Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 265–276 | Cite as

Against the integrative turn in bioethics: burdens of understanding

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

The advocates of Integrative Bioethics have insisted that this recently emerging project aspires to become a new stage of bioethical development, surpassing both biomedically oriented bioethics and global bioethics. We claim in this paper that if the project wants to successfully replace the two existing paradigms, it at least needs to properly address and surmount the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. This problem points to a semantic incommensurability due to cross-language communication in moral terms. This paper proceeds as follows. In the first part, we provide an overview of Integrative Bioethics and its conceptual building blocks: mutlidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity. In the second part, we disclose the problem of semantic incommensurability. The third part gives an overview of various positions on the understanding of interdisciplinarity and integration in interdisciplinary communication, and corresponding attempts at solving the lack of common moral vocabulary problem. Here we lean mostly on Holbrook’s three theses regarding the character of interdisciplinary communication. Finally, in the fourth part, we discuss a particular bioethical case—that of euthanasia—to demonstrate the challenge semantic incommensurability poses to dialogues in Integrative Bioethics. We conclude that Integrative Bioethics does not offer a methodological toolset that would warrant optimism in its advocates’ predictions of surpassing current modes of doing bioethics. Since Integrative Bioethics leaves controversial methodological questions unresolved on almost all counts and shows no attempts at overcoming the critical stumbling points, we argue for its rejection.

Keywords

Integrative bioethics Integrativity Pluriperspectivism Semantic incommensurability Interdisciplinarity Moral vocabulary 

Notes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Neven Petrović, Nino Kadić, Aleksandar Simić, Jan Albert van Laar, Maximilian Engel, Mihovil Lukić, Dean Tibljaš, and Snježana Čorak for providing us with valuable feedback throughout the writing process. We also thank three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

References

  1. Bracanović, Tomislav. 2012. From integrative bioethics to pseudoscience. Developing World Bioethics 12 (3): 148–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bracanović, Tomislav. 2013. Against culturally sensitive bioethics. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16 (4): 647–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callicott, J. Baird. 2014. Thinking Like a Planet: The Land Ethic and the Earth Ethic. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cottingham, John. 1998. Philosophy and the Good Life: Reason and the Passions in Greek, Cartesian and Psychoanalytic Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Čović, Ante. 2004. Etika i bioetika - Razmišljanja na pragu bioetičke epohe. Zagreb: Pergamena.Google Scholar
  6. Čović, Ante. 2006. Bioetika u uvjetima postkomunizma—slučaj Hrvatska. Arhe 3 (5/6): 355–372.Google Scholar
  7. Čović, A. 2007. Integrativna bioetika i pluriperspektivizam. In Integrativna bioetika i izazovi suvremene civilizacije, ed. V. Valjan, 65–75. Sarajevo: Bioetičko društvo BiH.Google Scholar
  8. Čović, A. 2011. Pojmovna razgraničenja: moral, etika, medicinska etika, bioetika, integrativna bioetika. In: Bioetika i dijete: Moralne dileme u pedijatriji, eds. A. Čović, and M. Radonić, 11–24. Zagreb: Pergamena, Hrvatsko društvo za preventivnu i socijalnu pedijatriju.Google Scholar
  9. Düwell, Marcus. 2014. Bioethics: Methods, Theories, Domains. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Engelhardt, H. Tristram. 2012. Bioethics and Secular Humanism: The Search for a Common Morality. Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Eterović, Igor. 2015. Traženje uporišta za integrativno mišljenje u Kantovoj teoriji spoznaje. Filozofska Istraživanja 34 (4): 497–507.Google Scholar
  12. Fan, Ruiping. 1997a. Self-determination vs. family-determination: Two incommensurable principles of autonomy. Bioethics 11 (3–4): 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan, Ruiping. 1997b. Three Levels of Problems in Cross-Cultural Explorations of Bioethics: A Methodological Approach. In Japanese and Western Bioethics: Studies in Moral Diversity, ed. K. Hoshino, 189–199. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fatić, Aleksandar, and Ivana Zagorac. 2016. The methodology of philosophical practice: Eclecticism and/or integrativeness? Philosophia 44: 1419–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habermas, J. 1998 [1976]. What is universal pragmatics? In On the pragmatics of communication, ed. M. Cooke, 21–104. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Häyry, Matty. 2003. European values in bioethics: Why, what, and how to be used. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24 (3): 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holbrook, J. Britt. 2013. What is interdisciplinary communication? Reflections on the very idea of disciplinary integration. Synthese 190 (11): 1865–1879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivanković Viktor, and Lovro Savić. 2016. Integrative Bioethics: A Conceptually Inconsistent Project. Bioethics 30 (5): 325–335.Google Scholar
  19. Jahr, Fritz. 1927. Bio-Ethik. Eine Umschau Über Die Ethischen Bezienhungen Des Menschen Zu Tier Und Pflanze. Kozmos: Handweiser Für Naturfreunde 24 (1): 2–4.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, Lawrence E. 2010. A Life-Centered Approach to Bioethics: Biocentric Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jurić, H. 2007. Uporišta za integrativnu bioetiku u djelu Van Rensselaera Pottera. In: Integrativna bioetika i izazovi suvremene civilizacije, ed. V. Valjan, 77–99. Sarajevo: Bioetičko društvo BiH.Google Scholar
  22. Klein, T. J. 2005. Interdisciplinary teamwork: The dynamics of collaboration and integration. In: Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science, eds. S. J. Derry, C. D. Schunn, and M. A. Gernsbacher, 23–50. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
  23. Kos, Marko. 2014. Od Fritza Jahra do integrativne bioetike. Prikaz razvoja jedne ideje. Filozofska Istraživanja 34 (1–2): 229–240.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. S. 2000. Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In The Road since structure, eds. J. Conant, and J. Haugeland, 33–57. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhse, H., and P. Singer. 2006. Introduction. In Bioethics: an anthology, eds. H. Kuhse, and P. Singer, 1–7. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Kukoč, Mislav. 2012. Development of integrative bioethics in the mediterranean area of South-East Europe. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (4): 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kymlicka, W. 2007. Introduction. In Globalization of Ethics: Religious and Secular Perspectives, eds. W. M. Sullivan, W. Kymlicka, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose justice? Whose rationality? Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  29. Mameli, Matteo, and Patrick Bateson. 2006. Innateness and the sciences. Biology and Philosophy 21 (2): 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mautner, Michael N. 2009. Life-centered ethics, and the human future in space. Bioethics 23 (8): 433–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muzur, Amir, and Hans-Martin Sass, eds. 2012. Fritz Jahr and the Foundations of Global Bioethics: The Future of Integrative Bioethics. Berlin: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  32. O’Neill, Onora. 2002. Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pavić, Željko. 2010. Ideje umjesto ideologija. O projektu »Filozofska istraživanja«. Studia Lexicographica 2 (7): 76–123.Google Scholar
  34. Rinčić, Iva, Stephen Olufemi Sodeke, and Amir Muzur. 2016. Chapter 6. From integrative bioethics to integrative bioethics: European and American perspectives. Journal International de Bioéthique 4 (27): 105–117.Google Scholar
  35. Schaefer-Rolffs, Jos. 2012. Integrative bioethics as a chance. an ideal example for ethical discussions? Synthesis Philosophica 27 (1): 107–122.Google Scholar
  36. Shaw, David. 2009. Cryoethics: Seeking life after death. Bioethics 23 (9): 515–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van der Steen, Wim J. 1990. Interdisciplinary integration in biology? An overview. Acta Biotheoretica 38 (1): 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang, Xinli. 2007. Incommensurability and Cross-Language Communication. Aldershot: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Zagorac, Ivana. 2011. Fritz Jahr’s Bioethical Imperative. Synthesis Philosophica 26 (1): 141–150.Google Scholar
  40. Zagorac, Ivana, and Hrvoje Jurić. 2009. Bioetika u Hrvatskoj. Filozofska Istraživanja 28(3): 601–611.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of PhilosophyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Doctoral School of Political Science, Public Policy and International RelationsCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations