Deciding about your health care: the ethicist as policy-maker

Area of Science:

• Biomedical Ethics
• Science and Technology Policy

Background:

• Professional bioethics demonstrates a cultural tendency toward risk aversion when assessing novel biomedical technologies.
• This risk aversion is particularly evident in the evaluation of genetic testing, human embryonic stem cells, and reproductive cloning.
• Increased bioethicist involvement in federal regulatory processes may intensify this cautious approach.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze the risk-averse culture within professional bioethics regarding new technologies.
• To evaluate the implications of adopting the precautionary principle in bioethics.
• To propose an alternative ethical framework for implementing biomedical innovations.

Main Methods:

• Conceptual analysis of bioethical discourse and regulatory involvement.
• Critique of the precautionary principle's application in biomedical contexts.
• Argumentation for an alternative ethical approach based on trial and error.

Main Results:

• Professional bioethics is culturally risk-averse, hindering the ethical evaluation of emerging technologies.
• The precautionary principle, if adopted, could impede the development of beneficial new therapies.
• A bias toward caution may lead bioethicists to overly restrict technological advancement.

Conclusions:

• Bioethicists should reject the precautionary principle due to its potential to harm patients by delaying therapeutic innovation.
• Conscientious trial and error is presented as a more effective ethical strategy for navigating new biomedical technologies.
• An adaptive, iterative approach is advocated for the responsible implementation of advancements in genetic testing, stem cell research, and cloning.