ELLIOTT: Bioethics can’t be pigeon-holed

On Aug. 25, Dr. Miguel Faria wrote a column in response to Dr. Bill Cummings, in which he made references to bioethics. Among other things, he referred to bioethics as a branch of “secular humanism” and stated that bioethicists considered providing medical care to older individuals “an irrational misallocation of resources better spent on younger people.” Such mischaracterizations cannot go unchallenged, especially as I have corresponded collegially with Faria in an attempt to correct what I previously thought were simple misunderstandings.

Bioethics embraces no particular religious or anti-religious assumptions, is practiced by priests and pastors as well as by individuals having no particular religious orientation. Conservatives as well as liberals may be found in their number. The aim of bioethics is to provide a framework, free from political or religious bias, that might help with decisions regarding important biological and medical issues (e.g., how human embryos are to be considered). Within that framework, individuals might bring their personal biases and orientations, but these should be made manifest (i.e., hidden agendas are unacceptable). So bioethicists might be pro-life or pro-choice, but their reasoning should be explainable, at least to other bioethicists with whom they might disagree, and perhaps to others as well.

This is not to say some bioethicists have not behaved unprofessionally, but that, as a whole, it is a gross mischaracterization to speak of bioethicists as secular humanists or as favoring withholding care from an individual based solely on age.

— Richard L. Elliott, M.D., Ph.D., Macon.

This story was originally published August 30, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "ELLIOTT: Bioethics can’t be pigeon-holed ."