‘Why Do You Ask?’ Eliciting the Public’s Moral Judgments in Bioethics Debates
Friday, September 20, 2024
8:45 AM – 9:45 AM CT
Location: Midway 7-8 (First Floor)
Abstract: It is increasingly common for bioethicists to consult with stakeholders to solicit their judgments and attitudes about ethical questions and issues, with one sizable group being laypeople or the public. However, it is not always clear what the purpose of this engagement is or ought to be: do bioethicists seek the input of the public to help them arrive at a morally correct justified policy position, or do they seek this input to help them shape and frame their already-established moral position, or something else entirely? Here we discuss four distinct possible functions of collecting moral judgments from the public: issue spotting, messaging for adherence and social stability, substantive moral guidance, and procedural fairness. Issue spotting often consists in bioethicists seeking out an ‘on the ground’ perspective about what research is not being done and what ethical questions are not being asked. Messaging for adherence occurs when bioethicists seek the public’s views to better frame policies and recommendations that address the moral concerns of the public. In substantive moral guidance, public moral judgments help shape bioethical views partly because they help us get closer the most morally justified view. Procedural fairness concerns soliciting moral judgments from the public to satisfy a requirement to get input or participation into a decision or policy process. We offer core examples from the literature before discussing the strengths and weaknesses attendant to each. We conclude with preliminary questions bioethicists can ask themselves to clarify their reason for soliciting moral judgments from the public.
Learning Objectives:
After participating in this conference, attendees should be able to:
Learn the varied purposes of eliciting moral judgments from the public by bioethicists.
Understands the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to soliciting moral judgments from the public as stakeholders.
Apply guiding questions to their own research to better understand their purpose(s) for public engagement of this kind and appreciate the relevant considerations for and against different approaches.
Anne Barnhill – Berman Institute of Bioethics – Johns Hopkins University; Julian Savulescu – Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics – University of Oxford; S. Matthew Liao – Center for Bioethics – New York University; Matthew McCoy – Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy – Perelman School of Medicine; Jenniver Blumenthal-Barby – Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy – Baylor College of Medicine
