Must Bioethics be an Epistemic Hierarchy

Musts Bioethics be an Epistemic Hierarchy or an Interdisciplinary Analysis?
Maurizio Salvi
Dr. Maurizio Salvi,
Maastricht University, WTMC Institute, Dep. of Philosophy,
P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD, Maastricht, Netherlands,
Tel. +31.43.3883319, Fax: +31-43-3259311,
E-Mail: M.Salvi@Philosophy.unimaas.nl

Bioethics is a young discipline strictly tied with the problems which the modern technology presents to the humanity. But the heuristic mechanism, the internal logic through a bioethics analysis must be made are not clear yet. Why the involved disciplines try to find an epistemic hierarchy and they don't work together? I don't want to analyse this problem with a theoretic approach; I only want to present some critic idea inducing some deep mistakes. Fundamental problem of the bioethics analysis consists in the fact that bioethics need to answer to real and concrete phenomena. It is neither an academic topic of meta-ethics, or a statistic analysis of biologic (or scientific) phenomena, or an object where economic or juridical theories can be applied. It is, simply, .... all these things at the same time. Bioethics is a dimension where the theoresis meet the pragma, and it reports to the last one his own conclusions. This intrinsic bipolarity makes the topics analysed, really problematic (for example. euthanasia, applied genetics, allocation of economic resources, relationship medic-patient, germline gene therapy...). If we seriously think about this meaning of the Bioethics studies, we can see how the scientific community try to found obstacles, to define borders (of competence) inside which the bioethics problems have to be analysed. This means destroying the interdisciplarity of this science. This means finding an epistemic hierarchy. If we are analysing the biotechnological problems, the biologists or the chemistries must analyse these topics (with the risk/benefits criteria). If we are talking about nursing, the medical community, or the religious one -I can't understand why-, they will indicate the logic dynamics through which the problem can be solved. The same things can be said regarding other bioethics problems (everybody can research how the bioethics problems have been analysed with a univocal logic dynamic). But is it all positive? Apparently yes! Who can analyses better than an expert of a problem? I don't believe that this key is positive. If we limit the bioethics problems to one discipline we cause:

1. the destruction of the bioethics' meaning as a sincretic dimension of different disciplines which answer to the same questions;

2. the lost of the objectivity of judgement which bears to the juxtaposition of different points of view;

3. the transformation of a critic analysis on these themes in a formulation of normative and prescriptive judgements which destroy intrinsically (in the moment of his formulation) the possibility of choice of the true actors of the bioethics problems: the human beings;

4. the omission of the pragma of these problems implies the existence of people who live these situations in reality. If we accept that the bioethics is a pragmatic dimension, the need to cancel every effort of borders founding, results strictly tied with the same purpose of the bioethics judgements: finding a regulation (born from a critic analysis) which guarantees -and safeguards- the freedom of choice of the individuals.

When we question on a problem we need to solve three elements: 1) object to investigate; 2) analysis of his meaning; 3) law responding to this problem. Point (1) involves, in particular, the science (and also medicine and economy); the second one (2) involves the Philosophy (Sociology and Law), the third involves the Law (but also the Philosophy). In reality this is not a scheme to be respected, and it doesn't want to be a epistemic hierarchy. All these steps are postponed to the others -and vice versa- (we need an interdisciplinary approach!). The science, even if analyses peculiarities of phenomena, in reality participates to the point (2), for not loosing the pragmatic dimension which results to the point (3). This implies a big effort of humility, and a strong desire to find pragmatic solutions. Is this everything? Of course, but it is not easy to doubt the authority of a science (a clear example is the resistance of the science to the philosophy in the biotechnological problems). It is difficult to change the mentality, but I believe that it is a mark of strength (and intelligence) and not of weakness, to compare ourselves with other persons on clear topics. Maybe I'm provocative but .... let's think about it!