Search

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2009.01711.x Byline: CARLO LEGET (1), PASCAL BORRY (2), RAYMOND DE VRIES (3) Keywords: empirical; methodology; bioethics; theory Abstract: ABSTRACT This article discusses the relation between empirical and normative approaches in bioethics. The issue of dwarf tossing, while admittedly unusual, is chosen as a point of departure because it challenges the reader to look with fresh eyes upon several central bioethical themes, including human dignity, autonomy, and the protection of vulnerable people. After an overview of current approaches to the integration of empirical and normative ethics, we consider five ways that the empirical and normative can be brought together to speak to the problem of dwarf tossing: prescriptive applied ethics, theoretical ethics, critical applied ethics, particularist ethics and integrated empirical ethics. We defend a position of critical applied ethics that allows for a two-way relation between empirical and normative theories. Against efforts fully to integrate the normative and the empirical into one synthesis, we propose that the two should stand in tension and relation to one another. The approach we endorse acknowledges that a social practice can and should be judged both by the gathering of empirical data and by normative ethics. Critical applied ethics uses a five stage process that includes: (a) determination of the problem, (b) description of the problem, (c) empirical study of effects and alternatives, (d) normative weighing and (e) evaluation of the effects of a decision. In each stage, we explore the perspective from both the empirical (sociological) and the normative ethical point of view. We conclude by applying our five-stage critical applied ethics to the example of dwarf tossing. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Tilburg (2)KU Leuven (Belgium) (3)University of Michigan Article note: Carlo Leget PhD, Tilburg University, Faculty of Humanities, Department of Religious Studies and Theology, PO Box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands. Tel: +31-13-466 2606 or 466 3563; Fax: +31-13-466 2892; E-mail: c.j.w.leget@uvt.nl

Publications are primarily a means of communicating scientific information to colleagues, but they are much more than that. Publications in peer reviewed journals are proof of academic competence, are used as a crucial component in evaluation criteria for academic promotion and fundraising and increase the prestige of research centres and universities. The urgent need for publications has also led to abuses in authorship. In the past the single-author article was the rule, but over the past decades, the average number of authors on scientific manuscripts has drastically increased. In the field of bioethics, however, no research has been undertaken to study whether the percentage of single-author articles is decreasing, the proportion of multi-author articles is increasing or the average number of authors per article is increasing. The objective of this research is to analyze these trends in authorship for the period 1990-2003 in peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics. In the nine peer reviewed journals from the field of bioethics we studied, we observed a significant increase of the multi-author article and of the average number of authors. This is mainly due to the increase in the number of publications with an empirical design. This growing trend is a challenge for the editors of journals in the field of bioethics to enhance awareness about the value and definition of authorship.

Since its origin, bioethics has attracted the collaboration of few social scientists, and social scientific methods of gathering empirical data have remained unfamiliar to ethicists. Recently, however, the clouded relations between the empirical and normative perspectives on bioethics appear to be changing. Three reasons explain why there was no easy and consistent input of empirical evidence into bioethics. Firstly, interdisciplinary dialogue runs the risk of communication problems and divergent objectives. Secondly, the social sciences were absent partners since the beginning of bioethics. Thirdly, the meta-ethical distinction between 'is' and 'ought' created a 'natural' border between the disciplines. Now, bioethics tends to accommodate more empirical research. Three hypotheses explain this emergence. Firstly, dissatisfaction with a foundationalist interpretation of applied ethics created a stimulus to incorporate empirical research in bioethics. Secondly, clinical ethicists became engaged in empirical research due to their strong integration in the medical setting. Thirdly, the rise of the evidence-based paradigm had an influence on the practice of bioethics. However, a problematic relationship cannot simply and easily evolve into a perfect interaction. A new and positive climate for empirical approaches has arisen, but the original difficulties have not disappeared.

The Global Kidney Exchange (GKE) program, introduced by Rees et al. (2017), has been described as an innovative method to address the global shortage of kidneys for the purpose of transplantation. However, the concept of the GKE has evoked controversy and various international bodies have accused it of being a form of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) exploitation. Using Julian Koplin's framework of exploitation, we consider three different conceptualizations of wrongful advantage taking in the unique setting formed by the GKE. The analysis contributes to a better understanding of the controversy and gives insight into how to deal with background conditions that influence the fairness of such a global social cooperation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Despite a considerable interest in expanded carrier screening (ECS) in the general population, actual uptake of ECS remains low. More insights are needed to better understand the perspectives of reproductive-aged individuals. Materials & methods: Nonpregnant women of reproductive age recruited through public pharmacies throughout Flanders (Belgium) were invited to participate in an online survey. Results: Most participants (63.6%) indicated they would consider ECS for themselves in the future. About one in two participants showed a positive attitude toward ECS. Conclusion: This study reports valuable insights in the perspectives of nonpregnant reproductive-aged women in Flanders (Belgium) regarding ECS that can be used in the ongoing debate on the responsible implementation of ECS. Previous studies have reported a considerable interest in carrier screening for hereditary conditions among individuals in the general population, but actual uptake remains low. This study examines the perspectives of nonpregnant reproductive-aged women in Flanders (Belgium) regarding expanded carrier screening (ECS) for hereditary conditions to gain more insights in factors that possibly influence the opinions of reproductive-aged women. These insights are crucial to ensure a responsible implementation of ECS within healthcare services and to make sure that future parents are making informed choices when they are presented with the choice to accept or decline ECS. The results of this study can be used by healthcare providers interacting with couples planning a pregnancy to improve pre-/post-test counseling services. Which in turn can help to manage expectations and reduce misconceptions among potential users of ECS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]