical imperative. Medicine, Heath Care and Philosophy 2013;16(4):647–52.Google Scholar

6. Sometimes basic issues such as sexual minority rights, legalizing abortion, the pressure to use contraceptives, and so on, can be presented as attempts to import Western decadent values and lifestyles. See also Tangwa, GB. Globalisation or Westernisation? Ethical concerns in the whole bio-business. Bioethics 1999 Jul;13(3–4):218–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

7. For example, the Muhimbili University of Health and Allied Sciences (MUHAS) in Tanzania is currently developing a multidisciplinary postgraduate program in bioethics.

8. Ogundiran, TO. Enhancing the African bioethics initiative. BMC Medical Education 2004;4(21)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; available at http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6920-4-21.pdf (last accessed 11 June 2014); Wasunna, A. The developments of bioethics in Africa. In: Neves, P, Lima, M, eds. Bioética ou bioéticas na in evolução das sociedades. Coimbra: Gráfica de Coimbra; 2005:331–4Google Scholar; available at http://www.cebacores.net/static/cebacores_media/pdf/testemunhos/wasunna.pdf (last accessed 11 June 2014). See also Akabayashi, A, Kodama, S, Slingsby, BT. Is Asian bioethics really the solution? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2008;17:270–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Bodunrin, PO. The question of African philosophy. In: Wright, RA, ed. African Philosophy: An Introduction. Lanham, MD: University Press of America; 1984:1–20.Google Scholar

10. For an introduction to the four trends in African philosophical thought, see Oruka, HO. Four trends in current African philosophy. In: Coetzee, PH, Roux, APJ, eds. The African Philosophy Reader. London and New York: Routledge; 1998.Google Scholar

11. On various non-Western and/or nonuniversalist approaches to bioethics, see Cheng, M, Wong, K, Yang, W. Critical care ethics in Hong Kong: Cross-cultural conflicts as East meets West. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1998;23(6):616–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kazumasa, H, ed. Japanese and Western Bioethics: Studies in Moral Diversity. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer; 1997Google Scholar; Tangwa, GB. Bioethics: An African perspective. Bioethics 1996;10(3):183–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Tangwa, GB. Genetic information: Questions and worries from an African background. In: Thompson, A, Chadwick, R, eds. Genetic Information: Acquisition, Access, and Control. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum; 1998.Google Scholar

12. Originally, “ethnophilosophy” was the term Paulin Hountondji used to refer to the works of those anthropologists, ethnographers, and philosophers who present the collective worldview of African people and their myths and folklores and fold wisdom. See note 10, Oruka 1998, at 120–2. Similarly, ethnophilosophy in bioethics is based not necessarily on the works of professional philosophers but rather on those of researchers in other fields of study.

13. See note 10, Oruka 1998, at 120–2.

14. On various logical fallacies typical of transnational argumentation on bioethics, see Hellsten, S. Global bioethics and “erroneous reason”: Fallacies across the borders. In: Häyry, M, Takala, T, Herissone-Kelly, P, Árnason, G, eds. Arguments and Analysis in Bioethics. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi; 2009.Google Scholar

15. Häyry, M.What do you think of philosophical bioethics? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2014;24(1):107–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16. I use a somewhat liberal interpretation of sage philosophy in this context. For a more traditional view, see Oruka, HO. Sage Philosophy: Indigenous Thinkers and Modern Debate on African Philosophy. Nairobi: ACTS Press; 1991.Google Scholar

17. Takala, T. Demagogues, firefighters, and window dressers: Who are we and what should we be? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2005;14:385–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. In African philosophical debate, this trend is labeled “nationalist-ideological philosophy.” However, when applied in the context of bioethics, I take the liberty to rename it as ideological philosophy, as this more properly describes its contents.

19. Nationalist-ideological views in Africa were mostly presented by academicians turning into statesmen. The ideology was in returning pride to one’s own cultural history, values, and identity—and in criticizing the Western colonial powers for their hypocrisy and violation of their own moral principles, which called for respect, equal value, and sovereignty. See note 9, Bodunrin 1984.

20. See, e.g., Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press; 2007Google Scholar; and Singer, P. Practical Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1979.Google Scholar