Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Bioethics
View through CrossRef
The discipline of bioethics emerged in the United States in the 1960s as a response to several prominent controversies in medical research and practice, including the aftermath of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and the development of kidney dialysis and associated concerns about resource allocation. Anthropology and bioethics have had a contentious relationship since the field’s inception. Anthropologists have viewed bioethics as ethnocentric, universalizing, and inattentive to the social, cultural, and political contexts of bioethical dilemmas. Anthropologists have challenged foundational bioethical concepts such as autonomy, showing that decision making, in many cases, unfolds in a relational context that is poorly matched to individualized models of informed consent, which lodge decisional authority within a single autonomous patient or research subject. At the same time, anthropology has much to offer the discipline of bioethics. Empirical data can help to address or resolve normative questions, bring unrecognized factors to light, and open up new avenues for further exploration. Anthropology’s characteristic use of cases grounds bioethical debates in contextual details that may change the stakes of discussion. And anthropology can enrich bioethics scholarship with its use of ethnography and social theory to illuminate power structures and relations of inequality, its characteristic dual focus on the micro and the macro, and its capacity for reflexivity. In exchange, bioethics may beckon anthropologists to go outside their comfort zone and develop prescriptive solutions to ethical challenges. On the other hand, debate is ongoing about whether anthropologists should revitalize bioethics and infuse it with more attention to cultural and historical contexts, or, instead, leave bioethics behind entirely and develop their own ethical projects. Moving forward, it may be useful to distinguish between anthropology in bioethics and anthropology of bioethics. The former category of research and scholarship encompasses anthropological studies of bioethically relevant topics, such as end-of-life decision making, organ transplantation, genetic screening, stem cell research, and the globalization of clinical trials. Anthropology of bioethics performs a critical analysis of bioethics as a sphere of knowledge production and professional expertise. This approach acknowledges that bioethics, as an ideology and a practice, may best serve certain kinds of social actors and obscure its limits for other actors and conditions. While these two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, they can help to structure an understanding of anthropology’s potential contributions to the field.
Title: Bioethics
Description:
The discipline of bioethics emerged in the United States in the 1960s as a response to several prominent controversies in medical research and practice, including the aftermath of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and the development of kidney dialysis and associated concerns about resource allocation.
Anthropology and bioethics have had a contentious relationship since the field’s inception.
Anthropologists have viewed bioethics as ethnocentric, universalizing, and inattentive to the social, cultural, and political contexts of bioethical dilemmas.
Anthropologists have challenged foundational bioethical concepts such as autonomy, showing that decision making, in many cases, unfolds in a relational context that is poorly matched to individualized models of informed consent, which lodge decisional authority within a single autonomous patient or research subject.
At the same time, anthropology has much to offer the discipline of bioethics.
Empirical data can help to address or resolve normative questions, bring unrecognized factors to light, and open up new avenues for further exploration.
Anthropology’s characteristic use of cases grounds bioethical debates in contextual details that may change the stakes of discussion.
And anthropology can enrich bioethics scholarship with its use of ethnography and social theory to illuminate power structures and relations of inequality, its characteristic dual focus on the micro and the macro, and its capacity for reflexivity.
In exchange, bioethics may beckon anthropologists to go outside their comfort zone and develop prescriptive solutions to ethical challenges.
On the other hand, debate is ongoing about whether anthropologists should revitalize bioethics and infuse it with more attention to cultural and historical contexts, or, instead, leave bioethics behind entirely and develop their own ethical projects.
Moving forward, it may be useful to distinguish between anthropology in bioethics and anthropology of bioethics.
The former category of research and scholarship encompasses anthropological studies of bioethically relevant topics, such as end-of-life decision making, organ transplantation, genetic screening, stem cell research, and the globalization of clinical trials.
Anthropology of bioethics performs a critical analysis of bioethics as a sphere of knowledge production and professional expertise.
This approach acknowledges that bioethics, as an ideology and a practice, may best serve certain kinds of social actors and obscure its limits for other actors and conditions.
While these two approaches are by no means mutually exclusive, they can help to structure an understanding of anthropology’s potential contributions to the field.
Related Results
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Bioethics-CSR Divide
Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
ABSTRACT
Bioethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) were born out of similar concerns, such as the reaction to scandal and the restraint ...
Escaping the Shadow
Escaping the Shadow
Photo by Karl Raymund Catabas on Unsplash
The interests of patients at most levels of policymaking are represented by a disconnected patchwork of groups … “After Buddha was dead, ...
A Critique of Principlism
A Critique of Principlism
Photo by Towfiqu barbhuiya on Unsplash
INTRODUCTION
Bioethics does not have an explicitly stated and agreed upon means of resolving conflicts between normative theories. As such, b...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Tlacoqualli in Monequi "The Center Good"
Tlacoqualli in Monequi "The Center Good"
Photo by Andrew James on Unsplash
INTRODUCTION
Since its inception, bioethics has focused on Western conceptions of ethics and science. This has provided a strong foundation to bui...
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Envisioning Originalism Applied to Bioethics Cases
Photo ID 123697425 © Alexandersikov | Dreamstime.com
Abstract
Originalism is an increasingly prevalent method for interpreting provisions of the US Constitution. It requires strict...
Establishing National Bioethics Committee: The case of Nigeria
Establishing National Bioethics Committee: The case of Nigeria
The establishment of a National Bioethics Committee is a requirement for member states of UNESCO who are signatories to the UNESCO 2005 Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human...
BIOETHICS IN CHINA
BIOETHICS IN CHINA
ABSTRACTHistorically, the preconditions for the emergence of bioethics in China. were political reforms and their applications. The Hanzhong Euthanasia Case and the publication of ...

