Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2021
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Salon

Bioethics? A grand idea

Tom Koch
CMAJ January 01, 2008 178 (1) 116; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071556
Tom Koch PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Metrics
  • Responses
  • PDF
Loading
  • © 2008 Canadian Medical Association

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked about American democracy, he said he thought it a grand idea and hoped, someday, Americans might try it. A devastating critique, gently delivered, it is how I think of bioethics, a good idea we await rather than one we have instituted.

Beginning in the 1960s, a group of medical amateurs skilled in moral philosophy hijacked medical ethics, creating a “bio-ethic” based on simplistic readings of enlightenment philosophers. The result is more often a liability than a boon to patients and medical personnel alike. We see the ethic's outline in the endless tomes of the discipline, and the dissertations of the students indoctrinated through them. The limits of bioethics are evident in the policies its professionals assert in hospitals and clinics, and research facilities, today.

Figure1

Photo by: Andrew Young

In a career that now spans 2 decades of work with the fragile and their families, I can state categorically that I've never found the standard principles of bioethics useful in my work. More often, I find they serve as an excuse for behavior contrary to the client's long-term health and interest. Simply put, 19th-century philosophy does not translate easily into practice at the 21st-century medical centre or patient bedside.

Consider: As its guiding principles, bioethics asserts first the autonomy of the individual and secondly a right to self-determination. Here the trouble begins. Autonomy is a fiction. We are not feral creatures, but, by nature and evolution, members of a communal and interrelated species. Medical ethics is never about the individual, but instead concerns the often conflicted, confused congress of familial, institutional and medical persons involved in a person's care.

Similarly misguided is the ideal of self-determination that assumes a person's ability to choose between complex procedures and possible outcomes. To be meaningful, self-determination assumes an understanding of medicine and choices that few patients can claim. At the extreme, we ask patients to choose between states requiring long-term medical care — life in a wheelchair, with a colostomy bag, etc. — and no life at all. How do they make this choice without a detailed understanding of what the resulting life might be?

With no experience, and regret over the loss of a lifestyle they have lived, many choose to die. And yet, every study I have read of persons who have transited from thoughtless normalcy to conscious disability asserts that, in time, the majority find their newly constituted lives more than worth living. Some academics call this the “disability paradox.” There is no self-determination without knowledge and no knowledge without experience. An ethics asserting self-determination in such conditions is no ethic at all.

Similarly, bioethicists assert beneficence (doing good) as a principal virtue. I'm all for “good,” but the question is: Whose good are we talking about? Is it “good” that we terminate 90% of all fetuses with Trisomy 21? As a principal, beneficence is typically employed less about the patient or person's good than society's. It is a means of arguing patients should give blood and DNA samples, and participate in drug trials that will help others, but not the patient him or herself. In application these days, bioethics is mostly a rationale for institutional objectives rather than patient desires and needs.

If bankrupt at the level of principled thought, bioethicists become positively dangerous in action. In cases from Toronto, Ontario, to Vancouver, British Columbia, in Honolulu, Hawaii, and elsewhere in the United States where I have consulted, bioethicists have served more often as apologists for questionable medical decisions than as advocates of patient (or surrogate) interests.

The problem is we have an advancing, 21st century medicine wrapped in a 19th century economic vision, encapsulated in the simplistic application of 18th and 19th century philosophers. We need a robust medical ethic that matches the science we strive for and the care we are capable of as a society, one that acknowledges diversity rather than asserts normalcy as an ideal. Ethics, like medicine, must promote the care and best interests of the patient rather than those of industry and institutions. To paraphrase Ghandiji: I'm all for a robust bioethics and look forward to its development.

Footnotes

  • Tom Koch is a bioethicist on the Canadian Down Syndrome Society Resource Council and a consultant in bioethics and gerontology at the Copeman Healthcare Centre, Vancouver, BC

    This article is adapted in part from the author's Bioethics as Ideology: Conditional and Unconditional Values. J Med Philos 2006;31:3:351-68.

    Have you got an opinion about this article? Post your views at www.cmaj.ca. Potential Salon contributors are welcome to send a query to salon{at}cma.ca

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 178 (1)
CMAJ
Vol. 178, Issue 1
1 Jan 2008
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bioethics? A grand idea
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Bioethics? A grand idea
Tom Koch
CMAJ Jan 2008, 178 (1) 116; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.071556

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Bioethics? A grand idea
Tom Koch
CMAJ Jan 2008, 178 (1) 116; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.071556
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The law and physician-assisted dying
  • Care, compassion, respect
  • Revisiting Rodriguez
Show more Salon

Similar Articles

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of the resources on this site in an accessible format, please contact us at cmajgroup@cmaj.ca.

Powered by HighWire