Confronting Moral Pluralism in Posttraditional Western Societies: Bioethics Critically Reassessed

Abstract

In the face of the moral pluralism that results from the death of God and the abandonment of a God's eye perspective in secular philosophy, bioethics arose in a context that renders it essentially incapable of giving answers to substantive moral questions, such as concerning the permissibility of abortion, human embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, etc. Indeed, it is only when bioethics understands its own limitations and those of secular moral philosophy in general can it better appreciate those tasks that it can actually usefully perform in both the clinical and academic setting. It is the task of this paper to understand and reevaluate bioethics by understanding these limits. Academic bioethicists can analyze ideas, concepts, and claims necessary to understanding the moral questions raised in health care, assessing the arguments related to these issues, and provide an understanding of the different moral perspectives on bioethical issues. In the clinical setting, bioethicists can provide legal advice, serve as experts on IRBs, mediating disputes, facilitating decision-making and risk management, and clarifying normative issues. However, understanding this is only possible when one understands the history, genesis, and foundations of bioethics and its inability to provide a resolution to postmodern moral pluralism.

The moral code in Islam and organ donation in Western countries: reinterpreting religious scriptures to meet utilitarian medical objectives

“…The assertion that physicians (more precisely, the transplantation community) should be customizing the death criteria, for the goals of the organ transplantation practice, highlights the creep of moral reasoning toward the duty-to-die and utilitarian medical homicide [61,62]. Engelhardt [63] has described the rise of secular moral reasoning in medicine and concluded that it “results from the death of God and the abandonment of a God's eye perspective” in “posttraditional Western societies”. Engelhardt [63] pointed out that controversial end-of-life medical practices have thrived through “secularizing” morality and dismantling traditional moral boundaries of Abrahamic faiths.…”

“…Engelhardt [63] has described the rise of secular moral reasoning in medicine and concluded that it “results from the death of God and the abandonment of a God's eye perspective” in “posttraditional Western societies”. Engelhardt [63] pointed out that controversial end-of-life medical practices have thrived through “secularizing” morality and dismantling traditional moral boundaries of Abrahamic faiths. Indeed, the new field of “Islamic bioethics” appears to be emerging with a focus on reinterpretation of religious text to accommodate utilitarian-based objectives in medicine [64].…”

Cultural Psychiatry: Research Strategies and Future Directions

“…Some of this apparent incompatibility may be resolved by recognizing that different healing systems, based on divergent ontologies, actually target different levels or kinds of outcome. However, recalcitrant problems remain that require further work in bioethics, moral philosophy and social science [96][97][98]. Attention to culture in mental health services can contribute to building pluralistic civil societies that recognize, protect and preserve the cultural basis of human rights and dignity [99,100].…”

Ethical Considerations in End-of-Life Deactivation of Durable Mechanical Circulatory Support Devices

“…24 However, this principlist moral attitude towards aid-in-dying and preplanning death transgresses traditional values in medicine and in some cultural and religious belief systems in pluralistic Western societies. 25 Failing to uphold these values in end-of-life care can have a long-lasting demeaning effect on clinicians and families. Death after withdrawal of other types of life-support devices has been associated with prolonged experience of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression among family members.…”