Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:54:05.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Bioethics and Neuroethics

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion

The Liberalism Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2022

Leonard M. Fleck
Leonard M. Fleck
Affiliation:
Michigan State University

Summary

Can religious arguments provide a reasonable, justified basis for restrictive (coercive) public policies regarding numerous ethically and politically controversial medical interventions, such as research with human embryos, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or using artificial wombs? With Rawls, we answer negatively. Liberally reasonable policies must address these controversial technologies on the basis of public reasons accessible to all, even if not fully agreeable by all. Further, public democratic deliberation requires participants to construct these policies as citizens who are agnostic with respect to the truth of all comprehensive doctrines, whether secular or religious. The goal of these deliberations is practical, namely, to identify reasonable policy options that reflect fair terms of cooperation in a liberal, pluralistic society. Further, religious advocates may participate in formal policymaking processes as reasonable liberal citizens. Finally, public reason evolves through the deliberative process and all the novel technological challenges medicine generates for bioethics and related public policies.
Get access

Keywords

public reasonpolitical liberalismreligious restraintbioethicsmedical research
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Bioethics and Neuroethics
Online ISBN: 9781009086684
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 01 September 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berman, Paul. 2003. “The Philosopher of Islamic Terror.” New York Times Magazine (March 23). www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/magazine/the-philosopher-of-islamic-terror.htmlGoogle Scholar
Blackshaw, Bruce P., and Rodger, Daniel. 2021. “Why We Should Not Extend the 14-day Rule.” Journal of Medical Ethics 47: 712–14.Google Scholar
Blackshaw, Bruce P., and Rodger, Daniel. 2019. “Ectogenesis and the Case Against the Right to the Death of the Foetus.” Bioethics 33: 76–81.Google Scholar
Borysowski, Jan, Ehni, Hans-Jorg, and Gorski, Andrzej. 2017. “Ethics Review in Compassionate Use.” BMC Medicine 15: 136–43.Google Scholar
Castelyn, Grant. 2020. “Embryo Experimentation: Is There a Case for Moving Beyond the 14-day Rule?” Monash Bioethics Review 38 (2): 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavaliere, Giulia. 2020. “Gestation, Equality, and Freedom: Ectogenesis as a Political Perspective.” Journal of Medical Ethics 46: 76–82.Google Scholar
Cherry, Mark. 2017. “The Scandal of Secular Bioethics: What Happens When the Culture Acts as if There is No God?” Christian Bioethics 23 (2): 85–99.Google Scholar
Coastal Fertility Specialists. 2017. “Why do Chromosomally Normal Embryos Not Implant in the Uterus?” www.coastalfertilityspecialists.com/resources/blog/why-do-chromosomally-normal-embryos-not-implant-in/ Accessed 3/23/22.Google Scholar
Daniels, Norman. 1996. Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Darrow, Jonathan J., Sarpatwari, Arneet, Avorn, Jerry, and Kesselheim, Aaron. 2015. “Practical, Ethical, and Legal Issues in Expanded Access to Investigational Drugs.” New England Journal of Medicine 372: 279–86.Google Scholar
Davis, Dena S. 1995. “Embryos Created for Research Purposes.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 5 (4): 343–54.Google Scholar
Declercq, Eugene and Zephyrin, Laurie. 2021. Severe Maternal Morbidity in the United States: A Primer. The Commonwealth Fund (October). www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2021/oct/severe-maternal-morbidity-united-states-primer#:~:text=Each%20year%2C%20as%20many%20as,avoided%20with%20timely%2C%20appropriate%20care. Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar
DeMarneffe, Per. 1994. “Rawls’s Idea of Public Reason.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 75: 232–50.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1993. Life’s Dominion: An Argument About Abortion, Euthanasia, and Individual Freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Eberle, Christopher. 2002. Religious Conviction in Liberal Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eberle, Christopher and Cuneo, Terence. 2015. “Religion and Political Theory.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/religion-politics/. Accessed 4?30/22.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, H. Tristram. 2017. After God: Morality and Bioethics in a Secular Age. Younkers: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.Google Scholar
Fleck, Leonard M. 2022. Precision Medicine and Distributive Justice: Wicked Problems for Democratic Deliberation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleck, Leonard M. 2021. “Alzheimer’s and Aducanumab: Unjust Profits and False Hopes.” Hastings Center Report 51 (4): 9–11.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel (ed.). 1999. John Rawls: Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friberg-Fernros, Henrik. 2015. “A Critique of Rob Lovering’s Criticism of the Substance View.” Bioethics 29 (3): 211–16.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1995. Private Consciences and Public Reasons. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1988. Religious Convictions and Political Choice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Institute, Guttmacher. 2021. “Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe.” www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe Accessed 1/20/2022.Google Scholar
Haberman, Clyde. 2014. “Baby M and the Question of Surrogate Motherhood.” New York Times (March 23). www.nytimes.com/2014/03/24/us/baby-m-and-the-question-of-surrogate-motherhood.html Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar
Hancock, Susan, Taber, Katherine and Goldberg, James. 2021. “Fetal Screening and Whole Genome Sequencing: Where are the Limits?” Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 21 (5): 433–35.Google Scholar
Donation, Hatch Egg & Surrogacy. 2022. “The Best U.S. States for Surrogacy in 2022.” www.hatch.us/blog/best-worst-states-for-surrogacy Accessed 3/31/22.Google Scholar
Hendricks, Perry. 2018. “There is No Right to the Death of the Fetus.” Bioethics 32: 35–97.Google Scholar
Hurlbut, Benjamin J. 2015. “Religion and Public Reason in the Politics of Biotechnology.” Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 29: 101–28.Google Scholar
Hyun, Insoo, Bredenoord, Annelien, Briscoe, James, Klipstein, Sigal, and Tan, Tao. 2021. “Human Embryo Research Beyond the Primitive Streak.” Science 371 (6533): 998–1000.Google Scholar
Jacob, Julie A. 2015. “Questions of Safety and Fairness Raised as Right-To-Try Movement Gains Steam.” JAMA 314: 768–60.Google Scholar
Jiang, Lijing. 2011. “Robert Geoffrey Edwards and Patrick Christopher Steptoe’s Clinical Research in Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, 1969-80.” The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (May 12). https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/robert-geoffrey-edwards-and-patrick-christopher-steptoes-clinical-research-human-vitro Accessed 4/3/22.Google Scholar
Johnson, Stephen. 2018. “Is the New ‘Right to Try’ Law Libertarian Quackery or Lifesaving Hope?” Politics and Current Affairs (May 31). https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/trump-signs-right-to-try-bill-that-lets-the-terminally-ill-take-experimental-drugs/ Accessed 3/20/22.Google Scholar
Jones, Bradley. 2020. “What is a Super Responder?” Cancer Today (June 26). www.cancertodaymag.org/Pages/cancer-talk/What-is-a-Super-Responder.aspx Accessed 3/31/22.Google Scholar
Kaczor, Christopher. 2018. “Ectogenesis and a Right to the Death of the Prenatal Human Being: A Reply to Rasanenr.” Bioethics 32: 634–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kass, Leon. 1997. “The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why We Should Ban the Cloning of Humans.” The New Republic 216 (22): 17–27.Google Scholar
Kendal, Evie. 2020. “Pregnant People, Inseminators and Tissues of Human Origin: How Ectogenesis Challenges the Concept of Abortion.” Monash Bioethics Review 38: 197–204.Google Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. 2009. “Religion and the Public Sphere: What Are the Deliberative Obligations of Democratic Citizenship?” Philosophy & Social Criticism 35 (1–2): 127–50.Google Scholar
Levinson, Sanford. 1992. “Religious Language and the Public Square.” Harvard Law Review 105 (8): 2061–79.Google Scholar
Lovering, Rob. 2012. “The Substance View: A Critique.” Bioethics 27 (5): 263–70.Google Scholar
Mackay, Kathryn. 2020. “The ‘Tyranny of Reproduction’: Could Ectogenesis Further Women’s Liberation?” Bioethics 34: 346–53.Google Scholar
Mahant, Vijay. 2020. “‘Right to Try’ Experimental Drugs: An Overview.” Journal of Translational Medicine 18: 253–59.Google Scholar
Mathison, Eric and Davis, Jeremy. 2017. “Is There a Right to the Death of the Foetus?” Bioethics 31: 313–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCully, Sophia. 2021. “The Time has Come to Extend the 14-day Limit.” Journal of Medical Ethics 47: e66. http://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106406.Google Scholar
Miller, Eric C. 2015. “The Drama of American Religious Freedom.” Politics and Religion 8: 818–25.Google Scholar
Murphy, Timothy J. 2012. “Research Priorities and the Future of Pregnancy.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 78–89.Google Scholar
Medicine, Onyx Integrative. 2022. Naturopathic Treatment Approach. https://onyxintegrative.com/is-a-naturopathic-doctor-a-real-doctor/ Accessed 2/02/2022.Google Scholar
Oyez. 1965. Griswold v. Connecticut. 381 US 479 (1965). www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496 Accessed 1/20/ 2022.Google Scholar
Parker, Michael. 2007. “The Best Possible Child.” Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (5): 279–83.Google Scholar
Perry, Michael J. 1997. Religion in Politics: Constitutional and Moral Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, Michael J. 1988. Morality, Politics, and Law. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plant, Raymond. 2009. “Citizenship, Religion, and Political Liberalism.” In Religious Voices in Public Places, edited by Biggar, Nigel and Hogan, Linda. New York: Oxford University Press, 37–57.Google Scholar
Quinn, Philip L. 1997. “Political Liberalisms and Their Exclusions of the Religious.” In Religion and Contemporary Liberalism, edited by Weithman, Paul J.. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 138–61.Google Scholar
Quinn, Philip L. 1995. “Political Liberalisms and the Exclusions of the Religious.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 69 (2): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quong, Jonathan. 2014. “On the Idea of Public Reason.” In A Companion to Rawls, edited by Mandle, Jon and Reidy, David. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 265–80.Google Scholar
Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism Without Perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rasanen, Joona. 2017. “Ectogenesis, Abortion and the Right to the Death of the Fetus.” Bioethics 31: 697–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Rawls, John. 1999. Collected Papers. Edited by John Freeman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Romanis, Elizabeth Chloe. 2018. “Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications.” Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 751–55.Google Scholar
Savulescu, Julian. 2001. “Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children.” Bioethics 15: 413–26.Google Scholar
Scharf, Amy and Dzeng, Elizabeth. 2017. “‘I’m Willing to Try Anything’: Compassionate Use Access to Experimental Drugs and the Misguided Mission of Right-To-Try Laws.” Health Affairs (March 27). www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20170327.059378/ Accessed 3/2/22.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Alvin J. and Babchuk, Nicholas. 1973. “The Unbrotherly Brotherhood: Discrimination in Fraternal Orders.” Phylon 34 (3): 275–82.Google Scholar
Segers, Seppe, Pennings, Guido, and Mertes, Heidi. 2020. “The Ethics of Ectogenesis-Aided Foetal Treatment.” Bioethics 34: 364–70.Google Scholar
Simkulet, William. 2016. “A Critique of Henrik Friberg-Fernros’s Defense of the Substance View.” Bioethics 30 (9): 767–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smajdor, Anna. 2011. “In Defense of Ectogenesis.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 21: 90–103.Google Scholar
Smajdor, Anna. 2007. “The Moral Imperative for Ectogenesis.” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 16: 336–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swancutt, Katherine. 2019. “Animism.” Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. www.anthroencyclopedia.com/entry/animism Accessed 3/21/22.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1: 47–66.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2012. “Liberalism, Religion and Integrity.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1): 149–65.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2011. “Against Public Reason Liberalism’s Accessibility Requirement.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 8: 366–89.Google Scholar
Jeremy, Williams. 2015. “Public Reason and Prenatal Moral Status.” The Journal of Ethics 19(1): 23–52.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas and Audi, Robert. 1997. Religion in the Public Square: The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2012. Understanding Liberal Democracy: Essays in Political Philosophy. Edited by Terence Cuneo. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Bioethics, Public Reason, and Religion
Available formats
×