Public Reason, Bioethics, and Public Policy: A Seductive Delusion or Ambitious Aspiration?

Area of Science:

• Bioethics
• Political Philosophy
• Medical Law

Background:

• Bioethical debates involve controversial medical and technological interventions.
• Disagreements often stem from differing worldviews and values.
• Existing frameworks struggle to reconcile diverse perspectives on issues like abortion and gene editing.

Purpose of the Study:

• To examine if Rawlsian public reason can justify policies on controversial bioethical interventions.
• To explore how public reason can mitigate policy disagreements in bioethics.
• To identify norms of public reason essential for a liberal, pluralistic democracy.

Main Methods:

• Explication of Rawlsian political liberalism concepts.
• Application of public reason principles to bioethical policy disagreements.
• Analysis of specific cases: abortion, physician aid-in-dying, gene editing, surrogacy, PGD, health costs, death definition, and IVF embryos.

Main Results:

• Rawlsian public reason can ameliorate, but not fully resolve, policy disagreements.
• It reduces disagreement by removing elements violating public reason norms.
• Remaining disagreements are subject to democratic deliberation.

Conclusions:

• Public reason provides a framework for addressing complex bioethical issues within a democratic society.
• Upholding norms of public reason is crucial for maintaining a liberal, pluralistic society.
• This approach facilitates reasoned debate and policy consensus on contentious medical and technological interventions.