The three readings this week dive into the conversation regarding who is able and justified to make bioethical decisions. Leon Kass is the chair of the President’s Council of Bioethics who takes a conservative viewpoint of bioethical issues. He was criticized greatly by the public for his role as the chair. In his piece, he promotes the diversity of the Council and how that justifies the decisions that are made within the group. On the other hand, Ruth Macklin attacks the new conservative movement in her piece. She states that there was never a distinction between political ideologies in bioethics until voices from this new movement joined the conversation. Finally, Kathrin Braun is a professor at the University of Vienna. In her piece, she compares American bioethics to German bioethics. She denounces the role of politics in bioethical debates and states a different two-party system and their beliefs. Her piece is a great ending to the other two articles we were assigned to read for this week. Some main points argued include the idea that the experts in this field should only be scientists, while others believe that there should be a broader approach to ethics. I was able to understand and comprehend all three of these readings. They were all straightforward in the points they were trying to make.
In the first reading for this week, Leon R. Kass uses his own personal experience to outline the mission of the President’s Council of Bioethics, he discusses its public ways of working, and reviews the Council’s five major works during their first term. The panel was empowered to answer questions about research and bioethical technology to inform policy makers. The President’s Council of Bioethics has been the center of controversy for many years in the public’s eye. That being said, Kass’ mission in writing this article is to explain to the public the inner-workings of the Council, in order for a better understanding of future decisions made by the Council. Kass writes, “We are summoned to search into deep human matters in order to articulate fully just what is humanly at stake at the intersection of biology and biography” (Kass, 224). This quote demonstrates that Kass is showing the mission of the President’s Council of Bioethics.
He then goes on to demonstrate the diversity of the members of the Council to prove that their decision making is unbiased. He states that some members are social scientists while others are physicians. He goes on to mention the different religious and political backgrounds of each member as well. Though, no one on the committee is a representative of their own religion. I think this is a good point to make to the reader, in order to validate the conclusions made by the Council regarding hot topics like abortion and cloning. Noting the diversity and different backgrounds of the Council will help to ensure that all viewpoints are heard and taken into account. Kass writes in a way that makes the reader believe that there is a full range of different backgrounds found within the panel. However, as we mentioned last week, there isn’t that much difference between some of the panel members. Later in the piece, Kass argues that organizations like the President’s Council of Bioethics are necessary in society “to help protect society’s basic values” (Kass, 241). He then goes on to mention counter arguments like laissez-faire ideas and solely legislative practices, and the problems that arise with those practices. Some of those problems include that the market dictates what is guided in laissez-faire ideals, and legislation can only be suitable for certain bioethical cases, and cannot be administered to all (Kass, 241). One issue I can see with using committees to inform policy, includes the strengths that Kass was talking about. I think that with the different beliefs and backgrounds found within the board members, making cohesive decisions might be very difficult to achieve. Other criticisms of the Council include the inclusion of public intellectuals on the panel that have the same right to opinions as do some of the biochemists who also take part.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Ruth Macklin takes a liberal approach to the new conservative movement found in bioethics today. She wrote this piece for a general audience and those who are interested in the current political climate. Her tone of voice is very apparent in this piece and her distaste for the separation of sides that conservatives have brought into bioethics. In “The New Conservatives In Bioethics: Who Are They and What Do They Seek?” Macklin discusses this new movement, identifies who the conservatives are, and what characterizes their position. She argues that there have always been contributors to bioethical debates from all sides of the political spectrum. Before, there was no distinction between political party in the debates. Now, there are voices who are labeling themselves conservatives, and who are critiquing the “liberal” tradition of bioethics (Macklin, 34). Now that republicans dominate two of the three branches of government, their political ideologies are manifesting into other forms of control, moving into the bioethics sphere. This once non-political realm is becoming one separated between liberal and conservative viewpoints. Macklin takes issue with the mission statement delivered by a prominent conservative bioethicist, Yuval Levin, “to prevent our transformation into a culture without awe filled with people without souls” (Macklin, 37). She then states that the implications of this mission statement place the United States on the brink of disaster without this Council. I think it is important to remember that overall, the process of ethical debates is something that should be respected and worthwhile. Even if your own personal opinions are not the ones that influence the ultimate decision, the process itself requires a commitment to respect views that are not our own.
Katherin Braun takes a different viewpoint of ethical debates. In her article, “Not Just For Experts: The Public Debate About Reprogenetics in Germany” Braun distinguishes the differences between Germany and American bioethics committees. This piece was written for the public and argues that ethics in Germany is unlike the politically motivated ethical committees in America. She mentions the “The Bioethics Debate” that was held in Germany in 2000 and 2001 and how this proved that policies should be informed by ethical considerations. However, American policies are divided to either liberal or conservative sides, or “modernity or anti-modernity” (Braun, 43). In Germany, she distinguishes not between two political ideologies, but rather of techno-skeptics and techno-optimists. These oppositions do not coincide with liberal and conservative ideas, they simply “promote different interpretations of the problem at stake and different ideas about how to handle it” (Braun, 43). I think Braun makes a good point in her article that many aspects to American culture have now become political. Braun mentions how most debates take either a left or right approach in the States. It would be pleasant to experience a nation that was more unified on certain topics rather than so harshly divided.
Some Questions to consider:
In the United States, should Congress take full responsibility for health policies that are made? Or should that responsibility fall on specific experts in the field?
Is it possible to remove politics from certain aspects of American culture, for example how Braun is suggesting?
Madison,
Overall I thought you did a really great job in summarizing all of the readings for the week. Your writing was clear and concise and very easy to follow, and I thought the blog flowed well. Reading your blog confirmed some of my initial thoughts, but also brought up some ideas that I hadn’t thought about the first time I read the papers.
To start with Kass, I agree that it is the duty of council to promote greater understanding of ethical issues for the public, as well as including “different” panel members in terms of professional background. I followed your analysis until you went on to argue, “they are not so different.” How so? Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Kass? Later in your analysis you switch back to your original claim stating “I think that with the different beliefs and backgrounds found…decisions may be difficult…” I agree with this statement, as it is way easier to come to a decision when everyone is of the same background and share the beliefs, I just think your argument got a tad confusing when you did not elaborate on how they may not be different at all.
Another thing I found interesting in this week’s readings is the resurfacing of “terminology” as a problem, leading to misconceptions and miscommunications. Macklin touches on it in her reading about using the word “artificial” in a negative connation by conservatives, despite artificiality playing a huge, important and positive role in medicine and technological advancements in today’s society. Braun also talks about terminology when it comes to techno-skeptics and techno-optimists. Braun states that Germany is “politic free,” but I felt like I was seeing similar divisions in opinion as to our own American society, which is politics-heavy. It seems like all nations have their own form of division and terminology for it, but are arguing very similar stances.
In response to your questions, congress should not take all responsibility. I like Kass’ description of getting a hodge-podge of people to make decisions, as there should be experts of all fields involved in controversial debates. Secondly, I believe politics are always going to be involved. Kass states “when and to what extent should we strive to change and alter nature and especially our own given nature, in an effort to improve or save it?” The question becomes “when do you think the altering of human nature should be stopped or regulated?” This has political debate written all over it, and I do not think this debate could be conducted without conservative and liberal arguments.
-NB
Madison,
What a great blog post! You killed it this week! Your blog was very clearly organized and put forth the main arguments surrounding each author and the arguments they made. It was very easy to read you blog and understand the analyzations you were making!
One part where I got a bit confused was your description of the “liberal” tradition of bioethics and how now there are conservatives coming in to critique that liberality. You state that bioethics was once a “non-political realm” that is now being “separated between liberal and conservative viewpoints”. To me this is counter-intuitive; if bioethics was traditionally liberal it could not have thus been apolitical. Liberality is not a new political party or ideology but has been found in American culture since the founding of our nation. I disagree with this and Macklin’s argument: nothing is ever apolitical especially when it concerns questions of life and liberty. It is ignorant to believe that bioethics was ever apolitical and not swayed by the people who composed the field. Conservative viewpoints would not be so devastating to the field of bioethics if it traditionally had been apolitical; it is because there was already traditionally liberal views of how bioethics should be handled rooted in the field that makes the influx of different ideas so out of the ordinary.
To follow this up but also answer your question- I do not think it is possible to separate political views from everyday commonalities of American life. Politics is something that affects all of us: whether you consider yourself political or not, whether you voted or decided against it. The laws and policies of our country govern all of us and trying to separate these from how we think and act is impossible.
Madison,
I liked your post overall; you were able to integrate and connect all three readings well.
To answer your first question, I see both pros and cons to Congress and experts solely making policy decisions. If it is left up to Congress, as we have typically seen, this is ideally supposed to represent what the laypersons of America want. On the other hand, Congress does not know every detail on the practices they are formulating into policies, like an expert in bioethics would. But, neither do Americans who these technologies would be impacting. I think we have addressed this topic in class before. In my opinion, the best of both worlds is theoretically what President Bush set up: a panel on experts that give policy recommendations that the President / Congress will consider. In this format the government can take knowledge from experts and then apply it to American law. This methodology for the President’s Council on Bioethics, however, did not have positive results from the public and was criticized, as you mentioned. This could have been a result of allowing for transparency between the scientists and Congress, but simultaneously leaving citizens thoughts in the dark. Perhaps Congress and experts should also utilize surveys to get the opinions of the American people quantified and heard, and factor this into policy decisions.
I found it interesting when Kass stated that the council would have “the need to speak both carefully and fairly, yet in terms that the general public would understand – not in abstract academic jargons or the ‘bureau-speak’ of governmental regulatory bodies” (Kass 223). After reading Human Cloning and Dignity I can confirm that the PCB did just that. It was easy to comprehend because of the council’s writing style. Since there is evidence of the government attempting to understand the experts’ knowledge, and the experts attempting to make policy recommendations, the only problem that remains is when they conflict with each other. Rather than deciding one side, we should study why these sides differ so much in attempts to bring them together.
Madison,
Great job on summarizing the three articles. More comparison and contrasts between the articles will add more insight to your blog post. Also, some reflection on how these three articles help conclude our discussions this semester would also be very helpful.
As you mentioned, the President’s Council of Bioethics regard its mission as to “search into deep human matters in order to articulate what is humanly at stake.” Ruth Macklin discussion on the “new conservative movement” adds more insight to Kass’s illustrations, distinguishing the American structure of bioethics as based on political forces – conservative and liberal, although not all scholarly views could fit well into these two categories. Therefore, we could see the American debate on bioethics as a political discourse on human character and relationships.
In contrast, Braun’s article focusing on the bioethics debate in Germany demonstrates a completely different set of discourses resulting from distinctive ideologies. While the techno-optimists add a “managerial” view, evaluating the risks and benefits, the techno-skeptics join the conversation with a “republican” perspective targeting social problems. Braun illustrates that Christian beliefs and anti-nazi arguments provide a basis for beliefs of techno-skeptics whereas professional expertise account for the arguments of techno-optimists. How do two western countries come into such different structures of bioethics debate? And to what extent, should or could they influence each other? These questions are basically what we have been trying to answer all semester.
I do not agree with your statement of Braun trying to suggest “debates are divided in the States take either a left or right approach and it would be more pleasant to experience a nation that is more unified on certain topics.” Instead, I think the main purpose of his argument is to add more voices from people other than those from the biotechnology professionals to the bioethics debate in Germany. Both Germany and the U.S. have their unique structures of bioethics debate. Due to these existing structures, a demand for voices from other non-dominating social forces is thus suggested in all bioethics discourses.
Hey, Madison
Thank you for writing this post this week. Your summary is pretty good but I think you can dig deeper because although you mentioned couple quotes from Kass’s article, there should be more citation and evidence support from Macklin and Braun’s articles.
Among these three articles, I like Leon Kass’s article the most because I agree that the council would have “the need to speak both carefully and fairly, yet in terms that the general public would understand – not in abstract academic jargons or the ‘bureau-speak’ of governmental regulatory bodies” (Kass 223). Public needs a straightforward way to talk about the bioethics. He uses his own personal experience to outline the mission of the President’s Council of Bioethics. In this way, it helped me to understand his perspectives. At the same time, He states that some members are social scientists while others are physicians. He goes on to mention the different religious and political backgrounds of each member as well. I agree that it is the duty of council to promote greater understanding of ethical issues for the public, as well as including “different” panel members in terms of professional background.
You state that Braun suggest “debates are divided in the States take either a left or right approach and it would be more pleasant to experience a nation that is more unified on certain topics.” However, the main purpose of his argument is to include more perfectives from people other than those from the biotechnology professionals to the bioethics debate in Germany. American bioethics system is different from the Germany one because the ideology of bioethics derived from the government in U.S. and from the public in Germany.
Hi Madison,
Thank you so much for your well-written summary and analysis for this week’s readings. I thought your blog was very clear and organized in addition to being very easy to follow.
First, In Kass’s writing, I agree that he tries to demonstrate the diversity and different backgrounds of the Council to prove that their decision making is unbiased. However, I also think that he fails to do so without including any religious perspective. I understand that this is from the President’s Council of Bioethics, and it might be little difficult to include any religious views since the United States tolerates religious freedom. However, I don’t agree that there isn’t much differences between the panel members. There are anthropologists, scientists, physicians, politicians, and etc from what I have understand. I think Kass chose the right people to represent and share ideas “to help protein society’s basic values.” It’s just that he is lacking religious leaders here.
To answer your first question, I don’t think the Congress should take full responsibility for health policies that are made. However, I also disagree that responsibility to fall on specific experts in the field, neither. Currently, I think the way to go in the United States is that the experts recommend the policy to the Congress, and the Congress, full of politicians make the decision based on the recommendations. However, I don’t think how the Congress does not have the any specific experts. It would be ideal to includes those people in to the voting, so that politicians and experts make up the Congress by 50/50. However, I understand that this would be very difficult to agree upon and to choose the specific person who can vote for the Congress.
Madison,
Thank you for writing the last unit blog post! The preface you gave that detailed the significance of this topic was great. When reading new articles, it is important to consider the reason you were assigned the readings and how they relate to the previous units and the discussions we have had in class. I agree with the statement you made saying that you were able to understand and comprehend the three readings. I felt like you accurately summarized and analyzed the articles.
More than anything else, I feel that your post was missing an argument. Instead of adding to the conversation, you explained it. It would have been great if you had stated your opinion on the matter and used the articles to support your argument for who you think should hold authority when it comes to ethical matters. You stated at the end that you are in support of the United States having a more unified stance on certain topics but to me that seems idealist. The effectiveness of a two-party system in terms of general political thought could certainly be argued against. In such a large nation with such a diverse people, having unified opinions on controversial topics sounds like wishful thinking. I especially believe this after taking this course and gaining a better understanding of the complexity of these controversial issues.
The questions you posed at the end of your post were spot on. I do not think the responsibility of health policies should fall on Congress nor specific field experts. We are not a country of politicians or a country of scientists. It is more logical to have a board with a combination of qualified persons from various disciplines as it would more accurately represent public opinion, which is not purely influenced by a political agenda or scientific facts. That being said, I think it would be impossible to remove politics from certain aspects of American culture as political parties have formed (partially) in response to the public opinion on controversial issues, including social issues that deal with ethics.
Madison,
I thought you did a great job with this week’s readings. The topic at hand was not something a lot of people consider and I thought you did a good job at taking a step back to analyze the fundamentals of what we have been practicing in this class.
I would have liked to hear more of your own thoughts on the topic as well. While that is not easy, it would be interesting to hear your opinions on these matters. Especially considering that there really is no right answer for who gets to make ethical rules or in what context ethical arguments should take place. I think everyone agrees on fundamental principles of discussion, but as we saw in this week’s readings, translating that into practical discourse is easier said than done. While ideal, it is not practical to have everyone’s input and yet we cannot have just one authority on these issues so where is the middle ground? If you had to chose where would you say it is?
One thing that was not really discussed in this week’s readings that I wish was, was the concept of whether or not there was a right answer to all of these ethical dilemnas. It was clear from your analysis that this is not easy to answer, but I think it would be something interesting to consider. We have talked about things like natural law, but I think many of us found that unconvincing. I wonder whether one can say if there even are answers to these questions or do we just have to settle for solutions that are less bad than alternative solutions?
Hi Madison,
Your analysis is very through and flows well. I appreciate how you connect what all three readings have in common with their central focus. I think the sentence you try to make about “some main points” in the introductory paragraph should be clarified as to which books (I understand all of them) that you are talking about.
You bring up Leon’ R. Kass’s personal experience as a foundation for his writing. I think this is a great idea, if you could expand on what his personal experience entails, I think this would make the connection even more profound. I appreciate that you mention the complexity and controversy society faces when it comes to bioethics and defining aspects of it. I like the point you make about transparency when it comes to religion, between the author and the reader. I would like to know more of why you think this. The point you make about complications with committees as decision-makers is interesting to me. While I agree, reaching a level of cohesiveness could be challenging; I am not sure that there are better ways in which to do this. For example, I worry that if everyone is from similar foundations, decisions will be heavily biased and lack awareness and accountability for populations different than themselves.
I also agree that Ruth Macklin’s tone of voice plays a large role in bringing her points across to the reader. I like how you conclude this part of your analysis with bringing up the importance of awareness for variation, but I also find it slightly contradictory to the problem you bring up with Kass’s perspective. Do you think there is a “happy medium” to both?
I personally really connected with Braun’s ideas and enjoy the way you summarized them. Politics bring up an extremely grey line and so I think it makes it that much more challenging when you use them as a lens for evaluating complex ideas such as bioethical policies. I think it would help if you explain more about the German ideologies. While not mandatory, I would be interested to learn about your personal opinion on the varying ideologies.
Thank you for a very interesting post!
Hi Madison,
Your introduction paragraph was strong and give your readers some brief insight on what the three readings are about. You highlight the main points in all three readings. I agree with you that Kass offers a variety of views within the panel, which makes him seem less biased. This full range of different backgrounds give credibility to the President’s Council of Bioethics when making decisions about bioethics. I believe that it was important for Kass to present counter arguments like laissez-faire ideas.
I agree with you that Katherin Braun’s article does distinguish between German and American ethical committees. Your integration of quotes helps your analysis that American policies are divided between liberal or conservative sides. Braun’s article could be written for the public with her straightforward writing; however, I believe it is written for a somewhat academic audience. The topic discussed at hand is for a certain group of people that are interested in bioethics. You formulated great thought-provoking questions at the end of your blogpost. I believe it will be difficult to remove politics from American culture, since the political system was built to streamline representation of large groups of people in different areas and backgrounds. Overall, you did a solid job of summarizing and analyzing the three readings.
Thank you!
Hello Madison,
I think you did a good summarizing the articles. There was just a few things I had a problem with. In your post you stated, “some main points argued include the idea that the experts in this field should only be scientists, while others believe that there should be a broader approach to ethics.” I think this comment was a little shocking. These article were all published in a academic journals. I think the technological terminology may have differed, but I think that relates to the intended audience. For example, Geertx’s Writing style is drastically different from people of our time. Geert writes more poetically rather than scientific writing. Also, I was interested to see which side you choose. I think you should choose a side in your argument. I agree with Ruth Macklin is writing to her colleges. She feels that the new people in her field should not be part of this. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that politics plays a role in determining the people part of the field. In Kathryn Braun’s article, the debate between people is not simplified to techno- optimist or techno- pessimist. I view both sides as being correct. I think the goal is to save as many people as technology can, but this goal can lead to positive and negative outcomes.
Madison,
Good job with your post this week! Your summary and analysis, I believe, are both strong and I feel like I understand how you arrived at your “final questions”. I want to use my post to answer the second question – is it possible to remove politics from certain aspects of American culture, for example how Braun is suggesting?
I say no, it is not possible to separate the two. Based on the way American society is built, politics will always have a way of infusing itself into every element of our society. Americans, as law abiding citizens, buy into the idea of democracy and representation and therefore, our culture (and the major decisions that effect it) is going to be partially determined by those we vote to represent us. Additionally, because our government primarily features two “opposing” schools of thought, there will always be a duality between pro and against. I agree with the quote you took from Braun, that opposition promotes “different interpretations of the problem at stake and different ideas about how to handle it” ( 43). I only see is opposition and existence of new ideas as a positive thing BUT I also acknowledge the difficulty of using political dualities to evaluate bioethical decision-making and policies. For this, we must turn to experts who I believe must come from a variety of disciplines such as politicians, religious leaders, scientists, etc.
Madison,
I enjoyed your post this week. Your introduction was concise and I was able to tell which direction the rest of your paper would take.
Regarding the readings, I liked that you mentioned how Kass thought he had an unbiased approach because the group included social scientists and physicians. I think this raises the question of who is authorized to make such decisions. I think a truly unbiased approach would include the viewpoints of community members, mothers, and all those who are actually involved/affected by these policies. I also agree with your take on Maklin’s piece. I just wonder why bioethics has turned into a political debate. It seems like the religious, cultural, social, and economic facets of the argument weren’t considered.