Are the core values of the radiological protection system shared across cultures?

In spite of ongoing globalisation in many fields, the ethics of radiological protection have long been discussed almost exclusively in terms of 'Western' moral philosophy concepts such as utilitarianism or deontology. A cross-cultural discourse in this field is only just beginning. In 'Principles of Biomedical Ethics', Beauchamp and Childress suggested that there exists a 'common morality' which is 'not relative to cultures or individuals, because it transcends both'. They proposed four cross-culturally valid principles for decision making in medicine: respect for autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. A similar approach is being developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection Task Group 94 on the ethics of radiological protection. Here, the core values are: human dignity, beneficence/non-maleficence, prudence, and justice. Other values could be added, such as consideration for the interests of society as a whole or the interests of future generations, or procedural values such as transparency and accountability; this paper will include a brief discussion on how they relate to the four basic principles. The main question to be addressed here, however, is whether the proposed core values are indeed part of a 'common morality'. This, as it will be argued, cannot be decided by a global opinion poll, but has to be based on an analysis of the written and oral traditions that have provided ethical orientation throughout history, and are still considered seminal by the majority of people. It turns out that there are indeed many commonalities across cultures, and that the concept of globally shared core values for the radiological protection system is not hopelessly idealistic.