How Populism Affects Bioethics.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Gustavo Ortiz-Millán
{"title":"How Populism Affects Bioethics.","authors":"Gustavo Ortiz-Millán","doi":"10.1017/S0963180124000161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article aims at raising awareness about the intersection of populism and bioethics. It argues that illiberal forms of populism may have negative consequences on the evolution of bioethics as a discipline and on its practical objectives. It identifies at least seven potential negative effects: (1) The rise of populist leaders fosters \"epistemological populism,\" devaluing the expert and scientific perspectives on which bioethics is usually based, potentially steering policies away from evidence-based foundations. (2) The impact of \"moral populism\" is evident in legislative prioritization of the \"morality of common people,\" often solicited through popular consultations on issues like abortion, drug legalization, or LGBT issues. (3) Populist distrust in autonomous governmental agencies and advisory bodies, including national bioethics commissions, can compromise expert advice, challenging both their authority and decisions. (4) Populists may erode transparency by undermining institutions responsible for it, hindering access to vital information for bioethical research. (5) \"Medical populism\" creates adversarial dynamics, prompting politicians to make simplistic healthcare policy decisions based on political rather than informed criteria, adversely affecting vulnerable populations. (6) Radical-right populist parties' \"welfare chauvinism\" may shape healthcare policies, impacting service access and resource allocation, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as migrants, but indirectly affecting the rest of the population. (7) Nationalist sentiments associated with populism may obstruct international collaborations, posing challenges for global bioethics that seeks to address ethical concerns beyond national borders. In summary, these dynamics raise significant bioethical concerns encompassing evidence-based decision-making, transparency, healthcare equity, and global collaboration. How bioethicists may respond to these challenges is discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180124000161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article aims at raising awareness about the intersection of populism and bioethics. It argues that illiberal forms of populism may have negative consequences on the evolution of bioethics as a discipline and on its practical objectives. It identifies at least seven potential negative effects: (1) The rise of populist leaders fosters "epistemological populism," devaluing the expert and scientific perspectives on which bioethics is usually based, potentially steering policies away from evidence-based foundations. (2) The impact of "moral populism" is evident in legislative prioritization of the "morality of common people," often solicited through popular consultations on issues like abortion, drug legalization, or LGBT issues. (3) Populist distrust in autonomous governmental agencies and advisory bodies, including national bioethics commissions, can compromise expert advice, challenging both their authority and decisions. (4) Populists may erode transparency by undermining institutions responsible for it, hindering access to vital information for bioethical research. (5) "Medical populism" creates adversarial dynamics, prompting politicians to make simplistic healthcare policy decisions based on political rather than informed criteria, adversely affecting vulnerable populations. (6) Radical-right populist parties' "welfare chauvinism" may shape healthcare policies, impacting service access and resource allocation, disproportionately affecting vulnerable groups such as migrants, but indirectly affecting the rest of the population. (7) Nationalist sentiments associated with populism may obstruct international collaborations, posing challenges for global bioethics that seeks to address ethical concerns beyond national borders. In summary, these dynamics raise significant bioethical concerns encompassing evidence-based decision-making, transparency, healthcare equity, and global collaboration. How bioethicists may respond to these challenges is discussed.

民粹主义如何影响生物伦理学?
本文旨在提高人们对民粹主义与生命伦理学相互关系的认识。文章认为,非自由形式的民粹主义可能会对生命伦理学作为一门学科的发展及其实际目标产生负面影响。报告指出了至少七种潜在的负面影响:(1) 民粹主义领导人的崛起助长了 "认识论上的民粹主义",贬低了生物伦理通常所依据的专家和科学观点,有可能使政策偏离以证据为基础的原则。(2)"道德民粹主义 "的影响体现在立法上优先考虑 "普通人的道德",这通常是通过就堕胎、毒品合法化或男女同性恋、双性恋和变性者问题进行全民协商来实现的。(3) 民粹主义者对自治政府机构和咨询机构(包括国家生命伦理学委员会)的不信任会损害专家建议,对其权威和决策提出质疑。(4) 民粹主义者可能会通过破坏负责透明度的机构来削弱透明度,阻碍生物伦理研究获得重要信息。(5) "医疗民粹主义 "造成了对立的态势,促使政治家根据政治标准而非知情标准做出简单化的医疗政策决定,对弱势群体造成不利影响。(6) 激进右翼民粹主义政党的 "福利沙文主义 "可能会影响医疗保健政策,影响服务的获取和资源分配,对移民等弱势群体造成不成比例的影响,但也间接影响到其他人群。(7) 与民粹主义相关的民族主义情绪可能会阻碍国际合作,从而对旨在解决超越国界的伦理问题的全球生命伦理学构成挑战。总之,这些动态引发了重大的生命伦理问题,包括循证决策、透明度、医疗保健公平和全球合作。本文讨论了生物伦理学家如何应对这些挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信