Bioethics Issues

The recent attention given to bioethics in numerous articles and letters to the editor has presented a compelling discussion of decision-making in the next century. Two contributors of letters, Arthur W. Galston [The Scientist, May 13, 1996, page 12] and Brian Everill [The Scientist, Sept. 2, 1996, page 12], have probed the heart of the issue; however, at times they seem caught up in disrespecting each other's credibility. Claims of psuedoquotations and skepticism about each other's definition

Aaron Miller
Nov 24, 1996

The recent attention given to bioethics in numerous articles and letters to the editor has presented a compelling discussion of decision-making in the next century. Two contributors of letters, Arthur W. Galston [The Scientist, May 13, 1996, page 12] and Brian Everill [The Scientist, Sept. 2, 1996, page 12], have probed the heart of the issue; however, at times they seem caught up in disrespecting each other's credibility. Claims of psuedoquotations and skepticism about each other's definition of moral dilemma have bogged the discussion down in a competition of intellectual prowess.

The heart of the matter is the difference between drawing on a broad base of ethical and philosophical insight as opposed to relying on your own intuition and experience when resolving an ethical dilemma. Everill does not seem to think that a thorough study of ethics will aid in making a decision about...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?