Left-wing ideologues presume to hold the key to the world’s most intractable problems.
The ambition of the bioethics movement continues to inflate. Now, we are told, humanity and endangered species need rescuing.
Writing in The Lancet, 22 (count ’em) bioethicists argue that there is a planet to save and they are just the experts to do it! From “Bioethics for the Planet:”
Severe threats to the health of humans and other species derive from degradation of Earth’s life-support systems, particularly the impacts of climate change. Researchers and practitioners in clinical medicine, public health, global health, and One Health are increasingly focusing on these risks to planetary health, which include (but are not limited to) rising temperatures, extreme weather disasters, intensified wildfires and flooding, biodiversity and species loss, expansion of vectors of infectious diseases, reduction of arable land alongside growth of intensive and factory farming, a proliferation of microplastics, antimicrobial resistance, and chemical contamination of the environment
Consequently, the authors argue, the field should no longer be limited to health care, public health policy, clinical controversies, and medical ethics:
We call for more effective inclusion of planetary health in bioethics to identify, guide, and implement a forceful approach to these major global challenges. This approach would prioritise the “bios” component of bioethics, thereby encompassing the biosphere and offering a compelling ethical framework to support people working at the intersection of medical and environmental practices. Such an inclusion implies the development of bioethics less confined by anthropocentrism.
In other words, they reject human exceptionalism (which is nothing new among bioethicists outside of practitioners or those who are best described with a modifier such as Catholic or pro-life).
No longer will the field be dominated by philosophers, doctors, and lawyers. Yes, you guessed it. Again, with the wisdom of indigenous people:
Integrating planetary health ethics into bioethics requires engagement with new stakeholders, such as Indigenous thought leaders, groups that are rendered vulnerable (eg, people on low income, disabled people, and refugees), and younger generations, as well as broadening appreciation of what counts as expertise in bioethics (panel). Increasing the diversity and robustness of the bioethics ecosystem will inaugurate new responsibilities and codes of conduct to guide health-care professionals. Expanding inclusion and equity in bioethics makes possible new modes of understanding. Bioethics for the planet involves amplifying our awareness of what is necessary for the wellbeing of an individual patient or trial participant, extending the space where other considerations, especially environmental impacts, can influence moral reasoning.
What gobbledygook. Apparently, anyone with any claim to victimization or marginalization can be a bioethicist now!
Just remember, mainstream bioethics — that is, advocacy beyond clinical settings and the trenches of difficult decision-making in hospitals — is basically left-wing politics presuming to be universalist moral expertise. Hopefully, the growing hubris of bioethicists who seem to believe that their methodology holds the key to the world’s most intractable problems — including war — will push their advocacy into irrelevance.