Download the full 
August 2019 EACME Newsletter
Contents
Editorial 1 G. Birchley
News from the EACME Bureau R. Horn
EACME CONFERENCE 2019 M. Parker and R. Horn
Professional Ethics at the end of Life International Workshop for Young Scholars, M. French and A-H Seidlein
The Path to fostering good science The Embassy of Good Science
I. Lechner, N. Evans, G. Widdershoven
Project Report L. Kaelin, D. Harrer, M. Fuchs
Conference SNEC Lausanne
Evaluating Clinical Ethics Support CESS
Workshop of the UK-France Genomics and Ethics Network R. Horn and M. Gaille
Empirical Bioethics in Peru E. Valenti
The Teaching of Bioethics for health professionals from a transdisciplinary viewpoint Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
Vacancy Executive Board Secretary
New EACME member BEC Montréal
Book review J. Martin
Deadline of next EACME Newsletter
Editorial Board
Editorial
It seems after two successive years when UK medical ethics found itself in the international spotlight over cases of withdrawal of medical treatment over spring and summer, it is now the turn of France. The case of Vincent Lambert, a 42-year-old man in a continuing vegetative state (CVS) after a road traffic accident, from whom his doctors proposed to withdraw the tube feeding that was keeping him alive, once again saw the courts settling a family, and societal, disagreement. Vincent’s parents and two of his siblings opposed withdrawal of treatment, while Vincent’s wife and six other siblings agreed that withdrawal would have been in accordance with Vincent’s past wishes. The case was the subject of public protests and impassioned debate that appeared little changed from that which in the past accompanied similar cases internationally, such as Terri Schiavo in the USA, Eluana Englaro in Italy and Anthony Bland in the UK. Those who supported withdrawal argued that a life in CVS was so diminished patients could not experience anything, be it pain or joy. Such a life was not worth living on its own account, and furthermore, that the past wishes of the patient should be followed in such cases. Those who opposed withdrawal argued that life had an intrinsic value, that there was no way of telling what the patient with CVS would want contemporaneously, whatever their wishes in the past, but that withdrawal of nutrition and hydration from somebody who was not actively dying was both illogical and unspeakably cruel. These arguments are essentially the same as those heard in every similar case in the past forty years. Despite this apparent repetition, all this seems to have some value. It highlights the important work of bioethicists, amid extremely emotive issues, to help the public to look rationally at the world, so the world looks rationally back (to paraphrase Hegel). This is not to say that rationality is the end of the story – the importance of emotion in being a full human being has been rather too little stated in philosophical bioethics – yet the complex role of rational argument as a glue that strengthens a society’s ability to find acceptance amid emotive disagreements shows that bioethics can have an important function.
It is therefore not without some (positive) emotion that I present the latest EACME newsletter. As you shall see the newsletter covers an impressive and broad range of activities and reports, including a discussion of empirical bioethics in Peru and reports on research projects as diverse as the ethics of genome editing and the evaluation of clinical ethics support, as well as book reviews and workshop reports. I hope you enjoy these, and I am looking forward to meeting many of you in Oxford this year for the EACME 2019 conference, in what promises to offer both healthy debate, rational deliberation and (hopefully) some joyous moments!
Dr Giles Birchley
Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, U.K.
Download the full August 2019 EACME Newsletter
