EACME
  • Home
  • Events
  • Awards
  • Members
  • Structure
  • Contact
Login

EACME Newsletter 54

  • 8 April 2020
  • No Comments
  • 183 Views
News, Newsletter

Download the full April 2020 EACME Newsletter

Contents

Editorial  G. Birchley

News from the EACME Bureau  R. Horn

Statement on European Solidarity and the Protection of Fundamental Rights in the COVID-19 Pandemic European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies

Young Medical Ethics Network  A Forum of the German Academy of Ethics in Medicine (AEM) 

Short report on EACME scholarship in 2019 5 D. Battisti

Report on Artificial Intelligence ethics seminar in Rome C. Casalone and L. Caenazzo

Short report on visiting fellowship 2020  A. Gieselmann

EACME Prize Winner 2019  G. Starke

Book review  J. Martin

Deadline Next newsletter 

Editorial Board

 

Editorial

I am very glad to welcome you to a – noticeably slimmer than usual – EACME newsletter. The reason for its brevity will be obvious to all who read it, given many of us are at various stage of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As I write the pandemic is fast approaching 1 000 000 confirmed infections. It is certainly a rare event that ethical issues are both so prominent in the news and so close to the lives of each of us. Clinical ethics is gaining rare attention in professional guidelines and national policy. Many medical ethicists are either taking up new roles in ethics consultation, or finding old ones making new demands, as clinicians try to avoid the overwhelming of health services by a tsunami of patients. Bioethicists and clinicians are therefore placed in the unenviable position of choosing which patients should access treatments for which too many patients have a pressing need. We must not be so naïve as to forget that, for much of the world outside of the global north, scarcity of healthcare is the norm. Yet for most medical ethicists working in EACME affiliated centres, the situation is highly abnormal.
If anything was to bring into stark relief the power of clinicians in exerting their values, it is this contrast between the power differential in the ostensibly “normal” (by which I mean pre-pandemic) clinical encounter, and that which occurs in the “abnormal” (intra-pandemic) clinical encounter. When considering the normal encounter, medical ethicists are used to advising clinicians, in many cases, to either defer to the patient’s values, or, in some circumstances where we feel the patient is not expressing an authentic choice, finding some middle ground between what is clinically good for the patient and what the patient believes. Under our current conditions, medical ethicists will find many situations where this customary approach simply does not make sense, because several patients will have equally rational desires for some scarce resource. Instead the question becomes how one decides between people, a question that demands the lens of (among others) fairness or desert. Indeed, when answering such questions in a liberal, pluralistic society (at least as cogently argued by Rawls), we must fall back upon a political, rather than a moral, theory. Such an observation implies that bioethics, and bioethicists, have been ejected from their accustomed sphere of the inter-personal to that of the extra-personal, in other words, the political. This, of course, is the realm in which Machiavelli suggested people should first learn “how not to be good”, so they might be good or not good as necessity demanded. Although this is a starting point that most moral philosophers would clearly reject, one thing is clear. This world based on necessity is, for bioethicists accustomed to working societies where resources are abundant, a brave new world indeed.
There are few comforting words to offer our community in this situation. We must do as we can and as we must, but as a bare minimum, do so in a spirit of community, kindness, and fellow-feeling. Above all, we must realise that this situation gives us a glimpse of a wider, harsher world from which we are often insulated. For the sake of that wider world we must try to learn – contra Machiavelli – how to be good, and remain good, despite the demands of necessity. Perhaps in this way we can emerge strengthened, rather than diminished, by this experience.

Dr Giles Birchley

Centre for Ethics in Medicine, University of Bristol, U.K.

Giles.birchley@bristol.ac.uk 

Download the full April 2020 EACME Newsletter

EACME Newsletter 53
EACME Newsletter 55
Related Posts
  • EACME Newsletter 55 8 August 2020
  • EACME Newsletter 53 8 December 2019
  • EACME Newsletter 52 8 August 2019

EACME

Maastricht University FHML
P.O. Box 616
6200 MD MAASTRICHT
The Netherlands

Tel: +31 43 3882145

Copyright © 2021 European Association of Centres of Medical Ethics