Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Submitted by:
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3
a. Definition ------------------------------------------------------------- 8
b. Development --------------------------------------------------------- 9
Conclusion/Summary ----------------------------------------------------16
Bibliography --------------------------------------------------------------17
2
INTRODUCTION
Bioethics as a field is relatively new, emerging only in the late 1960s, though many
of the questions it addresses are as old as medicine itself . When Hippocrates wrote his now
famous dictum Primum non nocere (First, do no harm), he was grappling with one of the
core issues still facing human medicine, namely, the role and duty of the physician . With the
the important and age-old issues raised by the practice of medicine, but also on the ethical
problems generated by rapid progress in technology and science. Forty years after the
emergence of this field, bioethics now reflects the profound changes in medicine and the life
sciences.
The first to introduce the term “Bioethics” in 1969 was Daniel Callahan when he,
together with Willard Gaylin, founded the Hastings Center. However, it was Van Rensselaer
Potter who popularized the term in 1970. Dr. Potter is an oncologist at the University o f
Wisconsin.
HISTORY OF BIOETHICS
Bioethics as a distinct field of academic study has existed only since the early 1960s,
and its history can be traced back to a cluster of scientific and cultural developments in the
United States during that decade. The catalysts for the creation of this interdisciplinary field
were the extraordinary advances in American medicine during this period coupled
3
respirators, and intensive care units (ICUs) made possible a level of medical care never
before attainable, but these breakthroughs also raised daunting ethical dilemmas the public
had never previously been forced to face, such as when to initiate admission to an ICU or
when treatments such as dialysis could be withdrawn. The advent of the contraceptive pill
and safe techniques for performing abortions added to the ethical quandaries of the "new
medicine." At the same time, cultural changes placed a new emphasis on individual
autonomy and rights, setting the stage for greater public involvement and control over
medical care and treatment. Public debates about abortion, contraceptive freedom, and
patient rights were gaining momentum. In response, academics began to write about these
thorny issues, and scholars were beginning to view these "applied ethics" questions as the
In its early years, the study of bioethical questions was undertaken by a handful of
philosophy. These scholars wrote about the problems generated by the new medicine and
technologies of the time, but they were not part of a discourse community that could be called
legitimize bioethical issues as questions deserving rigorous academic study. But bioethics
solidified itself as a field only when it became housed in institutions dedicated to the study
of these questions. Academic bioethics was born with the creation of the first "bioethics
center."
4
Ironically, academic bioethics came into existence through the creation of an
institution that was not part of the traditional academy. The first institution devoted to the
study of bioethical questions was a freestanding bioethics center, purposely removed from
the academy with its rigid demarcations of academic study. The institution was the Hastings
Center, originally called The Institute of Society, Ethics and the Life Sciences, which opened
its doors in September 1970. Its founder, Daniel Callahan, along with the psychiatrist Willard
Gaylin, M.D., created the center to be an interdisciplinary institute solely dedicated to the
had been one of the isolated scholars working on an issue in applied ethics, and he had found
himself mired in complex questions that took him far afield from the traditional boundaries
of philosophy. His topic, abortion, required engagement with the disciplines of law,
medicine, and social science, which he felt himself unprepared to navigate. With academic
work was impossible. The Hastings Center was founded to create an intellectual space for
the study of these important questions from multiple perspectives and academic areas.
The second institution that helped solidify the field of bioethics was the Kennedy Institute
of Ethics, which opened at Georgetown University in 1971. The founders had similar goals
to those of Hastings, though they placed their center inside the tradition al academy. While
housed outside of any particular academic departments, the Kennedy Institute came to look
more like a traditional department, offering degree programs and establishing faculty
5
From these modest beginnings, the field of bioethics exploded, with dozens of
universities following suit, creating institutions whose sole function was the study of
bioethical issues. Its growth was fueled by the appearance both of new technologies such as
the artificial heart and in vitro fertilization and new challenges such as HIV. Bioethics was
Against the backdrop of advances in the life sciences, the field of bioethics h as a
threefold mission: (1) to raise important questions about the general practice of medicine and
the institutions of health care in the United States and other economically advanced nations,
(2) to wrestle with the novel bioethical dilemmas constantly being generated by new
population-based efforts in public health and the delivery of health care in economically
underdeveloped parts of the globe. While attention to the ethical dilemmas accompanying
the appearance of new technologies such as stem cell research or nanotechnology can
command much of the popular attention devoted to the field, the other missions are of equal
importance.
At the core of bioethics are questions about medical professionalism, such as: What are
the obligations of physicians to their patients? What are the virtues of the "good doctor"?
Bioethics explores critical issues in clinical and research medicine, including truth telling,
euthanasia, substituted judgment, rationing of and access to health care, and the withdrawal
6
and withholding of care. Only minimally affected by advances in technology and science,
these core bioethical concerns remain the so-called bread-and-butter issues of the field.
The second mission of bioethics is to enable ethical reflection to keep pace with scientific
and medical breakthroughs. With each new technology or medical breakthrough, the public
finds itself in uncharted ethical terrain it does not know how to navigate. In the twenty-first
monumental strides in science and technology, the scope of bioethics has expanded to include
the ethical questions raised by the Human Genome Project, stem cell research, artificial
reproductive technologies, the genetic engineering of plants and animals, the synthesis of
advances.
Bioethics has also begun to engage with the challenges posed by delivering care in
underdeveloped nations. Whose moral standards should govern the conduct of research to
find therapies or preventive vaccines useful against malaria, HIV, or Ebola—local standards
pursuing such goals as the reduction of risks to health care in children or the advancement
of national security? This population-based focus raises new sorts of ethical challenges both
for health care providers who seek to improve overall health indicators in populations and
for researchers who are trying to conduct research against fatal diseases that are at epidemic
7
As no realm of academic or public life remains untouched by pressing bioethical issues,
the field of bioethics has broadened to include representation from scholars in disciplines as
diverse as philosophy, religion, medicine, law, social science, public policy, disability
a. Definitions
In the course of the birth of bioethics, experts have skillfully crafted various meanings of
research.
Bioethics is the study of ethical issues that emanate from the changes and
sciences.
It is a systematic study of human conduct in the areas of the life sciences and
health care.
It belongs to the auspices of medical ethics and is loosely anchored in the avenues
of life sciences.
The word “bioethics” is derived from word bio, which means life, and ethos (ethics),
which is the philosophical discipline that deals with the morality of human conduct. But
despite its heavy adherence to life sciences, bioethics is multi-disciplinary. It is the result of
the collective efforts in philosophy, theology, law, and medicine as it confronts the complex
8
crisscrossing and intertwining of science and technology in the ambit of human life. The
term "Bioethics" has been used in the last twenty years to describe the investigation and a
study of ways in which decisions in medicine and science touch upon our health and lives
b. Development
The range of issues considered to fall within the purview of bioethics varies depending
on how broadly the field is defined. In one common usage, bioethics is more or less
equivalent to medical ethics, or biomedical ethics. The term medical ethics itself has been
challenged, however, in light of the growing interest in issues dealing with health care
and the perception of nurses as ethically accountable in their own right have led to the
development of a distinct field known as nursing ethics. Accordingly, health care ethics has
come into use as a more inclusive term. Bioethics, however, is broader than this, because
some of the issues it encompasses concern not so much the practice of health care as the
conduct and results of research in the life sciences, especially in areas such as cloning and
human longevity.
understood—is a fairly recent phenomenon, there have been discussions of moral issues in
medicine since ancient times. Examples include the corpus of the Greek physician
Hippocrates (460–377 bc), after whom the Hippocratic oath is named (though Hippocrates
himself was not its author); the Republic of Plato (428/27–348/47 bc), which advocates
selective human breeding in anticipation of later programs of eugenics; the Summa contra
9
gentiles of St. Thomas Aquinas (1224/25–1274), which briefly discusses the permissibility
of abortion; and the Lectures on Ethics of the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel
Kant (1724-1804), which contains arguments against the sale of human body parts .
Bioethics emerged as a distinct field of study in the early 1960s. It was influenced not
only by advances in the life sciences, particularly medicine, but also by the significant
cultural and societal changes taking place at the time, primarily in the West. The perfection
of certain lifesaving procedures and technologies, such as organ transplantation and kidney
dialysis, required medical officials to make difficult decisions about which patients would
receive treatment and which would be allowed to die. At the same time, the increasing
toward marriage and sexuality, reproduction and child rearing, and civil rights. The ultimate
result was widespread dissatisfaction with traditional medical paternalism and the gradual
recognition of a patient’s right to be fully informed about his condition and to retain some
IMPORTANCE OF BIOETHICS
healthcare, research and our society in general. Bioethics in healthcare brought about
awareness to health workers of the medical practice as well as enriching the ability of health
workers to further understand the patient as a person. Highlighting the ethical side of
bioethics, health workers were now able to follow an ethical code when working with patients
which was once a problem. Ethical problems had a clear connection to problems in health
care, so by the emergence of bioethics, the healthcare of our country has been significantly
improved.
10
Bioethics matters because it affects everyone. In reality, bioethical issues concern us
all in one way or another, but most people don’t see bioethics as something that is relevant
CAN happen to you. In fact, chances are it already is affecting your life without you even
realizing it.
ISSUES IN BIOETHICS
The issues studied in bioethics can be grouped into several categories. One category
concerns the relationship between doctor and patient, including issues that arise from
conflicts between a doctor’s duty to promote the health of his patient and the patient’s right
encompass a right to be fully informed about one’s condition and a right to be consulted
about the course of one’s treatment. Is a doctor obliged to tell a patient that he is terminally
ill if there is good reason to believe that doing so would hasten the patient’s death? If a
patient with a life-threatening illness refuses treatment, should his wishes be respected?
Should patients always be permitted to refuse the use of extraordinary life-support measures?
These questions become more complicated when the patient is incapable of making rational
decisions in his own interest, as in the case of infants and children, p atients suffering from
11
Questions of discrimination in bioethics have arisen in a number of areas. In one such
area, reproductive medicine, recently developed techniques have enabled parents to choose
the sex of their child. Should this new power be considered liberating or oppressive? Would
it be viewed positively if the vast majority of the parents who use it choose to have a boy
rather than a girl? Similar concerns have been raised about the increasing use of abortion as
a method of birth control in overpopulated countries such as India and China, where there is
considerable social and legal pressure to limit family size and where male children are valued
On another note, many of the moral issues that have arisen in the health care context and
in the wake of advances in medical technology have been addressed, in whole or in part, in
legislation. It is important to realize, however, that the content of such legislation is seldom,
if ever, dictated by the positions one takes on particular moral issues. For example, the view
that voluntary euthanasia is morally permissible in certain circumstances does not by itself
settle the question of whether euthanasia should be legalized. The possibility of legalization
carries with it another set of issues, such as the potential for abuse. Some bioethicists have
expressed the concern that the legalization of euthanasia would create a perception among
some elderly patients that society expects them to request euthanasia, even if they do not
desire it, in order not to be a burden to others. Similarly, even those who believe that abortion
BIOETHICS APPROACHES
12
As a branch of applied ethics, bioethics is distinct from both metaethics, the study of
basic moral concepts such as ought and good, and normative ethics, the discipline that seeks
to establish criteria for determining what kinds of action are morally righ t or wrong. To say
that bioethics is “applied,” however, does not imply that it presupposes any particular ethical
primarily utilitarianism and Kantianism but also more recently developed perspectives such
as virtue theory and perspectives drawn from philosophical feminism, particularly the school
amount of happiness for a greater number of people than would any other action performabl e
in the same circumstances. The Kantian tradition, in contrast, eschews the notion of
consequences and urges instead that an action is right only if it is universalizable —i.e., only
if the moral rule it embodies could become a universal law applicable to all moral agents.
The Kantian approach emphasizes respect for the individual, autonomy, dignity, and human
rights.
Unlike these traditional approaches, both virtue ethics and the ethics of care focus on
particular actions. Virtue ethics is concerned with the nature of moral character and with the
traits, capacities, or dispositions that moral agents ought to cultivate in themselves and
others. Thus, the virtue ethicist may consider what character traits, such as compassion and
13
courage, are desirable in a doctor, nurse, or biomedical researcher and how they would (or
should) be manifested in various settings. The basic aim of the ethics of care is to replace —
impartiality, and independence with ostensibly more “feminine” values, such as emotion
From this perspective, reflection on abortion would begin not with abstract principles such
as the right to autonomy or the right to life but with considerations of the needs of women
who face the choice of whether to have an abortion and the particular ways in w hich their
decisions may affect their lives and the lives of their families. This approach also would
address social and legal aspects of the abortion debate, such as the fact that, though abortion
affects the lives of women much more directly than it does the lives of men, women as a
group are significantly underrepresented in the institutions that create aborti on-related laws
and regulations.
examining individual cases in order to elucidate the principles that seem to guide most
people’s thinking about bioethical issues in actual practice (a “bottom-up” approach). One
very influential approach along these lines, known as the “four principles” of bioethics,
attempts to describe a set of minimum moral conditions on the behavior of health care
professionals. The first principle, autonomy, entails that health care professionals should
respect the autonomous decisions of competent adults. The second principle, beneficence,
14
holds that they should aim to do good - i.e., to promote the interests of their patients. The
third principle, non-maleficence, requires that they should do no harm. Finally, the fourth
principle, justice, holds that they should act fairly when the interests of different individuals
or groups are in competition—e.g., by promoting the fair allocation of health care resources.
because the principles are independent of any particular ethical theory, they can be used by
theorists working in a variety of different traditions. Both the utilitarian and the Kantian, it
is argued, can support the principle of autonomy, though they would do so for different
reasons. Nevertheless, this adaptability may also be construed as a disadvantage. Critics have
contended that the principles are so general that whatever agreement on t hem there may be
is unlikely to be very meaningful. Thus, although the utilitarian and the Kantian may both
accept the principle of autonomy, the principle as it is formulated allows them to understand
the notion of autonomy in very different ways. Another criticism of the approach is that it
does not offer any clear way of prioritizing between the principles in cases where they
conflict—as they are often liable to do. The principle of autonomy, for example, might
conflict with the principle of beneficence in cases where a competent adult patient refuses to
Despite these problems, the principles remain useful as a framework in which to think
about moral issues in medicine and the life sciences. This is not an inconsiderable
contribution, for, on at least one conception of the field, the main task of bioethics is not so
much to provide answers to moral problems as to identify where the problems lie.
15
CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
In the modern world that we have today, Bioethics has brought about significant
changes in standards for the treatment of the sick and for the conduct of research. Every
health care professional now understands that patients have a right to know what is being
done to them, and to refuse. Every researcher now understands that participants in their
studies have the same rights, and review boards to evaluate proposed research on those
grounds are almost universal. Our understanding of what is ethical has grown, but it is never
born by necessity of a critic reflection about ethical conflicts, which are caused by
progressing in life science and medicine. Technological and medical tools have an important
role in society and it has to manage. It is important know that bioethics does not defend a
particular moral attitude nor offer determinant and definitive answers, but it searches a
grounded, critic and argued reflection centered in the singularity of a concrete situation.
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2. Alora, A. (2006). Bioethics for Students. Espana, Manila: UST Publishing House
4. http://alleanzacattolica.org/.dis_dpf/English/b_bioethics.htm
5. http://www.bioethics.org.au/Resources/Bioethical%20Issues.html
6. http://www.iep.utm.edu/bioethic/
7. http://science.jrank.org/pages/8455/Bioethics-Nature-Scope-Bioethics.html
Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/8456/Bioethics-History-
Bioethics.html#ixzz50rEsV0Cb
Bioethics, The Methods Of Bioethics - Medicine, Field, Science, and Issues - JRank
Articles http://science.jrank.org/pages/7526/Bioethics.html#ixzz50rGB4yaz
10. https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/bioethics2100/2012/09/10/the-importance-of-bioethics/
11. https://www.britannica.com/topic/bioethics
12. Bioethics - Nature And Scope Of Bioethics - Care, Health, Ethical, and Research -
Bioethics.html#ixzz51FKKy1xV
13. http://www.literallydarling.com/blog/2015/05/18/bioethics-what-is-it-and-why-
should-i-care/
17